Roberto Rodriguez Champions Digital Filmmaking...

[Alex]

I know somebody who claimed to know Roberto Rodriguez and he was telling me last August how Roberto Rodgriguez was championing digital filmmaking and had given him a tour of his home digital editing studio.

I guess he really did know Roberto......


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020805/film_nm/leisure_spykids_dc_2

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 11, 2002 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[Alex]

and one more Rodriguez link on learning how to be a filmmaker in 10 minutes.

http://www.exposure.co.uk/makers/minute.html

[cameraguy]

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ August 30, 2003 05:39 AM: Message edited by: cameraguy ]</font></font>

------------------------------

Original message reinserted by the Moderator to keep the topic thread intact.

--------------------------------

Just can't listen to a guy who makes Spy Kids. Then if that's not bad enough Spy Kids 2. When younger, he must have dreamed of one day a being big shillboy for Hollywood.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ September 21, 2003 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[Alex]

Here is another link on 24P video.

http://jkor.com/peter/24pdv.html

[Alex]

I'm not so sure he is a schill for Hollywood. Perhaps Hollywood was a schill for him!

Disney offered to raise the budget of Spy Kids II, and Rodgriguez declined. A Schill would have accepted the pay raise.

On the other hand, what fees did Roberto Rodriguez take for himself since he took so many credits for himself???

I notice a distinct similarity between Rodriguez and Soderburgh. Both have distance themselves from the actual quality of the digital signal.

Rodriguez claims his movie looks WORSE because it was released on film rather than digitally. This confuses me.
How come part of the mini-dv hype is that you can make 35mm film prints afterwards. But if you shoot in High-Res
then 35mm is not good enough???

I question that. It seems to me mini-dv should be transferred to High-res rather than 35mm if Rodriguez's claims are correct.

Especially with the "line-doubling" and quadrupling that is available for video projection.

I have not seen Spy Kids II, but I MUST see it now. I have a sneaking suspicion the movie is a cluster of medium shots and close-up shots, and the only time you will see a wide shot is if it is effects laden and music driven.

If Rodriguez's movie fell short in the quality of the movie prints, it's either because the HIGH-DEF wasn't good enough, or because Mr. "I can do everything" was probably clueless about the proper video signals needed to make the 35mm prints, and perhaps nobody wanted to help someone who is taking money out of the pockets of film print experts just so he can be Mr. Everything.

Now he's whining because his film prints don't look as good as the digital version.

[cameraguy]

<font color="#a62a2a"><font size="1">[ August 30, 2003 05:39 AM: Message edited by: cameraguy ]</font></font>

-------------------------

Original post reinserted by the moderator to keep the entire topic thread intact.

-------------------------

I'm reffering to the type of film (yawn, another boring action film with special olympic effects). I saw El Mariachi years ago and liked it but then saw (most of) From Dusk til Dawn which is a major pantload of a movie. Hollywood can save more money by just cloning these pet directors and then put them under contracts for 1940's like dollars.

<font color="#7BC618" size="1">[ November 14, 2003 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[GREATwarEAGLE]

"special olympic effects" - that's pretty funny. I'm not being sarcastic- it actually made me laugh.

I think I would also apply that term to the computer animated sequences of Wolfgang Petersen's latest efforts.

[Alex]

I heard the studios spent over 500,000 dollars (it may have been at least $750,000) to "audio sweeten" El Mariachi.

[Greg Crawford]

First, let me digress a minute and talk about the latest "STAR WARS" opus.

Most of which was shot on a sound stage with very controlled lighting. Keeping contrast ratios low so that the hi def cameras could handel the contrast range. The backgrounds however...was digitally added in post. Giving the scenes an illusion of full contrast range. Dark forground extra bright background. Bright forground with extra dark and moody backgrounds giving the illusion you can see way into the shadows, Creating the feeling you had a full film contrast rang.

I respect Mr. Rodgriguez for going out and making a film, and being successful. I have even read his book. He does however come off as a smart *** kid.

It's one thing to do it all when you don't have a budget it's another to put people out of work, or in the film industrys case (keep people out of work) who would love the opportunity to make your project better. And can bring alot to the table.

[Scott Spears]

I heard parts of the interview with Rodriquez and think it represents his personality. He's an impatient guy who justifies need for speedy filmmaking by saying that an inferior, but faster format, HD, is better that the superior format, 35mm film. I'm not saying he doesn't have talent. I like some of his work and like his take charge attitude, but I sometimes feel like if he could single handedly make the movie, he would. Lucas seems to have the same idea. Let's just say control freaks who don't trust the cinematographer to make a contribution.

I did agree with his comments on some aspects of color on HD versus film. I've found that some film prints don't have the snappy color that an HD product would have because the final release prints are cranked out at the last minute to fill 3000 plus screens. Again, this can be avoided, but you really have to trust your lab guys.

Scott