Leaving Las Vegas

Roger--

Kodak also discontinued an Interneg stock a few years back that I guess was the shit for blow-ups. I can't remember its number though.

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

So was Leaving Las Vegas shot S16 to keep costs down or was it a conscious choice to have that kind of look? When I saw it in the theater, the only time I ever felt aware of the grain was in the opening shot across the the city lights, and then probably only because of the step printing effect.
So what other recient films have been done in this format?
It remindes me of the time I was telling this guy that I was going to shoot a couple of shorts on super 8 and 16mm and he said I would be taken more seriously if I stuck to 16mm. I thought maybe he was right but then later I realized that the whole reason I was even over there was to watch his wifes attempt at a short shot with a- you guessed it- Sony digital camcorder. Somehow she found actors who would take her seriously, so what gives? If actors can take a camcorder seriously but not lil' ol' super8, then I'll either slap a Sony sticker on my Nizo or find other actors.
Their is a great article in the latest Moviemaker magazine on the digital myth.
Sometimes there is nothing more satisfying than to be in the chior and be preached to.

------------------
PRM

S16 for Leaving Last Vegas was a conscious decision by the director Mike Figgis. He wanted the touch of grain, symbolizing the struggle of the two characters - neither perfect but in their world admirable (of course you may interpret it differently. this is just the popular one.)

If you are interested in his cinematography his best work IMHO is "Lost of Sexual Innocence". Brilliant! Although this may not be everyone's cup of tea. Its a non linear story loosely based on the struggles of Adam & Eve. Various lighting techniques, camera movement and a little water effect that was simple yet stunning in result. Structure and form are the great achievements of this film. I will admit that many may think the story pretentious. I enjoyed it though. DP = Beno?t Delhomme.

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


[This message has been edited by crimsonson (edited September 25, 2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by 8th Man:
"If actors can take a camcorder seriously but not lil' ol' super8, then I'll either slap a Sony sticker on my Nizo or find other actors."


(Matt Pacini resonds):
In my opinion, in a year or two, when everybody actually sees lots of these projects shot on DV, instead of just believing all the hype about it, they will have to finally realize that it's just marginally better than cheap, VHS camcorder quality.
So I think it's flavor of the week.
Another factor that nobody seems to be saying in this "DV is the great equalizer, because anyone now can make a film", is that distributors have been flooded with crappy DV movies made by people who have no business making films, but have bought into all this.
So just try getting your film distributed that is shot on anything BUT film.
It's probably even MORE difficult now, than it was 3 years ago.
Either you had better be established in the industry somehow already, or your film had better be something really special, because it's hard to get anyone in the business to look at a DV movie right now.

Matt Pacini

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

I have to admit this to eveyone...sniff .. sob.. I nearly bought a DV camera about a year ago.I was considering one of those JVC 500 thingies until I started seeing 16mm and super8 cams on ebay. There, I said it and I can't take it back. Oh but it's nice knowing that I didn't fall prey to the DV hype afterall. I actually thought I was going to make shorts with one and then I found Pro8mm and started shooting S8. Although I did buy a JVC pocket size camcorder for spur o' the moment recording 'cause I think they do have a place in the world. Anyway I'm glad I went this route unlike my writer friend who bought a cannon GL-1 and will have to justify that evey time I show him stuff I shot with a 20 year old S8 camera...
I know more guys that think they can make anything with mini DV but I'm not worried since we've had so many "revolutions" in formats and it doesn't make great (or even good) filmmakers just beacause things get easier or cheaper. It just gives us more volume of crap.

------------------
PRM

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Courier, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Matt Pacini:
In my opinion, in a year or two, when everybody actually sees lots of these projects shot on DV, instead of just believing all the hype about it, they will have to finally realize that it's just marginally better than cheap, VHS camcorder quality.
[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, as far as miniDV goes, the big difference is in the camera portion of the unit. The single chip head on a home DV cam is no different than the single chip head on a home VHS camcorder. Therefore, when playing it back and looking at the original, there really isn't any difference in quality in terms of color or resolution.

However, and this is the big however, even the miniDV can record a signal that is on par with broadcast units. I have a betaSP deck that I use all the time and I just recently installed a DV board for some work from a client that shoots on DV. To record and play back from my computer, I use a cheap-ass little Panasonic miniDV camcorder via the FireWire. The image quality is stunning. I did a test where I bounced a clip back and forth between the computer and the recorder like 10 times or so (before I got bored) and when I did a split screen, there was not difference in quality. Zero generation loss. My waveform monitor and vector scope showed no difference in the signal. Now, for projects of one hour or less, I always give my clients a mini-DV along with the BetaSP. Many have since forgone the BetaSP in favor of the DV because the quality is so good and the tapes are cheap, cheap, cheap.

But, again, the camera portion of the little Panasonic sucks big time. The recorder portion, however, seems to record as good as any $3800 DV cam deck. If there's a difference in quality, I certainly can't tell it.

Of course, this is still video. Ewwwwwwww.

Roger



[This message has been edited by MovieStuff (edited September 26, 2001).]

Hi guys!

I dont understand this large jaded view of DV? Why?

Most camera operators and DPs I know here in NY have a DV not Super 8.

Its just a format!
Marginally better than VHS?
That is like saying VHS is slightly less in quality compared to BetaSP, since DV was designed and generally accepted by video pro as replacement for BetaSP. If its marginally better, somebody should inform Post Production and Duplication Managers throughout the world who are/did/in process of migrating to DV/DVCam/DVC Pro. A line by line comaprison of the technical specs of DV and BetaSP, the only advantage of BetaSP is its 4:2:2 sampling, which only really matters when you recompress in edits. DV is equal or has the advantage in everything else.

If it was not for the proliferation of DV,
No cheap, very able home NLE system.
Most of us would still be doing linear editing (which is not bad, bad not great either). Especially for sych'ing sound.
No companies such as Sachtler, Porta Brace, Sony, and others producing tripods, steady cams, weather bags and decks designed for DV that many of us use for our Super 8 projects.
And a host of other minor occurences that benefitted us Super 8 users.

Its hard to get a viewing of DV? It seems harder for Super 8 - no? When I see a short film or feature shot in Super 8 - its seems news. But if shot on DV - as MAtt refered to b4- its not.

Remember perceived quality is not the only determing factor of the success of a format. If that was the case films would always be shot in larger than 35mm format. Ease and cost plays equal, sometimes bigger role.

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

The new version of Hamlet staring Ethan Hawke
was shot with Super-16, if I'm not mistaken.

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

The new version of Hamlet staring Ethan Hawke
was shot with Super-16, if I'm not mistaken.

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

I've seen low light DV that looked like crap.

I'm not impressed with the 1/3 chips they are using...they create vast depths of field, so everything looks in focus.

Every year, something about DV improves...so agruments get started because someone saw something shot on a 3-4 year old DV camera in low light, and in fact, it can look like crap.

Than someone else buys the newest camera with an improved look in low light, and they think anyone who has seen bad digital is just jealous or jaded.

Just remember this, 4 out 5 people who bought the first digital camera off the shelf, were selling their digital camera when the 2nd generation digital camera was released!

DV is totally hip to get if you own a 16mm or 35mm motion picture camera...

The DP's get be "progressive" by having a "Digital" Camera. The DP can Pick up some extra paid work shooting digital, show off how much more they know than others who fancy themselves a cameraperson simply because they bought a digital camera while not possessing anywhere near the knowledge the film DP has....it must be nirvana for these film guys, and, they still keep their 16mm or 35mm camera for more expensive jobs.

And once the Film DP masters the DV camera, they can say with a confident swagger, "it's alright for video". They have mastered the digital format rather than the format mastering them and taking them and film out of business.

So, the fact that a Film DP owns a 16mm or 35mm camera and also owns a dv camera instead of a super-8 camera is irrelevant. It makes sense. Although, they should also own a super-8 camera anyway!

Just for grabbing quickie film shots while the main camera is unavailable.

The jury is out if mini-dv is truly lossless in mult-generational situations...

I find the whole issue confusing.

4.1.1. processing is still less of a sampling rate than 4.2.2.

But DV has definitely made an enormous impact.

But I think DV has expanded the overall pie rather than "taken out" any other format.

So DV hype is dangerous, because people start saying..."it's digital", completely clueless to the fact that there are something like 10 or 20 digital formats, (it may even be higher than that!)

The "digital is perfect"blanket statement is a bit offensive to hear because it is not true.

Mini-DV's greatest contribution has been it's low megabits per second data playback data rate has allowed non-linear editing to take explode.

And it has allowed hard drive storage to tumble in price because the lower per second data rate needed has made it easier to develop low cost hardware to support non-linear.

Analog Origination, Digital Destination, that's my view of all of this. The digital cameras are a bonus.

------------------
Alex

[This message has been edited by Alex (edited September 27, 2001).]