what are tv shows shot on

[PhillipF]

As far as Star Wars goes, from what I understand from articles, he just shot the thing with the 24P camera and transfered right to negative 35mm.
As far as Super 8 and tv shows, "Scariest Places on Earth" uses the Pro 8 stock. So does "Beyond Chance".

PhilF

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

[Matt Pacini]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PhillipF:
[B]As far as Star Wars goes, from what I understand from articles, he just shot the thing with the 24P camera and transfered right to negative 35mm."

(Matt Pacini responds):

Yeah, well then I guess there's no computer graphics at all in this movie, eh?

Sorry, but from interviews I've read with Lucas and his DP, the last SW movie had almost every inch of film scanned into the computer, to do CG on, and one huge reason they shot this one digitally, was so they could skip that process, and the huge expense of film scanning, which is what I've been saying all along was the reason for it.

There simply is no way they're just going directly to 35mm.
I know for a fact, that once they're in there doing all the CG, that they're not doing an extreme amount of image enhancement of every kind.

Matt Pacini

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

[PhillipF]

Hi Matt,
True. And yes, I understand that there IS CG in it. But for these types of films, I can understand his mode of thinking. And I think that MOST filmmakers try to enhance their image to get a better picture be it dv, 35mm, super 8, whatever. I myself run my films through a series of filters on my computer for a better image, especially when I start on my next film which WILL have a good amount of CG work in it.
But back to the issue at hand, for how he went about making this second film, it looks pretty good. Even if he had to enhance it.
)

PhilF

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

[crimsonson]

There are handful of recent films that was shot on 24p that have gotten good reviews from press, fans and film DPs, "Jackpot" in particular (dir: Michael Polish / DP: David Mullen). Surprisingly, many of the cross country shots, including night shots, where done with a 2 man crew (Director and DP only) with little or no artificial light. The film's look got commendations from many publications including NY Times, LA Times, and AC. Members of the Cinematographer Mailing Lists (all pro film DPs) commended Mr Mullen also.



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

[Matt Pacini]

Yeah, I am making a point to watch Jackpot, because:

1. The director(s) is from Roseville just like me!

2. I read lots of coments, and had lots of questions answered from DP David Mullen on www.cinematography.com. It IS interesting though, that he said all in all, shooting on digital probably didn't save any money on that film, and if it did, not much at all.
It's worth going into the archvives over there and reading all the comments, if you have the time.
Very educational...

Matt Pacini


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

[Matt Pacini]

Yeah, no kidding.
Have you seen photos of sets where they're shooting HD?
There's this huge band of cables coming off the camera going to the video playback setup.
It looks like a scene from Alien.
Certainly does NOT appear to be any easier or les cumbersom to shoot than film.
Seems like a lot of work, just to not have to buy film stock...

Matt Pacini

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

[8th Man]

I find it funny that for years filmmakers for years were looking for ways to free up the camera and make it less cumbersome and it seems that Lucas' digital set up has taken a leap backwards in this regard with tons of wires and things to make it a burden to move around.

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