-
OK I was going to give anyone the first post, but since no ones biting....
One scene at the end of the movie felt a little Strange. It was the shot of the rushing road as the car speed forward. ......with the gravel road streaking everywhere you could see the grain....unfortunately it was not moving, very strange!
The DP did an excellent job of working in DV Video and a story that was well fit to the limited capabilities of Min-DV video. (Shot with a Pal version of the popular Canon Xl) ... but Like I've always said, the dp had to use more light to fill in the daylight scenes to balance the look given videos high contrast.
Fire scenes still look strange on video. The use of the high speed shutter instead of slow mo was interesting...but not as good as film.
Overall the story was strange and the audiences seemed to agree. That's OK I just went to see what a Mini DV movie could look like after with state of the art transferring and being show on the big screen from a film print. This was Mini-DV not Hi def. It seemed to work...but this format could not in my oppinion be used for a more traditional story.
There was a scene of an "INFECTED" on a long chain trying to grab the normal people near him, I wondered where I've seen this scene before and it came to me...very similar to a seen in Roger Even's "JET BENNY."
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 30, 2003 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Greg_C ]</font>
-
Shot on mini DV on the Cannon XL .
Good job of cinematography but what do you think of the look?
For more on the making see July 03 American Cinematographer?
-
I saw it too, and for DV it did look quite impressive. Still... I think they should of shot it with film. Super 16 would of looked so much better.Ah well...
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ June 30, 2003 01:41 AM: Message edited by: seekaee ]</font>
-
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Greg_C:
One scene at the end of the movie felt a little Strange. It was the shot of the rushing road as the car speed forward. ......with the gravel road streaking everywhere you could see the grain....unfortunately it was not moving, very strange!</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
I noticed this shot too... it's more towards the middle than the end. At first I thought they were using Super 8 or something, but the grain definitely wasn't moving... it was like they applied a really bad cinelook filter.
-
I just saw it last night. Impressive film. I would have preferred that it was shot on film as well. Some of the shots had so much video artifact, kind of took away from the mood. I heard that they shot on DV partially to be able to remove in post people from PICCADILLY CIRCUS?
-
That would make sense if they were on a very tight budget. What I don't get is the choice of Dv over film- Danny Boyle had such a success with Trainspotting, you'd think he could have got a higher budget. Ah well, I thought it looked great.
Did/are they going to have a version for digi. projection?
-
re: choice of digital over film.
[possible spoilers]
Right from scene 1, the virus exists, is spreading, and there is no cure. DV offers that look of darkness, muted colours, jaggedness and a sense of desolation.
Then at the end, they switch to film when hope finally comes through. So the format is used as a device.
I suppose he could have used a gritty film look for the first part of the film instead of digital, but I thought the digital worked.
-
That makes sense. Good eye.
