] [Thread Prev
Re: toys for non-musicians (was: online real time looping sequencer game)
OK, nice reply.. you have filled in some interesting details. I certainly agree with you about the Dumble amps thing.. and all this,.. " well if you call him you wont get your amp thing..." what a load of toss... and it appears that its just a tube amp with a cheap ass regular old distortion pedal covered in glue.. ha ha
Back to the film thread.. I said Film is easier to work with, and you had a problem with that...? Ahem everyone in film will tell you thats true actually. Its is of course "More Expensive" and that, in a way, makes it more difficult, budgets are much more rigorous, but anyway the pipeline (in 99.9 persent of cases) is STILL a digital one. Cos its normal now to shoot on 35 or super 16 and then immediately (maybe after a simple corrections color grade) go straight to digital. I can edit full-on HD on my laptop, thats only 4 times worse that 4K or whatever the digital res of film is (I DONT shoot on film, anymore... so I dont know,) I use grungy plugins... ! ha ha! So I can NEARLY make a Cinema film at home.. thats of course wonderful!
There is nothing particularly hard about shooting on film. When you go to film school you learn about lighting, F-stops and depth of field, and thats it really.. choose a good film stock for what you are shooting.. and few filters incase you want to go inside and shoot on tungsten. However.. video... formats, dont get me started... progresive or interlace, frame size, is it or not anamorphic.. white balance, black balance, over shooting the whites, contrast problems, you en up bringing in light after light to correct an issue, then you take em all out, and say (we fix it in post - an industry joke now) so now all you problems are about computer software.
There are quick and easy ways of getting video to look nice, so theres less fiddling in post. I use a 35mm lens adaptor. That means you attach a special mount onto your video cam, it has a little spinny grid in front to the lens that emulates film grain, and you can attatch 35mm film camera lenses. This means that you can get that lovely FILM CAMERA depth of field thing of putting the background out of focus. Now there are cameras that can do this anyway (look at Red cameras) But I cant hire them cos I bought 3 HD cameras a few years back (for 6,000 dollars each) and need to use them to make good my investment.. but with these lenses you can pretty much make nice filmy stuff.
Using video is cheaper.. thats what makes us use it... There are thousands of film-makers out there now that can make their dream, and that is very important and I for one, whould not have my job. (That is making drama based interactive training films for business and schools) So HURRAH for digital... but lets applaud it for the real reasons..
But its not true that this pipeline always works (Film to digital). In Harry Potter (I saw it last week) im sure spotted some magenta and cyan artifacts (probably caused by microscopic imperfections in the compositing) on some hard contrasty edges... looked almost like it was a video projection.. when I know they have 35mm at that cinema...
As for Sin City... its an effect.. sure it was done on a budget on video.. but that effect would just not work on almost ANY other film.. ok maybe a few that are also based on graphic novels.
Did I think it was beautiful.. well no.., but thats cos i didnt like the movie... but.. now i think about it, It did have some very cool scenes and the Art Direction WAS superb... so OK.. beautiful ... just not MY cup o char.
But remember, that video is only 40 years old (usable instead of film .. um 6 years old.. ok 10) Film is 150 years old... No wonder film-makers resent a bunch of programers and engineers coming along and telling us that digital has so and so more mega wotsit, and color saturation is this, and bla bla bla... It just not about the technology.. its about "The way we make films"
I do have one thing to admit:
I havent done this in a while, but one of my hobbys was to put a roll of black and white thru my Bolex (Yes I have one) and develop it myself (I have an old russian army developing tank from the WW11) then I have made a printed by cutting a slot in another old Bolex so I can feed my hand deveeloped neg, and expose a positive. this I then develop that..
Im a film geek...
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 9:20 PM, Mark Sottilaro <email@example.com>
Oh I've always been plenty cranky. I'm gearing up to be a ranty old man!
I'm still standing by my statement though. Of course you have the
right to your opinion but there are dangers in your language. As a
professional your opinion means more than the average layman's. I know
my way around a Bolex and let me tell you, in my opinion it's not
easier to shoot on film so I have no idea what the hell you're talking
about when you say "it's easier..." While you can get a great look
from film, as far as I could tell it's mostly a nightmare to work with
compared to modern digital mediums.
Same thing with tape. Does it have some inherent qualities that are
desirable? Sure. Is it your right to prefer to use it? Absolutely.
Saying "It is better" when you're coming from a place of authority is
a bit irresponsible though. Also, it's not useful. Saying "I like it
better because..." is useful.
I do find it funny that there are a lot of VSTs out there now that
create the analog crap I spent years as an audio engineer trying to
minimize. After Effect plugs that emulate the look of different film
stocks complete with scratches and fuzz on the shutter. Awesome. I
find it more useful asking the question "does this give me a
look/sound that works with my art?" than "Is this medium better?"
I had to laugh at the Dumble Amps thread a little while ago. I'm not
saying they're bad or good or worth it... I've never had any
experience with it, but the price tag makes me smile. I think we
spend a lot of time chasing the .5% increase in sound quality that
somehow costs 100 times the cost of the 99.5% good sounding gear.
What's the point? It becomes a fetish object, just like your film
camera is on it's way to becoming. You can argue that, but in 1984
when I saw my first digital multitrack I said, "this will be done
totally on computers soon" so I called that one. ;) I'm like The Great
Carnak! Have a look at Sin City and tell me that's not a beautiful
film. It's shot digitally and the medium is still young.
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 6:06 AM, mark francombe<firstname.lastname@example.org
>> > > Sorry, but Film IS better than digital, and Tape IS better than
>> > > but I agree.. close enough and a hell of a lot more convenient...
>> > > no I was just thinking about the way people hear...
>> > These statements are false.
> Seriously though, one of the ways to push my buttons is to make
> blanket "this is better" statements rather than "I like this better
> for these reasons."
> Seriously, though What are you like Sottilaro?? I cant just say "Im sorry
> but film is better now???" Im just NOT HERE (Loopers Delight) to argue and
> stand up for EVERY SINGLE off topic aside I toss into my posts, where Im
> just being witty anyhow. I wasnt making a GREAT BIG IMPORTANT statement...
> AND it was an opinion... You know it was an opinion becase I started the
> sentance with Im sorry but... then followed with a statement that is
> COMPLETELY OBVIOUS that it cannot possibly be proven, and is SOOOOO
> subjective that NO-ONE could have believed that I was stating a scientific
> Im a film-maker dude... we like film... its easy to shoot on... Sure video
> can look nice.. I happen to LOVE the look of VHS 3 tube cameras from the
> 80s... and video can look like film... but there you go,,, when video looks
> good, it cos its been made to look like film... therfore FILM IS BETTER!!!
> As for the plastic emulsion being bad for the environment, weak... boy...
> Thats why I yawned... could be bothered to follow up your (initially
> unsubstantiated blanket statement) These statement are wrong...
> Please cheer up a bit Mark... i dont know if you noticed but you're being a
> bit agressive these days...