Seriously. I am not picking on the film. This type of picture is something I've seen many filmmakers use (Michael Mann being an example). Is this the new HD cameras in works I keep hearing about? I have no clue about technical issues like these.
I appreciate the answer. Thanks in advance!
It's a format called DV. I wouldn't call it "ugly." But it lends itself (subconsciously) to a more documentary feel which (for me) made the movie seem more realistic.
DV (most of the time) only handles 720x480 pixels. HD is almost triple that. Most people can't tell the difference between something shot 24p in HD and film itself.
I don't think this movie would've been as striking if it'd been shot HD.
Good informative response. I assume DV stands for Digital Video?
I have mixed feelings about the format myself. I get what you're saying about it having a documentary sort of look, and that can be used well as an aesthetic effect for a film. I can see where that could be particularly true for a film of this nature, in which we the audience are meant to be pulled down to a hardscrabble level.
Don't get me wrong; I like movies that do that. I loved Winter's Bone (this director's more recent film). Personally though, I think the DV look in this was almost too much of a good thing. It looked a little too harsh. Less would have been more.
I dont think winters bone shot in this format.
my vote history:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur13767631/ratings