Video Shot Sh!t
I wouldn't actually pay to see this. Funny how this cheap has-been likes to pretend his stupid videos are real movies.
share[deleted]
Probably some Sony camera recommended by Lucas.
share
MovieChat Forums > Twixt (2012) Discussion > Video Shot Sh!t
See it, then judge it, or boycott it, and shut up.
I hope you realize that some of the 'biggest' films EVER were shot on video, for example the last two Star Wars prequels, Superman Returns, to name a couple. I'm not suggesting those movies were any good, but there was certainly nothing wrong with how they looked.
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
I saw the trailer and that is enough. Looks like it was done with a Handycam. And the three turds you just mentioned would've looked a thousand times better on film.
shareSo everything shot on "Video" is crap?
You see the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film? Digital Video.
How about, The Social Network? Digital again. District 9? Video again. What about Zodiac? Digital also.
If you really want to delve into the Digital vs. Film debate, take it from actually Cinematographers and watch these three videos:
http://www.zacuto.com/the-great-camera-shootout-2011
Oh and by the way. The film camera ever made just recently shipped. No company is producing them anymore. Panavision, Arri, and Aaton.
Speaking as a DP myself, film looks like *beep* especially in low-light scenes. I'll give it color reproduction and highlight roll-off, but cameras like the Arri Alexa and Sony F35 handle highlight roll-off almost equally as well.
If digital is so bad why is almost everything now-a-days shot on a digital camera and projected digitally in theaters? Every single large theater chain has deals with projector manufacturers to convert their screens to digital projection by the end of next year to early 2013.
I will agree Twixt does look like crap (from the trailer I just watched anyway), but that's the DP not the camera. Blame the poor use of the technology, not the technology itself. Put in the hands of a capable DP, this would have looked a hell of a lot better no matter what it was shot on.
You see the latest Pirates of the Caribbean film? Digital Video.
How about, The Social Network? Digital again. District 9? Video again. What about Zodiac? Digital also.
I haven't seen the last Pirates, but the rest all look like crap, especially those by David Fincher. Just compare Zodiac or Network with any of his real films.
The film camera ever made just recently shipped. No company is producing them anymore. Panavision, Arri, and Aaton.
So? There's countless film cameras for rent, and they last for decades.
Speaking as a DP myself, film looks like *beep* especially in low-light scenes. I'll give it color reproduction and highlight roll-off, but cameras like the Arri Alexa and Sony F35 handle highlight roll-off almost equally as well.
I saw the three videos. Film was better in every single aspect except the low light test, I don't know what kind of DP are you (speaking as a director myself).
If digital is so bad why is almost everything now-a-days shot on a digital camera and projected digitally in theaters?
It's cheaper? And most movies are still shot and projected on film, actually. But the reason there's so many done on video is simply because it's cheaper.
I will agree Twixt does look like crap (from the trailer I just watched anyway), but that's the DP not the camera. Blame the poor use of the technology, not the technology itself.
I'm sure it would've looked infinitely better on film, same DP and everything. A badly lit film is one thing, but this doesn't even give the impression of being an actual movie. share
[deleted]
Between the Film Grain, and dirt, and hair on almost all films I've ever seen shot on film, yes, they look like *beep* to me. I prefer perfectly clean, grain-less, noise-less, dirt free images. But if you prefer the the grain and dirt, so be it.
Plus it takes longer to shoot and post (mag changes, lab processing, dailies, offline, neg cut, inter-positive, inter-negative, and then your release prints), but if you prefer that, again so be it. (You may get around some of those steps with a Digital Intermediate.)
Digital cameras; you shoot, ingest, edit, move to an online edit (which is already synced via EDL; you just pull in the full res clips), and render out and then out to a film printer, if you need to, for your inter-negative to make release prints.
I really don't care about the other aspects of the image (color, latitude, ect.). If there's random black dots dancing all over the image, or random white/dark spots (dirt), it pulls me right out of the scene. That, and the quickness makes me prefer digital over film.
I will say that I also think that digital noise looks like crap. It has a very similar look to film grain. So low-light in Video/Digital (on most cameras) is equally as bad as, if not worse than, the look of film grain.
[deleted]
Yes, high end video can be a perfectly acceptable alternative to film, as seen in the recent film of Fincher, Soderbergh, and others, but in THIS film, it looks terrible, and I suspect I know why. Going by the trailer, it seems like film was shot at 30 frames per second, which is the standard frame rate of family camcorders - you can get a more film like look with even an entry level prosumer camera by shooting in 24 frames per second, but to me this looks clearly like either 30 fps or 60 fps. it has that "soap opera" look to it. It's gross.
share"Speaking as a DP myself, film looks like *beep* especially in low-light scenes"
If you think like this I don't believe you have any genuine respect for your craft or its history. You're essentially implying that all films made before 2001 Once Upon a Time in Mexico and the rest look like shït which you know is utter bollocks.
This you? http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1934894/. I think your age is a factor here, I worked as a Photography technician at a college for a while and people who were younger quickly decided digital was superior in all aspects simply because they became so frustrated in the dark room when they tried to develop film and make prints but couldn't get the hang of it after a couple of weeks they gave up because digital was easier and almost instaneous, problem was that it didn't introduce any dicipline, sense of craft or development for a lot of them and quite a few ended up leaving just not being very good unfortunately. Some of them never got to see how amazing a huge glossy pristine gelatine or dye transfer print would look outside of a gallery.
Anyway, I eventually liked the look of this film (or video) notably the black and white scenes and I'm not against the aesthetics and the look of digital at all. According to this: http://www.aja.com/en/articles/160/ "Twixt was shot using a combination of Sony and RED digital cameras" but doesn't specify the models.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Film is binary and digital is analogue. Look it up.
Film is superior to digital regardless.
[deleted]
[deleted]
There certainly was something wrong with the way the two prequels looked. They looked like video, soft. IMO he used the technology before it was really ready to use.
shareAre you going to just tell me the same thing every 2 months???
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
Sorry, I honestly didn't even realize I did that.
shareYou said yourself it was a crap print. That's not the problem of the master. I actually didn't know they had to fix 'problems' with the video in post. Howvere the budgetary difference between shooting HD and film were -at the time - minimal. Sure the tapes for HD were cheaper than film, but the cameras and lenses were still extremely expensive to hire. That might be the reason for the higher budget, but I'm really not sure.
But it seems odd that Bryan Singer would keep using video if the experience was so bad.
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
Superman Returns looks like crap in theaters and on DVD: aside from being poorly photographed, the cameras made it look like a cheap TNT cable show. Aside from the post-production fixing that cost several million dollars, they also had frequent shutdowns on set because the cameras kept on breaking down, adding further millions to the budget. It's no accident that Singer's next film was shot on 35mm film and that he took a lot of persuading that the same thing wouldn't happen again on Jack the Giant Killer.
"Security - release the badgers."
[deleted]
I don't remember seeing any problems, but that said, I wasn't really looking for them. I have only ever seen the movie once (I didn't particularly like it), but I might hunt down a blu-ray and take another peek.
Never defend crap with "It's just a movie"
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds
I have to respectfully disagree with you. I just saw the trailer and the cinematography looks quite beautiful, very dream-like.
It sounds to me like you're saying you won't watch movie unless they were shot on film. That to me is very narrow minded thinking. It doesn't matter what you shoot on it's the story that matters and how it's being played out.
If everyone thought the same way these days then every movie would be terrible in their eyes.
Movies that were shot digitally, like District 9, look beautfiul. I think that's mainly because it was shot on the RED, but still. The quality of the picture in the movie looked like film to me. Plus, you got cameras like the DSLR's, which look stunning.
Digital cinematography is here to stay and it's a wonderful thing.
www.chrisesper.webs.com
I also think it will be a great film after the trailer. Just got a copy and am watching it tonight.
And to me its pretty obvious that the big names associated with this film has pulled all the Hollywoood loving crowd out of the woodwork. This was shot with a smaller budget and I am hoping is aimed at genre fans. I could careless about the big* screen. My favourite films are low budget and independent.
Edit: Watched it, was pretty good. 7/10
You are a 'tard. How can you judge the effectiveness of a film's cinematography before actually seeing it?
Oh yeah, because you are clearly an arrogant no-nothing wannabe no-it-all with a stick up your arse for unfathomable reasons.
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. same as it ever was.
[deleted]
Effective in what way? you have no idea why that specific format was chosen within the context of the film's themes, text, subtext.
Film and Digital are just one of the many tools needed to tell a story. The story is paramount, not the technology so your comments are irrelevant until you've seen the "video shot sh!t" as it was fully intended to be seen by the director.
Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. same as it ever was.
I actually thought that it looked OK, I was more or less trying to pay attention to the story and what not. Where some of the film quality was a complete let down was during the dream sequences that I understand were going for a 'surreal' feel.
The film was more or less a let down because there seemed to be no real place where FFC wanted to go with it. It felt like it was trying hard to aim for being mis-understood rather than being understood, there was a David Lynch quality that I think FFC may have been intending to go for but it just didn't quite work.
--------------------------------------
Deftones make the world a better place
[deleted]
If only the OP was as stupid and has-been as Coppola.
EDIT:
Anyway that was intentional on his part. In the extras there is a documentary made by his granddaughter while they are filming. He says this about being cheap (I couldn't understand everything he said plus he was vocalizing his thoughts and speaking from his head):
"We're so dirt cheap that it can, (he mumbles a little here) It's what we say - the bigger the budget the smaller the ideas, the smaller the budget the bigger the ideas or the opportunity to fail...it comes down to risk. Nice thing about film is you can do different things to see what's best… Nothing ventured nothing learned ya know? It's an interesting process…cinema is a beautiful thing...".
Also the whole entire scene with the girl is a dream he had in Instanbul. The carpet in the Hotel was a dream with the trap door under it. Also the man with the kids.
So basically that partially explains the film. FFC's dreams.