|
|
Posted by carlmart on 11/02/06 10:07
Martin Heffels wrote:
> You are mixing-up some things here. 4perf and 2perf are related to 35mm.
> 16mm is one perf, whether regular 16 or super 16.
Yes. Overexplaining can do that sometimes. I apologize. 4perf is
regular 35mm and 2perf is techniscope also using 35mm neg.
> Let me explain what you are on about:
> Regular 16mm is 1:1.33 (4:3) aspect ratio (AR). So, if you frame for a
> 1:1.85 AR, you won't be using part of the film.
> Super 16 is 1:1.77 (16:9) AR. So if you frame for a 1:1.85 AR, you are
> loosing less, so putting that same image on a wider area.
> Now, if you blow-up that wider image of S16, you will have less loss than
> blowing-up the image of regular 16.
Now we agree.
> Actually what helped more is better film-stock, because since the
> finer-grained Kodak Vision 2 stocks are out, more and more gets shot on
> S16.
I am not sure when Vision 2 was released, but I think it was later than
films like "Leaving Las Vegas" became a success.
> Why didn't you say so in the first place :-)
Maybe because I like twisty ways to say things :)
> Yes, with hardware hacking they can be changed, true. But off the factory,
> they can't. And for those people who do not wish to hack their camera's in
> such a rigorous manner, there are camera's like the XL1, where you can
> change the lenses.
I just mentioned them as extremes that will probably become the norm
soon. But the comparison they do between the Zeiss zoom (which is
already an improvement on previous small CCD lenses) and the Fujinon is
very revealing on how much can yet be improved before we reach the
limits of HDV.
> >The question is that there should be a camera that could let you use
> >them without any adapters. And of course there's the issue that the
> >focal lengths should be different for video.
>
> They can be converted.
The wider angle lenses might be a problem.
> Well, like I said before (and many others as well, like Richard Crowley),
> you can try to imitate film behaviour, but that is just part of getting
> there. The movies which were shot on mini-DV/DVCAM and eventually get
> blown-up and transferred to 35mm, also took great care with their
> art-direction and lighting to create the "film-look". You need to take that
> factor into account as well.
That "film look" has certainly been discussing matter in many forums,
so I don't think we could add more here about it.
> Current e-cinema camera's, are getting pretty close to imitating film, and
> even look better. So much better that the stars are getting weary to work
> with HD, because it shows their blemishes and wrinkles merciless, which due
> to the filmgrain, are kept out of sight. Check out the recent Michael Mann
> stuff, which was shot on a variety of e-cinema camera's.
Of course I have checked and I think it's great. Completely out of the
reach of us mortals, particularly on the recording setup due to the
compression-less video system.
I am thinking of more practicals ways to do filmmaking, affordable.
It's when you get back to the compromises that are made on cheaper
designs to get so much information.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|