|
|
Posted by Martin Heffels on 11/02/06 11:55
On 2 Nov 2006 02:07:54 -0800, "carlmart" <carlmart@centroin.com.br> wrote:
>Yes. Overexplaining can do that sometimes. I apologize. 4perf is
>regular 35mm and 2perf is techniscope also using 35mm neg.
2 perf 35mm is a low-budget way for anamorphic 1:2.35. It's becoming
fashionable again lately.
>> 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.
About 5 years ago it was released. It's not that I'm saying that S16 wasn't
used before that time, but it's more and more. Why would Arri release a
brand-spanking new 16mm camera, if there was no market.
>> Why didn't you say so in the first place :-)
>
>Maybe because I like twisty ways to say things :)
Ahh, we all have our ways ;-)
[...]
>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.
That's true. It was an interesting comparison. It's a hack which should be
done by camera rental-houses, for those who want a better performance.
I'm sure the camera can come with a better lens, but then it would become a
different price-range again.
[...]
>That "film look" has certainly been discussing matter in many forums,
>so I don't think we could add more here about it.
It can't be discussed enough, as there are stil many people ("newbies")
thinking this can be done with software.
>> 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.
True. The recording of a 2k/4k-image requires a hefty disk-drive pack. And
that's not the only thing, because once you have the lot recorded, you need
to make a similar investment in post-production hardware. People right here
in this newsgroups, are discovering this when they switch to HDV.
>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.
Affordable comes with a price.
cheers
-martin-
--
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|