Posted by Specs on 12/23/34 11:27

<mor847@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1127540272.116404.270360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Mike,
>
> Thanks for the reply.
>
> I think I should have phrased my initial question differently...
> What is wrong with shooting video and showing it as video? Why, change
> the texture of the scene and make it look as though it were
> photographed with a 35mm film camera?
>
> To me, film is nice for movies to tell a nice story complete with
> special effects. I realize film stock is expensive and once its run
> thorugh the camera any mistakes are costly.
>
> However, to me, video is immediate. No outrageous trick photography,
> no expensive special effects, and no time consuming set ups.
>
> Video is sharp, crystal clear, "live" looking. That's how I want to
> see travelogues.
>
> When it first appeared it was interesting to see a newly shot piece of
> tape turned into a late fifties/early sixties piece of film that's been
> around too long. Sprockets broken, the occasional film splice, the
> lines running vertically thorough the picture...
>
> But, that's boring.
>
> As you can tell I prefer video that's video. I just do not understand
> what the fascination with making it look like its been done on film
> stock.
>
> Anyway, thanks again for the help. I hope you can help me understand
> this (try?), maybe I'm looking at it all wrong. ;-)
>
> Take care.
>
> Mike
>

I know for a fact that the "Film" sequences in Globe Trekker/Lonely Planet
are filmed on a super 8 camera. Its not a faux film effect.

These sequences are usually cut together with music to form short montages
that punctuate the programme. There's your answer, visual puctuation by way
of differing aesthetic.

-()()-

[Back to original message]