Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Filmmaking Done Wrong

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Ground Level » Filmmaking Done Wrong

Author

Topic: Filmmaking Done Wrong

Mathew Molloy
Master Film Handler

Posts: 357
From: The Santa Cruz Mountains
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 12-09-2001 02:01 AM

What's the deal with this group of directors thinking it's a good idea to shoot a film on video with a handheld camera and never touch the focus nor cosider keeping anything in frame? Oh to top it off it sounds like they are using the videocamera's microphone wrapped in a blanket.

I am ranting because I just ran a screener print of "Final" which will see release next friday and the reviewer came up to me and asked if there's something wrong with our lenses and sound system.

I read that there's this group of people experimenting with making movies with a handheld videocamera for under $150,000. If anyone saw "Tape" it's more of the same. A small cast based on a play primarily taking place in one room.

I'm sure it's a wonderful idea but keep it out of the theatres and on t.v. where it belongs.

FILMMAKING DONE WRONG!!!

| IP: Logged

Bill Enos
Film God

Posts: 2081
From: Richmond, Virginia, USA
Registered: Apr 2000

posted 12-21-2001 04:49 PM

I guess it's like everything else, if the dumb asses will pay $7.50 & up to see it, why do more. Blair Witch proved that.

| IP: Logged

Charles Everett
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1470
From: New Jersey
Registered: May 2001

posted 08-22-2002 05:14 PM

Or for that matter . . . Full Frontal.

| IP: Logged

Richard Miller
Film Handler

Posts: 33
From: Lafayette, IN, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 08-22-2002 05:29 PM

Clerks was filmed for a total cost of $26,800. The soundtrack actually cost them more. But when I watch Clerks I don't see crappy camera work or bad sound. It has more to do with how much the director cares about the work I guess.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-22-2002 05:51 PM

Or for that matter, CHELSEA WALLS.....oh, sorry, actually the only people who plunked down any money to see that were Ethan Hawke fans and there are not enough of them to pay to strike the xenon lamp.

| IP: Logged

Darryl Spicer
Film God

Posts: 3250
From: Lexington, KY, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 08-23-2002 02:54 AM

Clerks, She's gotta have it, Evil Dead, all shot with 16mm cameras and filmed well.

| IP: Logged

William Hooper
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1879
From: Mobile, AL USA
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-23-2002 03:53 AM

And some 16mm origination for Let The Good Times Roll, an exceptional movie to see on a big, drive-in screen.

| IP: Logged

Frank Angel
Film God

Posts: 5305
From: Brooklyn NY USA
Registered: Dec 1999

posted 08-23-2002 04:25 AM

LET THE GOODTIMES ROLL and WOODSTOCK both shot with more than half the footage from S16mm. No problem with that -- they were both documentaries -- not quite the expectation audience have for documentaires in terms of production values that they have for major Hollywood feature film release. And there is all to obvious difference between 16mm and video. The one is FILM the other is not. When people go to a theatre they expect to see film, not video. Video in theatres traditionally has been reserved for the porno houses. And that's what people think when they see video quality on the screen....."gee, did I wander into a porn house by accident." or "hey, when are they going to take their cloths off?"

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-23-2002 09:55 AM

This just means that it requires less and less skill to make a "movie" these days. Now EVEN YOU can pick up your old Hi8 and make a movie way better than Stevie Sodaburger can even dream of making! You can kick his ass! Moviemaking no longer requires any skill.

Hopefully this is all just a fad and goes away soon.

| IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-23-2002 12:30 PM

I am shooting a three minute short on SVHS. It is bieng done for the "project greenlight" directors competition. For this purpose, shooting on video is fine.

HOWEVER,

If by some off chance I were to ever direct a film, and money were they issue, I would shoot 16mm instead of video. It has better color and contrast depth and better resolution than video, and would actually cost much less in the long run, as you don't have to pay for an expensive and high tech transfer to film, instead you just pay for a blow up to 35mm, it costs much less overall.

Dave

| IP: Logged

Claude S. Ayakawa
Film God

Posts: 2738
From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 08-23-2002 12:57 PM

Frank,

Please keep in my mind that it was only due to curiosity and for educational purpose about film making that I used to see porn films in theatres. Some of the earlier ones were shot and shown in 35mm in larger theatres and the production value was excellent to very good. I must admit that there were many times that I was distracted from my original purpose but somehow I managed.

-Claude

| IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 08-23-2002 02:01 PM

A quick search of the Internet Movie DataBase lists at least 300 films having a "35mm (Blow Up)" from a smaller format:
http://us.imdb.com/SearchTechnical?PFM%3A35+mm%09(blow-up)

Today, most are shot on Super-16mm. For blow up to 1.85:1 35mm prints, the image area used is 0.464 x 0.251 inches (11.80 x 6.38 mm), per standard SMPTE 201M. Despite the small image area, with today's fine-grained films, the results can look very good, especially with color negative film's superior latitude, tone scale, and color reproduction.

A recent trend is to transfer the 16mm negative directly to "Digital Intermediate", rather than simple optical blow-up printing. This allows further enhancement of the image to improve the quality of the final 35mm prints.

A recent critically acclaimed example is "Monsoon Wedding".

Super-16 film has a very successful history as a high quality production method for lower budget films and television shows.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

| IP: Logged

Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 08-25-2002 03:01 PM

quote:
LET THE GOODTIMES ROLL and WOODSTOCK both shot with more than half the footage from S16mm.

Wasn't WOODSTOCK shot prior to the introduction of Super 16?

In any event, both WOODSTOCK and LET THE GOOD TIMES ROLL should be classified differently than traditional 16mm and Super 16mm blow-ups to 35mm because both of those documentaries were printed in a "Multiscreen" composite scope format rather than in a "straight" blow-up where the aspect ratio remained consistent throughout.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.