All the invisible children - shooting gauge?
Posted 15 November 2006 - 03:02 AM
Cant find much on it, but here is an insert from that particular short on YouTube...
Posted 15 November 2006 - 03:48 AM
Looking at the link you suggested, which is very low quality, I would have to say it looks like 35mm. There are some interesting shots in the clip but the overall feel to me is 35mm.
Posted 15 November 2006 - 04:50 AM
the file on YouTube is really low quality, you are right, but I am hinting towards 16mm or even 8mm. I watched it in a cinema, and it stood out like a sore thumb against other shorts that were obviously on 35mm... the grain was huge and at moments it appeared to look like video. I know its not though, since the 'feature' was produced by a company that I am sure would not allow it - I mean, mixing the gauges like that... but who knows?
Since I am a huge FAN of Kusturica and his work, I am very well aware of his recent obsession with super 8mm (he shot his last doco on it - his band on tour) so my thoughts went to that straight away... I somehow doubt he would be allowed to work with super 8mm and mix it with other 6 shorts on 35mm... maybe he shot 16mm? maybe he shot 35mm and 16mm, mixing? that last one sounds like the most feasable...
Posted 15 November 2006 - 01:16 PM
But some of the shots near the beginning of the boy walking up to the car and such looked pretty close to HD to me. Also there's a POV shot from the boy's perspective just before he hops the wall that looked like HD as well.
Posted 15 November 2006 - 08:50 PM
Posted 15 November 2006 - 09:13 PM
And I am positive it was not shot on HD, Emir Kusturica is a film guy.
found this link just now, the official web site:
maybe that still ought to put an end to this discussion.... dam;
For those who live in Brisbane Australia, the film is screening at teh Palace Centro Cinema on 18th of November, Saturday at 1:45PM....
I am not sure what is going on with the ration there... could it be that who ever uploaded the file did some cropping themselves?
Edited by Lav Bodnaruk, 15 November 2006 - 09:15 PM.
Posted 15 November 2006 - 09:48 PM
Thanks for letting us know!
Posted 15 November 2006 - 09:59 PM
Posted 15 November 2006 - 10:29 PM
Still, video? I really doubt it...
I'd love for someone that has seen this film in the cinema to give their 2cents, since that YouTube is pathetic to be able to tell anything... and i think they mixed mediums in the film, so the clip in YouTube is only couple of minutes long - whilst the short is 20min...
Posted 15 November 2006 - 11:55 PM
Still, video? I really doubt it...
Why would it be so unlikely to shoot a film on DV? A lot of directors shoot with the format.
The DVX100 is a great little camera.
All the best
Posted 17 November 2006 - 08:58 PM
Check out how when the camera moves it almost appears to be moving around the axis of, or directly behind, the lens. With most 35 cameras if your not steady cam it is going to be on your shoulder, which doesn't create quite the same movement, it would be more tripod like in its pans, and the movement didn't look very steady cammish to me.
The last short I shot on the DVX was entirely on a glide cam, and whenever I wasn't holding it steady (between takes) it looked alot like the movement in the first few shots of that youtube clip.
anyway my 2 cents.
... another thought, if it looked like he was mixing up formats throughout the piece, perhaps he was using the animorphic adapter during some of the shots. The way it softens the image, and allows you to use the whole ccd is enough to look like a slightly different format.