Jump to content


Photo

So much for the high end vido cameras


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 19 January 2008 - 09:26 AM

"Director Matt Reeves' "Cloverfield," the smartly marketed Paramount monster movie that was recently unleashed in theaters. And the filmmakers involved used some very high-tech gear, including the Thomson Grass Valley Viper and the Sony F23, to intentionally achieve the picture's low-tech, "prosumer video" look."

From

http://www.videograp...cle_15469.shtml
  • 0

#2 Daniel Sheehy

Daniel Sheehy
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 20 January 2008 - 11:14 PM

Having seen the trailers, I'm not sure I want to watch that movie.

This seems to me it might be one of those instance where the pursuit of 'authenticity' in the look gets in the way of the story.

Just my 2c.
  • 0

#3 Carl Brighton

Carl Brighton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 21 January 2008 - 05:09 AM

Having seen the trailers, I'm not sure I want to watch that movie.

This seems to me it might be one of those instance where the pursuit of 'authenticity' in the look gets in the way of the story.

Just my 2c.

My son saw that movie. He went to the ticket office and demanded his money back. Some of the other audience members heard him and they demanded theirs back as well :rolleyes:
They got free tickets to another film of their choice, which was better than nothing I suppose.
  • 0

#4 benjamin aguilar

benjamin aguilar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts
  • Film Loader

Posted 21 January 2008 - 10:48 PM

My son saw that movie. He went to the ticket office and demanded his money back. Some of the other audience members heard him and they demanded theirs back as well :rolleyes:
They got free tickets to another film of their choice, which was better than nothing I suppose.



Do you suppose it was as bad as Guy Ritchie's film Revolver? I actually went blindly into that movie(with a friend) thinking it would be an okay watch... I literally left the movie theatre apologizing to my friend for wasting his time, I really felt bad.
  • 0

#5 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 22 January 2008 - 12:19 AM

"Director Matt Reeves' "Cloverfield," the smartly marketed Paramount monster movie that was recently unleashed in theaters. And the filmmakers involved used some very high-tech gear, including the Thomson Grass Valley Viper and the Sony F23, to intentionally achieve the picture's low-tech, "prosumer video" look."

From

http://www.videograp...cle_15469.shtml



That's really a misnomer, saying that they used the high end stuff to achieve a low end look. Reading the article, it seems the primary technical reason was so that the visual effects team would have a more solid quality source to work from. It's easier to knock something down a few notches than try to "improve" something that was lousy from the get-go.

Plus, trying to blow up anything less than 4:4:4 to a large format screen isn't really a very successful enterprise, in general. So it was likely a better choice to have a quality image that could be shown in traditional theaters then add in effects which made it appear to be a lower quality image.

I don't really see the trouble. It would be like taking an effects house to task for shooting in 70mm Vistavision when the final product will only be 35mm. I don't get it. :unsure:
  • 0

#6 Benjamin Cameron

Benjamin Cameron
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 44 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 22 January 2008 - 03:09 AM

not being a fan of modern action/monster films, i thought that the "lower quality" format, but not quite, was more engaging to watch than the usual schlock. these films are typically overburdened with clean, produced camerawork that reveals all to much throughout the entire movie. not that this film isn't "purposeful" cinematography, it's only an affected amateur look. at least we have to use our imagination a little, especially trying to figure out how the character manages to keep his lens nice and clean almost the whole time...
  • 0

#7 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 22 January 2008 - 07:07 AM

That's really a misnomer, saying that they used the high end stuff to achieve a low end look. Reading the article, it seems the primary technical reason was so that the visual effects team would have a more solid quality source to work from. It's easier to knock something down a few notches than try to "improve" something that was lousy from the get-go.

Plus, trying to blow up anything less than 4:4:4 to a large format screen isn't really a very successful enterprise, in general. So it was likely a better choice to have a quality image that could be shown in traditional theaters then add in effects which made it appear to be a lower quality image.

I don't really see the trouble. It would be like taking an effects house to task for shooting in 70mm Vistavision when the final product will only be 35mm. I don't get it. :unsure:


My point of the post was in agreement with you Brian. It's just funny he way they make the video cameras sound like they are handicams.
  • 0

#8 Bryan Fowler

Bryan Fowler
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • TN, GA, NC, Airports

Posted 22 January 2008 - 08:38 AM

My son saw that movie. He went to the ticket office and demanded his money back. Some of the other audience members heard him and they demanded theirs back as well :rolleyes:
They got free tickets to another film of their choice, which was better than nothing I suppose.


[opinion] actually... I think it's worse than nothing [/opinion]

I think it's interesting commentary on people, and entertainment expectations when they demand their money back for a movie that they simply didn't like. As if it's the theatre that required them to watch it, and pay for it, without any prior knowledge of the film.

I actually enjoyed the movie. At first I was thinking, "what cameras are they using", "was that an FX shot? yeah it was.. no. .maybe not.. wait." Then I forgot about how it was shot, and just watched. It was a little too much shaky for me, but I shouldn't have sat near the front. Overall I was very impressed with everything about it.

*thinking* Maybe if I ask, theaters will retroactively refund me for movies that I didn't like? Man, that would be awesome. A theatre with a lifetime guarantee. I want my Batman money back.
  • 0

#9 Adamo P Cultraro

Adamo P Cultraro
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Producer

Posted 22 January 2008 - 11:21 AM

Well, the HVX carried it's weight. Not bad for a 5k camera.
  • 0

#10 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 22 January 2008 - 11:30 AM

Well, the HVX carried it's weight. Not bad for a 5k camera.


For home video and DVD it worked great, but you'd never want to see it mixed in with a pro camera on a big screen. Then again it is a 5K camera so you can't expect much.
  • 0

#11 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 22 January 2008 - 02:36 PM

It would be like taking an effects house to task for shooting in 70mm Vistavision when the final product will only be 35mm.


Vistavision is of course 8-perf 35mm, not 70mm.

---El Pedante
  • 0

#12 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 22 January 2008 - 04:53 PM

I kinda liked the movie, actually.
The jerky hand-held stuff was certainly irritating, and I wish someone had given the guys more operating lessons, so there would have been smoother shots, but I got the whole "gimmick", which is what it was.

I could tell immediately that it wasn't a consumer camcorder. Too much resolution for that, but still, it did in fact look like crap most of the time.

MP
  • 0

#13 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 22 January 2008 - 06:35 PM

I heard a radio review of the film and the reviewer actually admitted throwing up from all the handheld shots AND saying it was Ok as a movie as well. Maybe he hadn't recovered yet when he wrote his review.
  • 0

#14 Matt Pacini

Matt Pacini
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1246 posts

Posted 25 January 2008 - 06:14 PM

This is a clear case of mass hysteria, just like when it came out that supposedly people were running out of the theaters during Blair Witch Project throwing up.
BS. I don't believe it, and I am someone who gets motion sickness so bad, I can't ride on ANY fast moving rides at Disneyland, and I puke on airplanes.

It's amazing how this kind of thing spreads.

MP
  • 0

#15 Alessandro Machi

Alessandro Machi
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3318 posts
  • Other
  • California

Posted 25 January 2008 - 07:12 PM

This is a clear case of mass hysteria, just like when it came out that supposedly people were running out of the theaters during Blair Witch Project throwing up.
BS. I don't believe it, and I am someone who gets motion sickness so bad, I can't ride on ANY fast moving rides at Disneyland, and I puke on airplanes.

It's amazing how this kind of thing spreads.

MP


You could be right, but I heard the radio reviewer exactly one week ago, so he would have been one of the first to throw up and probably his radio review did not create any add on throw up hysteria. The guy on the John and Ken show, Ken, was the one who said he threw up during the movie but still liked the movie.
  • 0

#16 Dukeswharf

Dukeswharf

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 February 2008 - 06:21 PM

Hmmm! A friend of mine took his wife to see this film and told me later that she also had been physically sick.

I really must go and see this film.
  • 0

#17 Valerio Sacchetto

Valerio Sacchetto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Student
  • Italy

Posted 20 February 2008 - 06:40 PM

A friend of mine tricked me to go see that "thing". To experience the illness you must be very very sensible, i didn't see a single person feeling bad (except for the movie itself).
The movie is just bad for too many things and i don't really want to go into details, i feel sorry for the crew because they must have done their work at their best but this doesn't show up in the final product. Even the people who usually are victims of this kind of movies (marketing, special effects and more marketing) were disappointed.
  • 0

#18 Christopher Arata

Christopher Arata
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 February 2008 - 09:17 PM

This was a great movie. To say that one feels sorry for the crew who worked on this movie makes no sense. They did a incredible job. The writing my not be a strong point, but visually the movie is great and could not have been filmed any other way. To quote Darius Khondji from SE7EN commentary " I find that movies are often to beautifully lit and shot, and do not serve in the overall feeling of the story" this is fitting because Michael Bonvillain clearly understands this point and it shows in Cloverfield.
  • 0

#19 James Brown

James Brown
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 21 February 2008 - 04:30 AM

Before criticizing this film to harshly at least have a look.

http://www.apple.com...nt/cloverfield/

If you are a filmmaker there will be appreciation for the technical achievement accomplished in this film. To have a realistic handicam look and really large scale visual effects seamlessly blending into each other is something special.

James.
  • 0

#20 Valerio Sacchetto

Valerio Sacchetto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts
  • Student
  • Italy

Posted 22 February 2008 - 04:55 PM

This was a great movie. To say that one feels sorry for the crew who worked on this movie makes no sense. They did a incredible job.

Well...obviously these are personal opinions, i have mine you have yours and that's just right. And here we're speaking of tastes. Plus my comment was actually quite lighthearted, I mean it's just a movie!

I'm not arguing that they didn't do a good job, although i also don't know if they did, what i'm saying is that their work led to awful results. Sometimes (many times actually) you can do all your best but the result is not good, I accept the thing like an experiment gone wrong. You tried, you failed, you learnt something (i.e. don't do that again). Or do it again and make a lot of money :P

The writing my not be a strong point, but visually the movie is great and could not have been filmed any other way. To quote Darius Khondji from SE7EN commentary " I find that movies are often to beautifully lit and shot, and do not serve in the overall feeling of the story" this is fitting because Michael Bonvillain clearly understands this point and it shows in Cloverfield.

The fact that it's good visually (again, not for me) doesn't make it a good movie. in fact i bothered very little about the "look" of it, it's a pointless movie made to bring as many people as posible to leave their money to the box office.
I'm not so naive to think that movies are made for the sake of art but there is an implicit pact between producers and moviegoers, the deal is that i WANT to spend my money to go see a movie that i may like and the producer know that if he gives me something he'll get the money. He's interested in making decent movies.
Cloverfield, for me, is all bells and whistles without any real product to sell.

Now for the "i feel sorry" part is simply because if i make something i hope it to turn out good and loved by the people even if i do it just for the money. What if you make all your best to, let's say, draw a human figure and all you come up with is a lousy stick figure (that's me btw)? someone may feel sorry for you, for all your efforts that turned out not so well. Of course i don't "really" feel sorry for them, it's a figure of speech!

In the end these are just my opinions and should be taken for what they are, i don't have the truth in me. ;)
  • 0


rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Visual Products

Aerial Filmworks