Jump to content


Photo

THIS IS A GREAT FILM...


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Keneu Luca

Keneu Luca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 March 2010 - 02:04 AM

I'm watching The French Connection on AMC right now. Much has been written about the look of this film.

I'm curious if anyone ever watches a film like this and says, "You know what, this is a great film, but it would look so much better if it had originated on HD. Too bad the technology didn't exist back then."

Not just French Connection. You can substitute it with endless titles. For some reason the golden age of the 70's stands out in my mind. There really is something special about grain.

Apocalypse Now
Serpico
Dog Day Afternoon
The Deer Hunter
Taxi Driver

...all great films. "But they would have been so much better if shot on HD"

Edited by Keneu Luca, 06 March 2010 - 02:05 AM.

  • 0

#2 Mike Lary

Mike Lary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 472 posts
  • Other

Posted 06 March 2010 - 02:49 AM

Are you sure you put enough bait on that hook?
  • 0

#3 Keneu Luca

Keneu Luca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Other

Posted 07 March 2010 - 02:12 AM

Are you sure you put enough bait on that hook?


I wanted to put on even more. But I ran out. And the bait shop was closed. Actually he wasn't closed, but he had one of those "be back in 15 minutes" signs on the door. I hate those signs. Fifteen minutes from when? How do I know when you left?
  • 0

#4 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1570 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 14 March 2010 - 05:41 PM

I'm watching The French Connection on AMC right now. Much has been written about the look of this film.

I'm curious if anyone ever watches a film like this and says, "You know what, this is a great film, but it would look so much better if it had originated on HD. Too bad the technology didn't exist back then."

Not just French Connection. You can substitute it with endless titles. For some reason the golden age of the 70's stands out in my mind. There really is something special about grain.

Apocalypse Now
Serpico
Dog Day Afternoon
The Deer Hunter
Taxi Driver

...all great films. "But they would have been so much better if shot on HD"

I have, but I don't dwell on it too much. What if some older classic TV series had been shot on HD? Time Tunnel? The Man from Uncle? Mission Impossible? What about even older stuff? The Bowery Boys? Laurel and Hardy?

Meh, it's an interesting exercise, I guess.

Here's a few with a common theme;
"Kingdom of Heaven"
"Dragonslayer"
"Excalibur"
  • 0

#5 Brian Dzyak

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

Posted 14 March 2010 - 06:44 PM

This appears to be yet another thread designed to malign new technology. I'm sure that similar maligning went on when color was introduced as the "traditionalists" who loved B&W film tore into those who learned to use color film.

HD is just another tool. HD is useful for some projects and not as useful as others. It's just the same by saying that one filmstock is useful for a project while other filmstocks aren't as useful.

I likely will never understand why some people decide to "hate" a specific technology in favor of worshiping another. HD or film... just tools, neither any better nor worse than another... they are merely different, meant for different situations and circumstances. Just as we choose different lighting units (HMIs, Tungsten, KINOs, etc), we choose the acquisition format that is best suited to the project as a whole. Not only "look," but budget, schedules, ergonomics, technical limitations, etc, taken into account.

So, what's the point of this thread? Is it to suggest that HD would have "ruined" those movies mentioned in the first post? If that's the point of the discussion, then why not extend it to berate those movies for using the specific filmstocks used or perhaps suggest that the DP f'd up in some scenes with the color timing or other technical issues?

I don't get it.
  • 0

#6 danny young

danny young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
  • Other

Posted 14 March 2010 - 07:24 PM

This appears to be yet another thread designed to malign new technology...

I didn't get that feeling really. It strikes me more as an appreciation for those works, and their particular look.
  • 0

#7 Keneu Luca

Keneu Luca
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 440 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 March 2010 - 05:15 PM

This appears to be yet another thread designed to malign new technology. I'm sure that similar maligning went on when color was introduced as the "traditionalists" who loved B&W film tore into those who learned to use color film.


I'm not trying to malign new technology. Video is indispensable, especially in, but not limited to, video assist and editing. But I do agree that when color and sound were introduced there were people who protested or complained.

HD is just another tool. HD is useful for some projects and not as useful as others. It's just the same by saying that one filmstock is useful for a project while other filmstocks aren't as useful.


I agree.

I likely will never understand why some people decide to "hate" a specific technology in favor of worshiping another. HD or film... just tools, neither any better nor worse than another... they are merely different, meant for different situations and circumstances. Just as we choose different lighting units (HMIs, Tungsten, KINOs, etc), we choose the acquisition format that is best suited to the project as a whole. Not only "look," but budget, schedules, ergonomics, technical limitations, etc, taken into account.


"Hate" and "worship" are strong words. They are not always appropriate when people express their preference for one over the other. Preferences and/or choices are subjective. Just like food, we do not all see things the same way. How we interpret images is sometimes just as subjective as how we taste food. I don't choose which foods I like. I have no control over whether it agrees with my taste buds. And with some people, in my opinion, imagery perception is sometimes the same - not really a "choice." Just as we are all attracted to the opposite, or some case same sex, for different reasons based on uncontrollable factors in our biology, or deeply embedded subconscious.

So yeah, DP's have a choice of different lights, acquisition formats, etc. But every DP makes those choices based on their own individual perceptions, tastes, preferences as to what is appropriate for the script.


So, what's the point of this thread? Is it to suggest that HD would have "ruined" those movies mentioned in the first post?

The point is if to see if there are any people who think they would have enjoyed these films more if they were shot on HD. I am often questioned by people as to why I choose to shoot on film. They try to educate me and persuade me to shoot on HD. Their arguments often imply, or sometimes out right declare, that I am making a mistake by shooting on film. So it got me thinking, if they think I am making a mistake, does it mean that they believe other filmmakers in the past have also made that same mistake? Now, if people on this board think it absurd to think that, then that's fine. You can say, "No, Keneu, those films are just fine having been shot on film."

Also, I know there are people out there who have questioned Michael Mann's choice to shoot on video in recent projects. And he has the right to do so. It's his choice. That's fine. Just as people have a right to respond to his movies. And many people respond by expressing the negative effect of video his movies have had on them, as an audience. These are usually people who have incredible respect and admiration for Mann, but their argument is that they feel those movies would have had a stronger impact if they had been shot on film. To be clear, this is not everyone's opinion on his recent movies. But some. There are people who completely enjoyed the movies, having expressed no problems with the video technology at all. And that's fine.

But since there are a few people (or possibly more than a few) who think they would have enjoyed film rather than video, I wondered if the opposite occurs...if people think certain movies shot on film would have had a stronger impact if they were shot on video.

The fact that people do question my choice of film is fine. I dont mind swatting the flies away. Can be amusing conversations and debates at times. And as a writer, engaging in debates and understanding the nature of them is absolutely vital.


If that's the point of the discussion, then why not extend it to berate those movies for using the specific filmstocks used or perhaps suggest that the DP f'd up in some scenes with the color timing or other technical issues?

"Berate". Another strong word.

Well, there are people who do question those choices. Are you asking me why I'm not doing so in this thread? Because this is not a comprehensive thread on "all things technical." Im just trying to focus on a few things here.

I don't get it.

That's fine. I don't get everything that all people post on here either.

Edited by Keneu Luca, 30 March 2010 - 05:17 PM.

  • 0

#8 Chris Fernando

Chris Fernando
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 148 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 31 March 2010 - 12:01 PM

I'm watching The French Connection on AMC right now.


The "William :P Friedkin Version" or the "Owen :angry: Roizman Version"?
  • 0

#9 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 31 March 2010 - 12:17 PM

Hi can you explain what you are getting at by your post ?
  • 0

#10 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 31 March 2010 - 05:19 PM

I find myself wishing DPs and Directors had made different decisions in terms of formats. Like, with Fargo, I would've loved to have seen that shot in black-and-white...it's practically monochromatic as is, so why not go all the way?

And I can think of many projects that would have been even better in 65mm. Like Apocalypse Now (yes it was printed in 70mm, but I mean shot on 65mm), or Dr. Zhivago (supposedly Freddie Young wanted to shoot 65mm B/W, but because production had already started, he was overruled).

BR
  • 0

#11 Paul Bruening

Paul Bruening

    (deceased)

  • Sustaining Members
  • 2858 posts
  • Producer
  • Oxford, Mississippi

Posted 31 March 2010 - 07:16 PM

Lucas wanted to do Apocalypse Now in 16mm.
  • 0

#12 Brian Rose

Brian Rose
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 896 posts
  • Student
  • Kansas City area

Posted 31 March 2010 - 11:38 PM

Lucas wanted to do Apocalypse Now in 16mm.


Hmmmm, that would've been interesting too.
  • 0

#13 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 01 April 2010 - 04:12 PM

or Dr. Zhivago (supposedly Freddie Young wanted to shoot 65mm B/W, but because production had already started, he was overruled).


MGM wouldn't have approved shooting an expensive historical spectacle in B/W under any condition.
  • 0

#14 Leo Anthony Vale

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

Posted 01 April 2010 - 04:16 PM

Lucas wanted to do Apocalypse Now in 16mm.


He also wanted to do 'American Graffitti' in Super 16.
But then it would have to have been shot on Ektachrome EF, grainy and projection contrast.
  • 0


Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Opal

Visual Products

Glidecam

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Opal

Tai Audio

Visual Products

The Slider

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

CineTape

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post