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 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.