"I take it from his whisper, you're not that tough."
There is a thing I want to write about. Tomorrow. Yes, tomorrow, I will write about the thing I want to write about today.
Today, I need to try to get "back on the horse."
Today, I woke up angry, so the thing I want to talk about ought wait until tomorrow, so that I can approach it with a more level head ( Read more... )
Today, I need to try to get "back on the horse."
Today, I woke up angry, so the thing I want to talk about ought wait until tomorrow, so that I can approach it with a more level head ( Read more... )
Comments 11
(The comment has been removed)
Film died sometime last year when studios and distributors decreed that everything must be shown in digital format EVERYTHING. Even the tiny theaters had to switch up to digital projection or get no movies to show. So, film has already been killed off, unfortunately, except for those occasional art theaters, and apparently they don't count.
Well...hmmm. I don't actually hate digital, because it provides such a sharp, clean image. But...I can see the harm the forced switchover has caused the already non-existent small theaters. Which we ought to have in droves. Second run, anybody? Revival?
3D is the demon here.
I loved Dark Knight Rises, too. It had all the depth and interesting textures I like in a movie, and the nearly 3 hours of it went by so very, very fast. I'll be seeing it again.
Yep.
Reply
You know, I really noticed this over the weekend when I decided to go see Safety Not Guaranteed, which was very definitely not filmed in digital so far as I could tell (possible exception being the final scene). There was plenty of graininess to the film stock, which surprised me - not because the film wasn't crisp, but rather that I had been "spoiled" by big budget high def digital film blockbusters. Even crap blockbusters.
I felt bad because I could immediately foresee that conventional filmmaking and indie efforts were going to start losing out even harder against the major studios. They are shifting the expectations of the audience and consumers, offering a different quality (as in characteristic, not premium) of movie experience and making everything that doesn't conform to that feel alien and subpar.
Reply
I felt bad because I could immediately foresee that conventional filmmaking and indie efforts were going to start losing out even harder against the major studios.
And yet indie film makers are embracing digital technology and moving away from expensive celluloid.
Reply
It's very clear and sharp. Almost too much so. There are reports the post production color correctors are working overtime to knock the hard edges off the colors and to add in softness to the visuals.
Reply
Actually, I think we may be seeing another phenomenon with The Hobbit and its visuals. The film is being shot, and intended to be projected, at 48 frames per second. Normally, film is captured and projected at 24 frames per second. The increase in speed and projection means twice the visual information is being crammed onto the screen at the same time.
It's very clear and sharp. Almost too much so. There are reports the post production color correctors are working overtime to knock the hard edges off the colors and to add in softness to the visuals.
But it'll still look like a pop-up book.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Even when it's all scanned at 2k for digital projection, you can still see the quality.
Yup. Even with the muddying effect of the 3D projector.
The Hobbit was shot digitally in 3D at 48fps. Reports have indicated it looks like an HD version of the BBC's "live video" look of the 1970s, harsh and non-cinematic. Peter Jackson should have shot it like The Lord of the Rings.
Yes, and I think that very aptly describes what I saw...only as a pop-up book.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment