[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Film look, ect.
On Fri, 12 Jul 1996 21:13:36 -0700, you wrote:
> At times I think the
>real question is not how to make film look like video, or vice versa,
>but when do we use which to achieve our aesthetic goals( and those of
>our clients, bless 'em). Freeman Dyson would have seen this diversity,
>this wide palette of choices as a good thing, to be celebrated and not
>dissected too much, and I agree.
Your perspective might change if you were heavily involved in production,
and grumpy DP's who resented having to shoot on video put every kind of
crap you could possibly imagine behind and in front of your lens to try to
mutate the image into some kind of film equivalent, all the while lamenting
the lack of budget that forced them to work in video. Most will not
hesitate to point out that they are slumming.
Imagine if the coin were flipped, and virtually every session you dealt
with had people bring a Haliburton full of stuff to put all over your chain
to make it look more like video. You would not be a happy guy.
Although you are correct that the venue should be selected to suit the
aesthetic goals of the product, almost every DP I have worked with over the
last 25 years would have preferred to be shooting 35 if the money were
there to do so, whether it was suitable for the project or not.