amateriat
We're all light!
Late last night (Saturday), I went with galfriend and her oldest son to see director Sidney Lumet's powerful (and supremely depressing) return to the big screen, Before The Devil Knows You're Dead. Other than missing the first two minutes of the film (where galfriend discreetly told me I missed a rather, er, exciting opening scene involving Marisa Tomei; anyone reading this who happened to see the French film Betty Blue will get what I mean), I was riveted by the story. Not a pretty picture, and the cinematography was a pretty good match, with muted colors, good-but-perfunctory camera work, and...some odd technical glitches, to my eye. Not great resolution, and some highlights looking rather thin. I was starting to wonder if it was shot on film at all. Sure enough, as the end credits rolled, I catch "Panavision HD".
From a production standpoint, I can certainly see the attraction of HD from several angles, no pun intended. If only the end product didn't leave my heart's eye somewhat malnourished. Not that it got in the way of my taking in the movie; in fact, Lumet probably worked to deal with HD's peculiarities and make them work a bit more for him than against. Galfriend's son (who is studying film at Vassar), thought it was shot on film; I told him that was likely a case of the transfer to film for the print we were watching.
HD is a pretty young pup in Hollywood, and like most things digital, it'll improve. And, if a given movie's storyline is interesting enough (not many are to me, so I don't get out that much), I'll go see it regardless of how it was shot. But I can see the difference, whether I'm actively looking for it or not. Such is the curse of a too-attentive eye?
- Barrett
From a production standpoint, I can certainly see the attraction of HD from several angles, no pun intended. If only the end product didn't leave my heart's eye somewhat malnourished. Not that it got in the way of my taking in the movie; in fact, Lumet probably worked to deal with HD's peculiarities and make them work a bit more for him than against. Galfriend's son (who is studying film at Vassar), thought it was shot on film; I told him that was likely a case of the transfer to film for the print we were watching.
HD is a pretty young pup in Hollywood, and like most things digital, it'll improve. And, if a given movie's storyline is interesting enough (not many are to me, so I don't get out that much), I'll go see it regardless of how it was shot. But I can see the difference, whether I'm actively looking for it or not. Such is the curse of a too-attentive eye?
- Barrett
Last edited:
ywenz
Veteran
I don't think HD is the future of digital cinema. It was used quite a bit because it was the "best" digital solution at the time.
The Red camera is the newest kid on the block and it is much, much better than current HD solutions.
The Red camera is the newest kid on the block and it is much, much better than current HD solutions.
OlyMan
Established
Is it just me or is digital cinema - like consumer digicams - the answer to a question nobody asked?