Electric cameras have RUINED movies. SMH my head can't believe cameramen these days are too lazy to crank the camera. Theres that subtle, imperfect look that you just DON'T GET with modern gimmicks like "stable images" (postmodernist drivel)

  • HarrierDuBois [comrade/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    People are beautiful. Statuesque. Parodies and tragedies of themselves. A great democracy of creatures...

  • TankieTanuki [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I don't have strong feelings about CGI but the difference I see is that better video technology increases fidelity (realness), while CGI isn't real to begin with.

    • SadStruggle92 [none/use name]
      ·
      2 years ago

      better video technology increases fidelity (realness), while CGI isn’t real to begin with.

      That's the interesting thing though, I remember back when they first released the 60fps version of Jackson's Hobbit, and everybody was mad because at that degree of fidelity they could tell that the prosthetic noses for the Dwarves were obviously fake.

      • TankieTanuki [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        Do dwarf noses jiggle or something? Weird that frame rate would reveal the fakery rather than resolution or something. At any rate (pun intended) it still increases the fidelity of what you're actually recording.

        • wantonviolins [they/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          You lose a lot of detail to motion blur. Higher framerates means higher motion clarity means more detail overall.

          • TankieTanuki [he/him]
            ·
            2 years ago

            That's neat, but were there not shots of motionless dwarves in the original trilogy?

            • wantonviolins [they/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              The resolution was probably better, too, but if we're being honest it's rose-tinted glasses about the original trilogy. I remember distinctly seeing Return of the King in theaters and thinking "man Ian McKellen's wizard beard glue is really obvious" and that was in 2003.

    • VHS [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      CGI is fine in its place. See Jurassic Park, Terminator 2 where they used early CGI extremely effectively and to its strengths. I don't like everything being CGI just for the hell of it.

    • VILenin [he/him]
      hexagon
      ·
      2 years ago

      :lumiere-bros-shining:

      Yeah I've shot on some of these old hand crank cameras before, I definitely see your point. Not very good for sound film, though.

        • VILenin [he/him]
          hexagon
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Imagine going to watch a FILM and expecting people to TALK. This isn't the wireless, kiddo. Movie cameras make NOISE because they don't want to HEAR the actors babbling around. You have to IMPRISON them in a CAGE to dampen their despairing cries.

          Wanted actors to talk anyway, just for shits and giggles? We had a tool for that. They're called TITLE CARDS.

  • Rojo27 [he/him]
    ·
    2 years ago

    You can touch film. How do you touch bits of data? You can't!:jon-yell:

  • playboicarti [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    You say this but I worked on a film recently with a Bolex 16mm camera and the rushes looked pretty fuckin' good

    They were real bad with the camera sheets tho, so it's gonna be a nightmare for whoever has to edit it

      • playboicarti [he/him]
        ·
        2 years ago

        steenbeck

        Nah the footage is being digitized and edited with a digital editing suite

        • VILenin [he/him]
          hexagon
          ·
          2 years ago

          Thank god for NLEs

          Using the steenbeck with 35mm was manageable, but with 16mm is literal hell on earth.