28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Grouchy]

The movements in movies look all wrong with that thing on. It literally cheapens the value of the cinematography.

[Neclord]

"Shot on video". What does that even mean?

Like shot on video tape, like a soap opera or live television? I thought that was common shorthand.

[Kurosawa Fan]

To me it makes everything look like it was shot on video, like a soap opera or a sitcom. No matter what I'm watching, it becomes fake-looking.

Yep. It accentuates the artificial aspects of the filmmaking process. The costumes look like costumes, the sets look like sets. Any chance at losing myself in the verisimilitude of the film or show is lost.

[Dukefrukem]

Like shot on video tape, like a soap opera or live television? I thought that was common shorthand.

I've taped a lot of home video (TAPE) in the 90s, and it's never looked like a soap opera. So I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Live TV (or documentaries) on the other hand, does look like home video TAPE.

[Derek]

DIGITAL video has now replaced video TAPE, so when people refer to shooting on video these days, they're usually not referring to VHS or Betamax.

[Dukefrukem]

But people do say they're shooting digital correct?

[Derek]

But people do say they're shooting digital correct?

I suppose most people would call it "shooting digital(ly)" rather than shooting on video, but it's usually interchangeable. Tape would be a whole different animal these days since it's still used a lot in post, but only for the storage, transport and conversions of digital files.

[Dukefrukem]

Gotcha. In any event, I think the AMP looks great. Weird thing is, when I watch movies/TV on my other TVs (without AMP) I can notice the difference, but it doesn't bother me because they're smaller TVs.

[Skitch]

I don't know anything about this enhancement you guys are discussing, but it is something that could vary in quality depending on television? Or satellite provider? Or combinations of both?

[Derek]

I don't know anything about this enhancement you guys are discussing, but it is something that could vary in quality depending on television? Or satellite provider? Or combinations of both?

It's the same, or similar, to the higher frame rate Jackson released the two Hobbit films in (I believe those were 48fps). I only saw the first one that way and it looked like a $300 million soap opera (read: shit) that distracted me from how bad it was by how awful it looked. The effect is great for sports because of the fast movements and the fact that our eyes are trained to watching sports with a tv look, rather than a film or projected DV look, but for movies, it has the bizarre effect, at least for a lot of people, of creating a soap opera look that renders everything false and sucks you out of whatever reality the film is creating. I actually think it's even more harmful for fantasy/sci-fi/superhero films than anything else.

[Lazlo]

"Shot on video" has to do with frame rates, not medium. Until roughly 10 years ago, video couldn't do sound-speed 24fps, the rate at which which film shoots sound-speed. Video shot sound-speed at 30fps (really 29.97), which contributes to smoother motion. 100 years of 24fps film look vs. 50 years of 30fps video look conditioned us to view the film look as signifying higher quality.

Motion smoothing duplicates frames to give an artificial smoothing effect not intended to exist in anything shot at 24fps, regardless of it being shot on film or video (Arri Alexa, RED Camera, etc.).

[Skitch]

It's the same, or similar, to the higher frame rate Jackson released the two Hobbit films in (I believe those were 48fps). I only saw the first one that way and it looked like a $300 million soap opera (read: shit) that distracted me from how bad it was by how awful it looked. The effect is great for sports because of the fast movements and the fact that our eyes are trained to watching sports with a tv look, rather than a film or projected DV look, but for movies, it has the bizarre effect, at least for a lot of people, of creating a soap opera look that renders everything false and sucks you out of whatever reality the film is creating. I actually think it's even more harmful for fantasy/sci-fi/superhero films than anything else.

Interesting. Thanks. Applying how I felt about the HFR of the first Hobbit film (first time 3D action didn't seem to slip visually, but agree with rest of film looking really weird), I would probably think golf and football would look awesome and everything else odd. But who knows...like I said, I have no basis to compare these things until I see them. I swore I would never buy a plasma over a LCD or LED...until I found the plasma I've owned for years now. It still looks stunning, even more than any other plasma I've personally seen at friends houses and such.

[EyesWideOpen]

You would immediately notice it. Me and my wife would go over to one of her friends to watch Dexter as it aired and they had a new Sony and had it on and it looked ridiculous.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, looks pretty bad indeed. I remember this look starting in Public Enemies. A mobster movie with a DV look. Ugh, still sucks to see that in the movie, because it's an amazing movie otherwise.

[Mal]

I saw Boyhood on friday and it's still bothering me that the whole 12-yrs-filming bit is a total gimmick, a wasted opportunity by Linklater. UGH.

[Winston*]

Yeah, looks pretty bad indeed. I remember this look starting in Public Enemies. A mobster movie with a DV look. Ugh, still sucks to see that in the movie, because it's an amazing movie otherwise.

I didn't like the movie much otherwise, but I kind of liked the DV look. It was interesting to see a historical drama shot in such a contemporary manner, rather through a nostalgic filter.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, looks pretty bad indeed. I remember this look starting in Public Enemies. A mobster movie with a DV look. Ugh, still sucks to see that in the movie, because it's an amazing movie otherwise.

I agree, that looks like garbage. Miami Vice as well.

But watch Prometheus with it and it's brilliant.

[dreamdead]

I saw Boyhood on friday and it's still bothering me that the whole 12-yrs-filming bit is a total gimmick, a wasted opportunity by Linklater. UGH.

Huh. Any chance on elaborating, maybe in the Boyhood upcoming thread section?

[Dukefrukem]

I frame rate is really crappy, but I thought this was well done.

[MadMan]

I finally saw 8 1/2 so I can check that off the infamous to see list.

[dreamdead]

What was your favorite part of 8 1/2?

[Ivan Drago]

The original Oldboy. Holy fucking crap, that twist. That sound design. That story. That entire fucking movie was incredible. My mind is still blown.

[MadMan]

What was your favorite part of 8 1/2?

Probably Guido floating over the cars in the beginning. I'll have to watch the film multiple times before I know for sure.

[Winston*]

Highly recommend Harry Dean Stanton: Partly Fiction. Great documentary.

[Rowland]

The original Oldboy. Holy fucking crap, that twist. That sound design. That story. That entire fucking movie was incredible. My mind is still blown.

First-time viewing? I've been meaning to give it another look to see if it still holds up, after being disappointed by the tame Spike Lee remake.