SCREEN-L Archives

December 1994, Week 1


Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Jennifer Warren <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Mon, 5 Dec 1994 15:10:26 -0800
text/plain (45 lines)
Your point is understood, but if you know anything at all about film,
then you know that not all 35mm films are shot in the 1:1.85 ratio.  In
fact, very few of them are, since the end product often winds up as video
On Mon, 5 Dec 1994, Ian Noe wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Dec 1994, Jennifer Warren wrote:
> > I can think of ONE very EXCELLENT reason :  If the quality is even
> > remotely reasonable, then shooting in video for film output would
> > drastically reduce production costs, allowing low budget filmmakers
> > access to CGI FX which currently are simply cost prohibitive.  I realize
> > that studio's and giant FX houses have a vested interest in keeping costs
> > of decent equipment out of reach of low budget filmmakers...but I would
> > hope that you would at least have something CONSTRUCTIVE to say.
> >
> > Jennie
> Uhm.. sorry if you didn't see it as constructive, but the point I was
> trying to make is that if your original source is video, who cares what
> neato special effects you can use, the product is still going to be
> limited by the extremely low resolution of the video.  I mean, if you want
> to play around with effects, why not stay in video.  i.e. sample it
> digitally and then run it through premiere or use a toaster or
> something, then print it back to video, then if you just have your heart
> set on seeing this *video* projected then get a video projector.  The
> point is, if you shoot it on video, you have made a video (not a film),
> and I don't see the point of wasting the cellulloid (which is
> photo-chemical not magnetic or digital).  Also, what is it exactly that
> you're saying here?, Do you want to make a feature length film on video
> (no one will buy it, ever, don't kid yourself) and then transfer it so
> that it can be shown in theatres.  You  might also run into the problem
> that the ratio of video is 1:1.66 whereas film (standard widescreen) is
> 1:1.85, so then you would have to crop your image, destroying
> compostitional value.
> Ian