Re: why we shoot film/contrast ratios and sensitivity

From: Niklas Vollmer (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Mar 07 2006 - 09:00:33 PST

As stated by other folks, every creation tool and distribution gesture of a cultural producer/mediamaker depends greatly on content, context and intent.

I just shot an experimental doc on the coast of Maine with a HD camera (not HDV). This was a two person shoot (my other "crew" member was also the primary, non-mediamaker subject). In addition to entertaining the various values and aesthetic palette of large camera HD, I was also very aware of the high cost and semi-preciousness of HDCAM stock (not to mention the potential for additional cost/consequences of hand-holding such a beast [near chiropractor implications] and/or the accidental offering of a $150,000 camera to one of the mud flats, tide pools and beach dunes we were negotiating).

There was no time to repeatedly review footage in the field nor a "video village" to speak of. I knew the choice to "go it alone" would have some sound implications; this was the trade off for greater subject/maker intimacy. My camerawork wasn't any better with a HD rig, but I did shoot differently...


>>> email suppressed 03/07/06 11:04 AM >>>
I've never been on an HD shoot, but I've heard of this hideous "video
village" phenomenon. I have some friends who do sound on independent
feature films, and they say that the quality of technicians on film
sets has gone down tremendously in the last few years. Being able to
instantly watch things after shooting has indeed made everyone very
wishy-washy and indecisive. People no longer trust in their own
decision making, and DPs don't know how to light. There is so much time
spent running to and from the video village, and shooting every
rehearsal just in case, and being sloppy on every level because you can
always shoot more, that this costs enormous time. And half the DPs
shooting on film are fired in the first week because the dailies look
so dreadful.

On Mar 6, 2006, at 7:34 PM, Scott Janush wrote:

> On Mar 5, 2006, at 1:50 PM, Mitsu Hadeishi wrote:
>> We have had a whole slew of posts from people who say their reason
>> for loving
>> film has to do with the way it looks: the way it looks is dictated by
>> its
>> responsiveness to light (which is essentially sensitivity and dynamic
>> range,
>> because everything else can be simulated with postprocessing) and
>> resolution.
> The reason that I most appreciate film has to do with the people that
> shoot it.
> Having always been involved in post production, rather than
> production, I hold directors of photography as some kind of mythic
> figures, able to paint a scene with light, expose it how they see fit
> and the next morning, more often than not, we look at the film as it
> comes out of the lab, and I'm always amazed at their brilliance.
> In the old days, maybe 5 years ago, the operator, DP and occasionally
> director looked thru the viewfinder.
> Contrast that with the current scenario of 25 people standing around
> the video village, each and every one of them somehow of the opinion
> that their opinion counts, when in fact it shouldn't.
> -Scott
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.