Jump to content

A Superbowl Epiphany: Sheet Film endangered by digital? What about Actors?


john_kasaian1

Recommended Posts

Hey, the farting carriage horse and the referee who was nagged at by

his wife were imaginative enough superbowl commericals to stick in

my mind, but the most disturbing one was the ad for a movie about

the Trojan War. The battle scene, obviously digitally generated,

looked horrible on my TV. I'd hate to see it on a theatre size

sceen. Sure they got an image that would have been a logistical

nightmare if they had to costume, rehearse, transport, and feed

minimum wage actors, but the effect is, well, cheesey. I've seen

pretty good digital effects at the movies(Gladiator, for one) but

this was truly horrible. Perhaps if they'd spent the money on

production instead of a superbowl commercial...?

 

How does this tie in with LF you ask? Heres why: Do you think an

audience that will accept such a digital image would be more or less

likely to better appreciate traditional film based imagery? This is

the first film I've seen using digital that appears to have not

raised (actually I think "lowered") the standard. Is this just a

freak production, or will audiences become (or be expected to become)

accustomed to such pixel poop? What does this mean for traditional

photographers, both in LF and cinematography? What do you think? I'm

curious.

 

---------Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, but, big business wants us to accept the lower quality because it's easier and cheaper for them ....

 

I just hope that cinema-goers vote with their feet and let the studios know that it sucks. I also hope that the film reviewers don't worry about sounding like luddites and call it as they see it.

 

The last Star Wars was made in digital and released as such in some theatres which had horrendously expensive digital projecters.

 

On another note, my Dad, a former Rolleicord and Canon QL shooter, called me this morning - his birthday present to himself, a Canon 10D .... :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People still do Cyanotype prints because they like how they look, and they like doing them. You can take a digital image and make a cyanotype look-a-like if you want, but people still contact print stuff instead. I think this will always be the case. People will always paint with oils, people will always shoot film. We may fade further and further into the minority, but we do it because we like to.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...