Realism or pessimism? (wake me up!)

[Patrick King]

Dominic,

Write Paul and tell him the whole dang MiniDV tape is black, so that must mean its 85% dumber (15% brighter + 85% dumber = 100% technobabble?).

Dominic, film may be darker than most video, but I'm with you in thinking its the purposefully cinematography creating darker lighting and not the little black places between frames. If that were true, we could remove the shutter from the film projector and just let the film be continuously projected as it passes the arc-lamp. That must be it, he uses a shutterless film projector and he gets to see the little black bars between the frames so he gets his money's worth out of watching films; 15% darker be damned, at least he's watching the whole film. LOL

[Matt Brabender]

To the question of what is worth going the extra mile to get that 'film look'?

That really takes you to the core question of...
how should the story be told?

which brings you to the core core question of...
what story should be told?

and those questions have not, and will not change

circles are fun

Be dismayed all you like about the content displayed on your TV, but know there are still an endless amount of interesting stories to be told, by great story tellers - this is yet another thing that has not, and will not change.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to say pessimism - dig deeper or in other places to find the satisfaction of watching and creating movies again. It sounds to me Dan, that you've been eating too much of the garbage that television corporations have been feeding you.

[Dan Diaconu]

Originally Posted by Matt Brabender

It sounds to me Dan, that you've been eating too much of the garbage that television corporations have been feeding you.

Thanks for the replay, Matt. However, if you read my fourth post, you'll see how much I feast and how much I swallow TV these days. I do not know why, but I am not tempted in any way to turn it on. I guess I am out of the habit of (wasting?) time (that way!)

Now... please do not take me wrong. There are a few good programs running at any given time of the day, but (philosophically speaking) do I NEED that? Can I live without it? What is a MUST and what is OPTIONAL? (hehehe, not to me!!!!!! to average viewers this time!!)

This may just hold the key answer to my question. A MUST is a video camera, a story..., (hmm.... more or less), something there (walking, talking, jumping singing... whatever...) and you have a "show" that will fill some air time. The best? average? worst? I think is not at all relevant. There will be some to watch it anyway, so why bother spend mental energy and MONEY ? Is just "air time"...

Did you notice how much the big budgets have dropped lately? (Passion of.... and Blair Witch have something in common: the marvelous marketing plan; whoa... is so .... controversial, so brutal, so... and so... just to get you in there ...and.... hehehe......pay for it!!!!!!!!!!!! ) Legal disclaimer: I am a big fan of Gibson, I own and I have watched over 50 times Braveheart!

Why (if all of the above are wrong) on earth such shows as reality shows (TV this time) have proliferated the way they did? Cheap and fast to produce the "air time" that needed be filled. Even on Discovery... (no offence to any bike lovers) I do not understand making a show specific about bike building. The “ideal program” should captivate a larger audience with subjects of general interest (within the boundaries of the program).
Yeah... I know.... define “general”!

If this IS the trend (not to mention the SEA of info on the net to explore and learn) who's got time for "bed time stories"? IF!... the “bed time stories” would be told the way they used to... I’d be happy to watch them again and again (as I do with My Fair Lady for ex)

Another one: (hehehe...) which one was first the chicken or the egg? Translation:
Have the lesser quality shows created a dumb-er audience or the dumb-er audience has favored the proliferation of today’s shows?

Am I really “loosing it” or did I just get the “hang of it”?

Enough ranting! Back to the subject: Is there a market that PAYS for DV originated program to have the extra expense associated with the use of a contraption such as imge converters? What shows?????????????

[Matt Brabender]

well if that's the question, then isn't it the case that those that are willing to pay for film looking dv, actually just take the extra step and pay for film?

I've seen plenty of pilots and shorts done that look like film, that get picked up and redone / go into production using film, but I cannot say I have seen something 'film looking' that isn't actually film (that has been bought by a network/company etc...)
so in that case, I say realism

[Dan Diaconu]

Originally Posted by Matt Brabender

well if that's the question, then isn't it the case that those that are willing to pay for film looking dv, actually just take the extra step and pay for film?

Nope. It is a steep price diff (imo) between using an image converter on mini DV cameras and shooting film (even 16mm). Hence the same question: if “his majesty-the budget” does not allow much... how much is too much? and what shows would have the budget for it?

Reality (thank heaven) is out of the question (too fast of a pace to set up shoots. Rehearse the action for framing and focus pull? A good joke at best!). Artistry in tech and info aired programs is not a must either. News? OOTQ! What else is left? Struggling independent festival-intended shorts. But they do not have any budget anyway. So... what’s left?

Well... if there is not much left, then the “mass hysteria” to get the “film look” must be an artificial fight against the current, wouldn’t it? I welcome ANY disagreement with the above. Is it actually easier than I think to shoot "that way"? What am I missing? Wake me up, please.

[Matt Ockenfels]

[QUOTE=Dominic Jones]A quote from said "in layman's terms, it's 15 percent brighter."

Hey, that's not stupidity, that's salesmanship!

Cheers,
-Matt

[Nick Hiltgen]

UMM, 15% brighter? The heck? So what happens when a film is shot in HD and then telecine'd. When it was shot it's got no lines but projected it has the same black bars on either side as "real" film, so is it brighter or darker? isn't it all about the shutter anyhow, I don't even know where to begin with something as silly as that.

As far as the running conversation, I think that Dan as long as you strive to watch interesting (non bubble gum for the brain stuff) there will always be a market for it, even if that market only consists of you.

Here's my take, if you strive to make everyone smarter you will fail, if you strive to make an audience think and change the way cinema is made you will fail. If you make the best product you can and it doesn't appeal to everyone, but you're proud of it, then you've succeded.

[Dan Diaconu]

<<<QUOTE=Nick Hiltgen>>>as long as you strive to watch interesting (non bubble gum for the brain stuff) there will always be a market for it, even if that market only consists of you.>>>/QUOTE<<<<
Define "interesting". The reason I have had the TV turned on lately, was to check the image converter (lol) For the same reason, over 6000 people must have missed "interesting" TV programs checking out Felix and other silly pictures on my site. ...Talk about "interesting" huh?

>>>>>if you strive to make everyone smarter you will fail<<<<<<<
Correct! But I feel less miserable than knowing and doing nothing! I have a lot to learn (who doesn't?) and I am happy!!! to have stumbled across this forum.

>>>>if you strive to make an audience think and change the way cinema is made you will fail>>>>
Right again, but I am not alone. Again, I feel better standing up for my beliefs than watch everything going down the drain with a smile..

>>>If you make the best product you can and it doesn't appeal to everyone, but you're proud of it, then you've succeeded.<<<
I do not know about that. I have had this kind of "success" before. Not appealing anymore. I’d like to see people happy and using the “instrument” I have made NOW, not "immortal" after I'm gone. I watched with tears in my eyes a private clip from Daves when he succeeded making his contraption (shaking a Fresnel). I am happy I made a difference.

[Charles Papert]

Thank you Dan for inviting me to comment on this back at the beginning, I didn't see this thread until now.

I think there are a few ideas going on in here--if I have it right, the main one is "is anything of quality being done in television?" along with "what is the correlation between the advent of digital video and the proliferation of reality/junk TV?" and a little bit of "is there call for the "film look" in this environment?"

I wish reality TV would crawl back in its hole also. On some level it's here to stay, but I also recognize that everything moves in trends and there will always be a desire to see scripted dramas stories as well.

The big issue is the shifting landscape of the structure of television. Not all that long ago, it was three networks, PBS and a handful of UHF stations competing for your attention. Now we have the "500 channel" reality, plus those shiny DVD's and videogames all fighting for the viewer's attention. Tivo was another nail in the coffin--now anyone can zap through commercials unseen, complicating the economics further.

I do believe that there are quality shows on television buried like shiny nuggets in the mud. In the past few years I've been focusing on pay-TV series more--HBO and Showtime have some really strong ones.

To attempt to bring some of the other issues presented here into focus, let's look at Fox's "Arrested Development". I believe this to be the best network half-hour comedy at current; it's shot on 24p HD in a psuedo-reality style (all handheld). As far as I'm concerned, it could be shot on DV, with or without ground glass devices, or film, or whatever. I'm all about the writing and performances with that show, and hardly notice the look (which is deliberately raw anyway). I had always thought that this was probably a relatively inexpensive show to make, but a friend at Fox told me recently that I was mistaken--between a large cast that is in nearly every episode and a hefty above-the-line (Ron Howard and Brian Grazer's participation insures this), it's actually a pretty expensive show. In light of that, the shooting format is almost irrelevant--the cost of HD vs film is a tiny fraction of the weekly budget (but in true modern economic terms, every below-the-line dime must be scrutinized and squeezed out).

So to try to understand what type of show would a) be originated on DV and b) also want to use a depth of field adaptor; hard to say. DV is considered too "lowbrow" a format for scripted entertainment, partially because of the longterm legacy issues (won't do well in the HDTV future), but it does thrive in the "basic cable" world of gardening/home remodeling/DIY type shows, none of which require a "filmlook". A while back I was contacted by a production person from MTV who told me that they were intending to shoot all of their "film" looking footage with a DVX100a/Mini35 combo from now on (and then I never heard from them again...)

[Dan Diaconu]

Charles, thank you for participation.

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

A while back I was contacted by a production person from MTV who told me that they were intending to shoot all of their "film" looking footage with a DVX100a/Mini35 combo from now on (and then I never heard from them again...)

Sad.
So... it THAT what triggered you to buy the mini35 or did you have it before that? (I know you got it not that long ago, two months???) Any paying shows done with it yet? Did you get yourself some lenses as well or you rent Zeiss when needed?

[Charles Papert]

Dan:

I've had my Mini35 for a good year now. I bought it for various reasons: wanted to use it for my projects and thought I could subrent it to a few rental houses, which I have been doing. Not sure if I will be able to pay it off entirely, might even sell it before too long, who knows. I have built some great mods for it, though (of which I will post pix in the near future).

There are a couple of projects HERE, several of which utilized the Mini35.

[Dan Diaconu]

Thanks for sharing Charles, the Undecided looks very good (overall; camera work, directed, DP, edited) Nice piece. The subject is... "subject to...." but for 48 h looks good. (two lenses?) I couldn't help noticing: you do not have any white hair yet!!!! Good for you. As for the rig... the non-laying-eggs-hen goes to... soup!(lol) Post some pix when you can...

[Charles Papert]

I can't remember which lenses we used on that piece--I had an assortment of 1st gen. Superspeeds that summer.

A few white hairs here and there--haven't started showing up in pictures yet, but it's just a matter of time!

[Brian Wells]

Hi,

If I may sound my thoughts. . .

As much as I appreciate (and mostly agree) with popular opinion that a well written series shot on film with professional actors carries a higher production value than a reality show shot on DV, I do think it's questionable whether they provide a higher entertainment value or not. That said, I prefer the former.

I think DV in television and movies is a great thing because it opens doors for us youngins' looking for work. Case in point? I'm 21 years old. Last year (when I was 20 years old) I worked as a location sound mixer on a nationally broadcast reality series and have subsequently been added to the IMDB. Would this have been possible ten years ago? I don't think so!!

Objectively, we need to look at what opportunities this 'revolution' brings instead of bemoaning the lack the quality entertainment. I'd say my mood is OPTIMISM. : )

Brian Wells

[Dan Diaconu]

http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/s1..._bankrupt.html
http://worldcadaccess.typepad.com/s1is/
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/p...507190315/1005