If you have a topic you'd like to discuss or questions for Roger, please post them here. You must be a registered member to post in this forum. After registering, please await notification from the board of your activation.
Roger wrote:A digital camera does not light the shot any more than it can tell you where to put the camera or how to frame the image. And the idea that a shot can be 'fixed' in post is absurd.
Now, it is possible to do a lot in CG, almost anything, if you have the time and money. The image can be completely replaced and formed anew just as if it were motion capture material for an animated film. But this is all quite different from supposing that the Red Camera or the Alexa can shoot the film for you. Perhaps I am old fashioned but I still believe that shooting a film which resonates with the viewer requires a human component!
Greg Toland was a master at manipulation of the image using glass shots, split screen etc. etc. but imagine what he might have done with digital tools! The question whether digital is 'better' than film is not of primary importance and, besides that, I believe it to have been answered. What is important now is to discuss how these new tools can be used to make more interesting and visually stimulating 'films'.
As to film's 'unique look'. I believe that to be bogus too. I am certain that it is entirely possible to manipulate an image captured by the Alexa that would pass as one taken from a film negative. All that is required is some slight defocusing, a constriction of the colour space and the addition of digital grain. By suggesting that the 'unique look' of film owes more to the properties of film emulsion than to the cinematographers who created the imagery does a great disservice.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests