A smokestack stubbornly pierces the sky. Trains rumble by down below. Lights come on in the buildings as night falls. There is a man behind the camera, looking for an image -- of himself? ... See full summary »
This rap-punk-rock documentary tells the story of Iranian musician Shahin Najafi who is forced into hiding after hardline clerics issue a fatwa for his death, incensed by a rap song that ... See full summary »
Cameramen and women discuss the craft and art of cinematography and of the "DP" (the director of photography), illustrating their points with clips from 100 films, from Birth of a Nation to... See full summary »
As Rio de Janeiro took to the world stage with preparations for the 2014 FIFA World Cup and 2016 Summer Olympics, a community of self-described "urban Indians" organized to fight back ... See full summary »
Isabel is a maid, daughter of a former slave. Laura is a daughter of a politician. But they have something in common: they're going to marry in the same church and they don't. An unlikely ... See full summary »
Investigates the history, process and workflow of both digital and photochemical film creation. It shows what artists and filmmakers have been able to accomplish with both film and digital and how their needs and innovations have helped push filmmaking in new directions. Interviews with directors, cinematographers, colorists, scientists, engineers and artists reveal their experiences and feelings about working with film and digital. Where we are now, how we got here and what the future may bring.Written by
Identifies District 9 as being shot on the Sony F23. It was actually shot on Red One cameras. See more »
Since the late 1880s, visual artists and storytellers have used moving images to create amazing works. Movies have inspired us, thrilled us, and captured our imaginations. Film has helped us share our experiences and dreams. Photochemical film has been the exclusive format used to capture, project, and store moving images for over 100 years. It is only recently that new technology has emerged that is challenging film's place as the gold standard for quality and workflow. Digital ...
See more »
In 1990 I saw a piece of footage of something called "BETA 16". In short it was high grade (super-16) 16mm film transferred to BETACAM SP 3/4 inch video. It looked passable, though not quite professional enough to replace film with a video like medium.
I bring this up because way back in the 80s I knew that as a film student that video would have to replace film because film, simply put, was too bulky and didn't deliver immediate results to tweak shots. There was too much down time involved in getting canisters off to the lab for dailies the next day. It was way too much work.
Fast forward 15 years and the first digital "film" cameras come out, and films like "Star Wars the Phantom Menace" and the feature film of "The Wild Wild West" hit the screens using SONY's new digital camera technology. It had to happen. Even in the 70s and 60s you knew that the electronic medium needed to replace the bulky and expensive film technology at some point, no matter how good a filmic image was (or is).
Keannu Reeves explores the revolution that's taken place in the last 15 years, and still continues to take place to this day of the old tried and true 35mm camera verse the more versatile and less expensive (and less care intensive and attention needing) 35mm film cameras.
Opinions from film makers young and old alike, famous and not-so- famous are interviewed for their opinions on "film" technology, and how the advent of digital technology has revamped commercial film making.
The documentary is three years old as of this writing, and even when it was produced the arguments of film verse digital were already getting stale, and may seem a bit tired by the time anyone who reads my review (and who's never seen the doc). But the issues should prove interesting to anyone who's spent any time behind the camera.
Reeves produces a very interesting documentary on the short comings of the evolving medium, and keeps it strictly a matter of technology and presentation of content as the focus of this documentary.
To encapsulate; not only is digital technology more versatile, but it is simply better all around; the images are sharper, the medium is easier to manipulate in terms of both editing and other post work, and doesn't require that massive support apparatus that something like an Arri BLIII or Panaflex 35 require. Actual film offers a chemical representation of images, which, when projected at 24 or 25fps, deliver a moving image that closely approximates your eyes passive information intake mode. Digital cameras have finally been able to slow down their shutter speeds and record and deliver an image that approximates the same effect. As of this writing a 35mm or 65mm negative can still retain more information than a CDC, but it's only a matter of time before electronic image capture surpasses the photochemical process.
Again, Reeves documentary explains all, and does so with more interest than my review can give.
If you're an amateur or professional, and haven't seen it, check it out.
1 of 1 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this