David Fincher on HD with "Zodiac"

Fincher just gets it. Completely.

I know that I'm constantly rolling now, both in P2 and XDHD. Even during rehearsals, there are thousands of potential moments that are lost in conventional celluloid production.

Picture is up.

e
 
goose said:
With the recent conversion of David lynch stating he will never go back to the film medium,the war is on with the purist.Some very grand points fincher discussed here.Less crew and saving 30 mins per dayloading a MAG up among others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNCQIQ2wXxk
Click to expand...

I just saw "Inland Empire" and I have to say that it looked like avante garde a$$.

Terribly muddy image quality, but the movie was meant to feel like a nightmare, and there's no doubting that the PD-150 delivered the harsh image like no other.

I hope he's through with his DV experiments.
 
Yeah, you can hardly blame digital for the way Inland Empire looked, or for the way Open Water looked for that matter. I don't think even Sony has suggested it would be a good idea to shoot a feature on a PD-150 or VX2000.
 
It's surprising he didn't at least go with a dvx. Man, the image on wide shots was just way too soft...even in the back of the theatre!

I guess he wanted the ultimate lowlight 1/3" performance.:huh:

You're right, it's certainly not a good example of what even 60i dv is capable of.
 
I dunno if it was the theater or what, but I thought Zodiac looked extremely fat and overall underlit. I just thought it looked remarkably uninteresting and...flat. When he said they did not use a film light for 12 weeks, I believe it.

I thought it might be the theater, but it was a big, new super-multiplex, so I assume the projection is really good...

Is it just me?
 
Mark Harris said:
I thought Zodiac looked extremely fat and overall underlit. I just thought it looked remarkably uninteresting and...flat.
Click to expand...

I just saw zodiac two days ago. I dont agree that it was underlit, but I thought it was strange looking. Some times I actually wondered if it was intentional to make the blacks muddy like a 60's 70's film print might look when underexposed. But then a scene would come along with rich black night shadows.

My biggest problem with the digital aspect of the whole thing, is in the ultra wide city scape shots. The resolution, even on the viper, is still not there to handle the detail of hundreds of tiny windows on hundreds of skyscrapers.

Maybe it wasnt a problem, just a bit of a disapointment. I was hoping not to see that little digital twitch in certain vertical lines.

I am really glad that people are making digital movies. There are some things that film still can do that digital cant. But I am starting to wonder if the mass audience cares, can tell, or even wants to be able to tell for that mater.
 
redwhiteblack said:
I just saw zodiac two days ago. I dont agree that it was underlit, but I thought it was strange looking. Some times I actually wondered if it was intentional to make the blacks muddy like a 60's 70's film print might look when underexposed.
Click to expand...

That might be it, but it did not seem a consistent choice to me if it was.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top