Not at all, why do you think a lot of indy folks want those adapters to get that coveted "film look".
Yes but if you have $500,000 you wouldn't hire "most people". You'd hire an effects artist.
No but would you agree that a adapter adds to the look of the film? And props and locations can be had for cheap, hire stuntmen for actors and food has nothing to do with the look of the film. Props can be had for cheap. Metal airsoft guns run from $50 to $100 a pop.
Here's a solution, don't hire that many people. People believe I shot my last film for a large sum of money based solely on the amount of names involved. That's not true.
At no point did I say an adapter was needed. But it adds to the look and I think we all know that much.
You got the right idea.
LOL! Now that is a joke and worthy of a smilie.
Because they bought into the hype that adapters will make their videos look like films. Adapters just give you the means to include way too many unmotivated focus racks.
Unmotivated rack focus? Hush yo' mouth! That doesn't exist!
True but people have wanted DOF for a long time and now they have it. I have an adapter for my HV20 and I do like the image.
Absolute first thing I bought after the camera! (But then again we had everything else we wanted).
Really? Action films many times have a scene where some guy points a gun, the gun is in focus. He comes into focus he says some tough guy bull, cocks the gun he goes out of focus and the gun goes back in focus. Also why would blurring the background mean someone wouldn't have to deal with it? It's not like it's some kind of Criss Angel illusion. The background is still there and has to be dealt with. I'm sure a good DP would understand creative focusing and it's use.
Well thank you for that break down, but I'm sure EVERYONE knew I meant shallow DOF. All I'm saying is the tools are here and now Hollywood is working with the same gear we are. They may have more money but a lot of money goes into paying million dollar "talent" and having a bunch of people running around. Can you not make a good story with about five to ten people in a few locations and add a few video and sound pros to the mix? All that's needed is a great writer and director to pull it together.
Don't think anyone ever said a 35mm adapter was needed. I've shot two features without it but I see no reason not to have one if you can get it. But yes it does give video more of a more filmic look. I don't think I'm wrong here.
You don't know they're not using one, you simply know they aren't in the shots you saw. I plan to use my adapter for about 10% of the shots, mainly for exteriors and creative focusing, not for the whole flick.
I guess it is when you put it that way. But if you were to say having an adapter makes video look more like film, then NOT having an adapter will make video look LESS like film then you will be correct.
I believe I mentioned we'd only be using the adapter for about 10% of the film right?
versus the myth that somehow a sh*tty video will magically look like a real film if you shoot in 24p? I think most of us understand various "film looks" are based on various things including camera movement, lighting, etc.
I feel you.
No Mariachi was a fun and exciting action film that myself and many others have enjoyed. And I have no doubt if he shot Mariachi on film for $7000 he could do much more for $500,000. And if the studio doesn't reveal the price and no one is told, it could probably go to theaters and make a ton of money. Let him pick the crew, let him shoot and direct it and I bet it's hot. And Mariachi may not be an Oscar winner but come on, 90% of Hollywood films aren't. If "Epic Movie" got into theaters I'm sure a $500,000 RR film could and I bet he could talk Banderas, Danny Trejo and Cheech into taking a cut from the back end since he likes to use them so much.
Yes that was definitely a hot flick. As a matter of fact I still think everyone should see that film. That movie came out around the UPN era didn't it?
Think I'll go watch some Mariachi right now. (Or maybe I'll just work on my twilight fest script).
RR could definitely do this if he wanted to. So the question is why hasn't he put another movie in the can for $7k? Grindhouse had nearly a 70 million dollar production budget for two films that were throwbacks to movies that had zero budget. Sounds like a perfect time to go completely low rent, no budget, guerilla style but they didn't. Why not? RR didn't shoot Mariachi for $7k because he wanted to, he did it because that's all the money he had (and we'll just keep ignoring all the money spent by the studio for post).
I agree with you, but I'm just making the point if big Hollywood film are using the same things many of us are using, the only thing that separates many of us from them is the money and the names. Many people here are pros and could maybe make better films than Hollywood. And as far as I'm concerned El Mariachi is still one of my favorite action films and it only cost $7000 (minus post LOL). But even post can be done on many of our desktop computers. Wasn't "Apple Color" supposed to make color correction more simplistic? And didn't Star Wars use After Effects. Can't every Star Wars fan with a computer and a video camera make a lightsaber?
I think we talking about the same thing ultimately, just in different language. For me personally, I don't care that Crank 2 is using off the shelf HDV cameras or that Spike Lee used a VX1000. RED is busting down the doors of the camera business model set up by the likes of Arri and Sony, but I don't foresee a flood of high quality work coming from that and changing the face of the industry forever. It's not what gear you have to use it's what you do w/the gear you have.
Color is supposed to make CC affordable, not simplistic and how many Star Wars fans w/a computer and a video camera can make an original work of theirs as iconic as the films they are mimicking?