I suppose that depends on the viewer. My goal with filmmaking is to make pieces I'm proud of, that say the things I want to say by painting the most beautiful and visually superior pictures possible that I'm capable of. It's much less important if they rake in $200 million at the box office or have "widespread appeal." Distribution isn't even necessarily a good thing - bad movies make all sorts of money all of the time! I'm sure there are plenty of people rolling in the dough because of it, but I don't aspire to be a part of that.jamestmather said:
, and though I'm sure someone somewhere will tell you that was all part of the master plan, I can't even sit through a repeat viewing without getting completely distracted and taken out of the moment. So yes, even with amazing films, something as basic as "noise in the shadows" can make a big difference. Or it does for me, anyway. The footage I saw from the HVX at RESFest (and I realize this was completely preliminary, though one would certainly presume it's only going to get better by the release, not worse) looked VERY clean, with lots of latitude and detail in both highlight and shadow areas. It's just a tool, but a better tool than I've currently got, which brings me that much closer to being able to create the images I really want to create.You're right, and that's another reason the HVX is so exciting. It's not DV. It's not film, either (see below), but it's a much bigger step closer to bridging the gap, and although it remains to be seen, it may even prove to be a completely suitable replacement for film on just about anywhere but the big screen. That kind of freedom has never been readily available before; certainly not for the cost.jamestmather said:
No, it's not... and thank god for that. Even though it still has many of the problems associated with video (reduced latitude, larger depth of field), it also has numerous advantages (instant retrieval/playback of footage, no costs for stock, developing, or processing, and the ability to actually see exactly WHAT you're shooting WHILE you're shooting - what a concept!) that make it a highly viable alternative. Technology is only improving, and "digital" or "HD" is only getting better. Let's not forget that the highest grossing movie of this year was shot on HD and there are scores more to come (including next year's massive "Superman"). We're on a cusp of great change in the filmmaking industry, and change doesn't always settle well with everyone. But whether or not "digital" takes over entirely (as it has done in the realm of audio and large parts of the still image market), it has unquestionably opened up many doors for those of us who don't have access to millions of dollars with which to make films. Because that technology is getting better (and the HVX is a great case in point), it's an exciting time to be an independent filmmaker.jamestmather said:
Yeah, I think you're absolutely right here. And I'm really glad we have a forum to come to where we can look at these things from different angles and discuss them with each other in a civilized manner. It is definitely a fantastic outlet. I suppose my line of thinking is simply that we are filmmakers, and film is a VISUAL medium. While better equipment will not automatically make for better pictures, it does allow for a greater *capacity* in which to be able to improve the quality of those pictures. Maybe I do just approach the medium differently than a lot of people, but if story was really the only thing that mattered to me, I'd be writing books instead. :lipsrsealJosh_Boelter said:
Zig_Zigman said:
EXACTLY! Exactly my point as well! My personal filmmaking tools have always sucked! I'm a lighting cameraman with a passion for pretty pictures . . . FINALLY, I'll have a decent brush to paint them with!Haakon said:
