Motivate me please!

M

morisato

Active member
Hi. I was wondering if you guys can list features that have had a nationwide theatrical screening and was shot on prosumer cameras. This will help me realize that it's my technique that sucks and not because my gear doesn't meet the standards of film.
 
November and 28 Days Later are two that come to mind. November was shot on a DVX, and 28 Days Later on a XL1s. I'm sure there are more, but the names escape me right now.
 
DVX-shot films with a theatrical release:

Academy-award nominee "Murderball"

Mad Hot Ballroom

The Aristocrats

9 Songs

Open Water - PD150/VX2100

Spellbound - ? XL2?

Academy award nominee "Supersize Me" - VX2000?
 
David Jimerson said:
But none of those movies looks like it was shot on 35mm. Keep that in mind . . .
Click to expand...

Is there one not on the list that comes close?

I have to agree that Open Water was way too video looking. November and 28 Days Later were allright, but not close to looking like 35mm.
 
You need to realize that while you can emulate 35mm, you simply cannot replicate it.

If you really want the 35 look, shoot 35. That's just the name of the game.
 
I think Ivan Xtc and Bamboozled were shot on early dv cameras. Personally I would sacrifice film look for imagination any day. Digital allows me to do things that were very hard and impossible to do with 16mm(matte lines and grainy rear projection and very tedious limitations). Since we are talking about low budgets--that is what matters, not 35mm image quality(we have the luxury to bicker about that--unlike indie filmmakers 10-20 years ago). I'd be happy just to have 16mm quality in projection--as long as we know that digital works can be projected for an audience of 1 or 100--that is all that matters.

Plus--there is no way that all those low budget films that were shown in drive-ins and cheap theaters and festivals over the last 40 years were shot with 2006 A-Budget film stocks. Some look like they were scratched over a pencil. Yet people still watch them.


Film has the advantage of being a more natural process--a reflected image--but it is still just a technological tool. Its not the same as being a painter or sculptor--where nothing happens unless you do a lot of work(I dont mean abstract or jibberish art--but work based on a knowledge of nature like portraits or landscapes). To be a filmmaker, the very least you have to do is press a button and aim. Obviously there is a lot more to it--but its not the same as sculpting or painting unless you are greatly changing the content of the image(Lucas is right about film becoming a painterly medium thanks to digital but in most cases you have many painters working on the same canvas--at least in his case).

Digital rules for a low budget filmmaker if you lean towards Melies as opposed to the Lumieres. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top