the HVX-200 will make you and all your celebrity friends look bad, I promise

That's actually a very interesting article; HD definitely has its flaws. Without high production value (lighting, makeup) a good film (in SD of course) can turn out pretty bad in HD. Unless you're shooting nature, or a high budget film, or maybe sports, there really isn't any need for HD if you think about it. Id say for shots full of action HD is great...that way everything looks sharp. Just my cents. Not bashing the HVX by no means, hehe, but this is a take on HD I haven't put alot of thought into.
 
MSNBC (don't ask me why I was watching that channel) had a report on that topic a week or so ago. Hilarious part was they kept trying to show what people's faces looked like in HD compared to SD. Since the report was not being broadcast in HD....
 
Interesting article. HD does reveal more than people expect.

The Tonight Show with Jay Leno had to completely revamp its set (which cost muco dinero) after switching to HD because the old set looked cheap.

I've noticed that Conan O'Brien looks pretty rough in HD. He's got some serious bags under his eyes. :shocked:
 
There was a little doc about horror movie vixens where one vixen in particular lamented over having to spend another 250,000 on "work" because of how video and hd made her look... with the advent of mini dv and most lower budget movies using them and not 16mm, she opted to spend the dough to keep looking her best. Sad, but interesting on how the different mediums make you look. I hate how I look in all of them, so there!

-RC
 
They're worried about what they look like in Hi-Def, but aren't worried about what they look like on a 50-foot movie screen?
 
Dont you jus love actors and actresses?

..complaining because you can see a small wrinkle on their face...

thats kinda pathetic.
 
200-celebmakeup.jpg


there...now we may proceed with hi-def.
 
Yeah, but film makes you look silky and smooth, so looking silky and smooth on a 50 foot screen often times raises your self esteem level. I just finished shooting a film in High Def, and it was a huge biatch. Shooting the guys was fine, but one of the women had mild scarring from when she was a child that was not visible to the naked eye - It came out gang busters on the HD, and made it look like her face was a jig-saw puzzle. I had to spend about an hour with her in a make-up chair, and then I had to re-light the whole scene. Every day after that was like pulling teeth, she wanted to review all dailies etc. If we had shot film, the time it saved us would have made up the cost difference.

As with any tool, each has their place. Some are better for certain things than others. If you want a film where your actors look beautiful, HD isn't the easiest option, nor is it always the best. Making your actors look beautiful often times looks artificial in HD, etc. etc.

I'm trying to open peoples minds that HD and Film are not at war with each other nor should they be. They're both great for different things. Water Color and Oil Painting are both still in use. Why can't we all just get along? Who is with me?

Film and Digital, together forever.
 
HD is not sperading in the EU so fast, but I am looking forward to it. hopefully this is not my problem,(it is the actor's), but I am sure they and the make-up artist will find a good way to solve it. but a bit out of focus or blur and roto, can also help.
 
I think by the time most Hollywood feature films hit the theatres, they've already been processed, filtered, and retouched enough to make Ed Asner looks sexy.

OTOH HDTV footage is done quick and cheap, revealing celebs in all of their wrinkled, sagging, faded glory without any artificial enhancements (other than the silicone and botox they bring with 'em).

Overall, I love seeing the beautiful people joining the rest of us ugly trolls.

Vanity, vanity, all is vanity. :grin:
 
i remember seeing the movie "saved" in high def at my friend's parents house. they have a very nice pad in Orange county, complete with a "movie room", huge screen etc...

so actually seeing makeup on the actresses' faces was pretty hilarious- raises a lot of issues on continuity because pimples change from day to day.:laugh:
 
David Jimerson said:
They're worried about what they look like in Hi-Def, but aren't worried about what they look like on a 50-foot movie screen?
Click to expand...
Production Design, Make-up (lots of) and "Film Look" non-affordable to everyone, until now...
 
what ever happened to the school of thought that says get the best image you can, then tweak it in post. Skin too harsh? Soften it up with some blur. These articles have been coming out for awhile but they don't have much validity. People are just obsessed with celebrities looking more like them. So the articles continue to be written.
 
I'm trying to open peoples minds that HD and Film are not at war with each other nor should they be. They're both great for different things. Water Color and Oil Painting are both still in use. Why can't we all just get along? Who is with me?

Film and Digital, together forever.[/QUOTE]


A noble cause, profnoxin. However, I think that a lot of people can afford both water color and oils. A lot of people can afford HD, but can't afford film.

The fight for HD seems to be one for democracy. The fight for film is one for status quo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top