video playback

[c.g._eads]

watching "Paparazzi" director's commentary (to all out there - watching a failed movie's commentary is sometimes more educational than watching a successful movie's commentary).

Interesting. The movie cost 7 million dollars and the director said that one of the things he had to give up because of the low budget was video playback.

The reason I thought this was interesting was because I thought video playback was pretty much standard procedure for movies budgeted even as low as 50 grand. I mean you're pouring 7 million dollars into a movie, wouldn't you want to know what you're getting before you move to the next shot? Can anybody shed some light on this for me?

c.g.

 

[J_Barnes]

Re: video playback

Video playback isn't always standard procedure. I read that Soderberg actually stopped using video assist because he started to see that his crew was concentrating on the video montiors more then the film camera.

If you're carrying video playback on a shoot, it adds an extra crewmember to setup and takedown the equipment, it adds a video tap, monitors, VTR deck, tape stock, equipment rack, stands, etc.

Films were made quite successfully for decades before video playback was invented. I personally don't like using it for my own stuff...video assist is okay, I just don't like the idea of stopping to review every shot.

 

[smkoch]

Re: video playback

I Remember in film school they would sometimes run a rca to a 13in monitor in the next room or off to the side for instructors. but since I've been making filming the one time is when I was doing camera for a persons short, and after ever 20 or so min of filmming they'd want to hook the camera to a monitor, rewind review the footage, rewind, review again. get another take, rewind. what a waste of time.