Why shallow dof? Why all the 35 adaptors? I don't get this...

I honestly wish I could stumble onto a trove of extremely cheap/free and small early 90's cameras though, I have a script that plain out requires some spastic handheld work with no rolling shutter, and any sort of aged tinge you could muster, as well as the body of the camera itself looking very retro; the script goes where a bunch of cameras will be used and other cameras will be seen by other cameras, and I really do want it to be very true so I pretty much just want to go all the way with a bunch of VHS cams. Sadly, I've searched my entire town and it seems no where has a plathora of these cameras, it seems they're still buried in people's basements.

But other than that, I really enjoy having resolution, I wish the 16:9 ratio was even wider (2K), I like a bit of depth of field, and I totally wish the aliasing issues were gone from my DSLR. After all, if you capture things in a way that is perfect for the cinema standard, you can always trash it up later if you want (running the footage through VHS, cropping it to a smaller ratio, adding noise, ect ect - basically Harmony Korine's neato Trash Humpers.) But I do agree that I'd simply find it so entirely fun to find an old VHS cam that really had some issues going on in terms of the colors and recording, when you know something is far from perfect, it tends to set you free a bit, somehow.

Honestly though, I think that filming standards really topped in the 90's - watch any Harmony Korine film, and his standard for cinema is pristine, all of his films would compete with any films seen in this decade - I think that films in this decade have gone over the top so severely trying to make things appealing and shiny that most actors now look greenscreened in because of such harsh backlights and such harsh facial lights, zombie films now look like rap videos, for example. My personal choices is a very soft, filled 90's look, to me, that's when films looked like real life, nothing more, nothing less, and very easy on the eyes. Even aspect ratios are getting plain silly, I personally enjoy 16:9 and 2K best, I do agree that a bit of rectangle somehow makes things easier on my eyes, but crazy ratios that are 5x longer than they are tall are just horrible to look at and accept. When it gets to that point, it doesn't even serve a purpose.
 
I honestly wish I could stumble onto a trove of extremely cheap/free and small early 90's cameras though, I have a script that plain out requires some spastic handheld work with no rolling shutter, and any sort of aged tinge you could muster, as well as the body of the camera itself looking very retro; the script goes where a bunch of cameras will be used and other cameras will be seen by other cameras, and I really do want it to be very true so I pretty much just want to go all the way with a bunch of VHS cams. Sadly, I've searched my entire town and it seems no where has a plathora of these cameras, it seems they're still buried in people's basements.

But other than that, I really enjoy having resolution, I wish the 16:9 ratio was even wider (2K), I like a bit of depth of field, and I totally wish the aliasing issues were gone from my DSLR. After all, if you capture things in a way that is perfect for the cinema standard, you can always trash it up later if you want (running the footage through VHS, cropping it to a smaller ratio, adding noise, ect ect - basically Harmony Korine's neato Trash Humpers.) But I do agree that I'd simply find it so entirely fun to find an old VHS cam that really had some issues going on in terms of the colors and recording, when you know something is far from perfect, it tends to set you free a bit, somehow.

Honestly though, I think that filming standards really topped in the 90's - watch any Harmony Korine film, and his standard for cinema is pristine, all of his films would compete with any films seen in this decade - I think that films in this decade have gone over the top so severely trying to make things appealing and shiny that most actors now look greenscreened in because of such harsh backlights and such harsh facial lights, zombie films now look like rap videos, for example. My personal choices is a very soft, filled 90's look, to me, that's when films looked like real life, nothing more, nothing less, and very easy on the eyes. Even aspect ratios are getting plain silly, I personally enjoy 16:9 and 2K best, I do agree that a bit of rectangle somehow makes things easier on my eyes, but crazy ratios that are 5x longer than they are tall are just horrible to look at and accept. When it gets to that point, it doesn't even serve a purpose.

Sounds like a really cool idea. What about using one VHS camera as a reference for how to trash the HD footage to get the look you want?
 
I love my HPX170, there's no way I'd put a DoF adapter on it. You should go with your own style and instincts. How about these Directors who want to "manufacture" camera shake, it's a similar mindset. Some of the DSLR stuff is really bad, and would have been much better if only they'd used a "camcorder", but if you've got nothing to say ... you've got to find a way to make it look important. Take music videos, they're basically all ****, so there's a great deal of effort put into trying to gloss over that fact.
 
I love my HPX170, there's no way I'd put a DoF adapter on it. You should go with your own style and instincts. How about these Directors who want to "manufacture" camera shake, it's a similar mindset. Some of the DSLR stuff is really bad, and would have been much better if only they'd used a "camcorder", but if you've got nothing to say ... you've got to find a way to make it look important. Take music videos, they're basically all s**t, so there's a great deal of effort put into trying to gloss over that fact.

I would say that DoF is an artistic choice. I use it as a way to separate the object i want my audience to focus on, from a distracting background. Not to say that I use it all the time, and I don't, but in visual storytelling its a tool. This isn't new to anyone. Its been said here on the boards for a while. Basically what I'm trying to say is that you can get shallow DoF on an HPX170, and deep DoF on an HDSLR. Its not just the camera, its a variety of factors.

Good example: the bank robbery opening to The Dark Knight (
). It was shot on the film IMAX format...which is 15 perf horizontal 70mm film, and it has deep depth of field. Its a variety of factors that contribute to it. You tell 50 cinematographers to light the same scene and your going to get 50 different opinions (everything from lighting choices and positions, to camera choices, to lens choices, etc,)
 
Back
Top