| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| zambi Senior Member 1451 Posts 3/10 |  Posted - Dec 24 2012 : 2:00AMLot of gonzo companies shoot scenes on video then transfer the video to film. Often the results look worse with washed out colors and dark spots. Looks a lot worse than if they had shot on real film but of course real film is more expensive. So why do it all? Is there some cost benefit or is it totally for artistic reasons?  [Link] |
| mharris127 Senior Member 1844 Posts 8/09 | Posted - Dec 24 2012 : 4:31AM The defects on screen you are noticing is a combination of cheap equipment, poor lighting and lack of skill by the videographer. Transfer to film is not a factor in this case, if the transfer were done correctly you would notice almost no difference between the master disk and the film copy.  [Link] |
| RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06 | Posted - Dec 24 2012 : 8:29PM [Link] |
| ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Dec 24 2012 : 8:50PM [Link] |
| zambi Senior Member 1451 Posts 3/10 | Posted - Dec 25 2012 : 12:13AM For example, most of the gonzo companies used to all have that live video look. Now they all seem to be going for this film look. And like someone above said the quality varies a lot. I'm pretty sure that look doesn't come directly from the camera used by comes from post-production. And like someone above said bad lighting is often the most notably problem. The resolution looks reduced also. [Link] |
| Rod Member 908 Posts 8/10 | Posted - Dec 25 2012 : 7:36AM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |
