Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Movies- Film vs video

pstall

By pstall,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

pstall Newbie

pstall

Posted
Posted

I'm kinda torn. Film to me gives a movie a more authentic look. Video looks to crisp at times and now with HD it gives strange color that I don't think adds to the overall movie.

It's almost like cd's for music. Sure you got more room to add songs but that compression sucks the ambience out of the song. Yeah vinyl is the daddy but I understand the need for portability.

Some tech is just not as good as some old stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cookinwithgas Veteran

cookinwithgas

Posted
Posted

I think that if HD video were around when Hitchcock was making movies, he would have used it.

You don't hear about many people wanting to shoot in 16mm instead of 35mm...

I appreciate directors who can make the mechanics of film, or the process used, work for them in telling their story. You used to be able to get away with a lot of things with film that you can't using video - but you can fix it all in post with video a lot easier.

Lord of the Rings is a great hybrid example of a movie that uses both technologies - shot on film, transferred to HD video for post (digital grading of environments a big part of that) and then back to film. The movie looks great and was put together with care.

Crap like Transformers is just hack directed, with lots of geeks sticking lots of cool stuff on the screen so you don't care. LOTR, for the most part, used the effects to enhance the story and draw you into the characters (although there were a few scenes that were quite over the top) - for example, the Rohirrim getting ready for their charge against the Orcs at Minas Tirith.

Legolas against the Oilphaunt was just retarded.

And yeah, nothing like HD sports - when they do closeups. I find that when for example, they show the whole line of scrimmage, the sampling seems to make people look a lot fuzzier than when the camera focuses on a single person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...