 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
58.169.20.147
In Reply to: RE: Are some movies better in B&W and non HD? posted by RedGrant on May 05, 2011 at 10:31:37
.
Edits: 02/27/18Follow Ups:
"You also need to respect the director/cinematographer."
Critic and writer Kim Newman described Vampyr's style as closer to the experimental features such as Un chien andalou then a "quickie horror film" made after the release of Dracula (1931).[11] Dreyer originally was going to film Vampyr in what he described as a "heavy style" but changed direction after cinematographer Maté showed him one shot that came out fuzzy and blurred.[1][12] This washed out look was an effect Dreyer desired, and he had Maté shoot the film through a piece of gauze held three feet (.9 m) away from the camera to re-create this look.[12] For other visuals in the film, Dreyer found inspiration from the fine arts.[1] Actress Rena Mandel, who plays Gisèle, said that Dreyer showed her reproductions of paintings of Francisco Goya during filming.[1] In Denmark, a journalist and friend of Dreyer, Henry Hellsen wrote in detail about the film and the artworks it appeared to draw on.[1] When being asked about the intention of the film at the Berlin premiere, Dreyer replied that he "had not any particular intention. I just wanted to make a film different from all other films. I wanted, if you will, to break new ground for the cinema. That is all. And do you think this intention has succeeded? Yes, I have broken new ground".[5] The filming of Vampyr was completed the middle of 1931.[7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vampyr
Edits: 05/06/11
"In real life some people are pimply and sweaty..."
...and in real life, we don't have unicorns or dragons.
My point is actors are speaking something important, I don't really need to see the pimples, moles to appreciate it, it's actually distracting.
In music, it would be called 'noise', or 'pop', or 'crackle'.
Now, sweat can be a part of acting, but not always.
> > > My point is actors are speaking something important, I don't really need to see the pimples, moles to appreciate it, it's actually distracting.
In music, it would be called 'noise', or 'pop', or 'crackle'. < < <
No Noise, pop, and crackle would be the equivalent of Edge enhancement or compression artifacts. Assuming a good master and transfer, HD beats SD every time. I want it to look like the original film.
Do you prefer the sound of cassettes over a good LP?
Jack
dirty?
HD merely reproduces more perfectly what is there. Film is FAR more revealing than what we had in video and DVD until the advent of HD and BR.
HD is nothing but media. When someone processes the image just to show what HD can do, you get dreck. Once we finally get past that adolescent "Wow!" stage it will perhaps become just another good tool. Today most of what you see in HD is made to look more beautiful than life.
go to theaters, anymore? Trust me, HD & B-R D are very, very close wherein the "regular" isn't even close. First off, we'd have to agree that the goal is to imitate as closely as possible the film experience.
Given the tools we have today, any originally gray-scale B&W film can be "enhanced", pulling its dynamic range wider. I think I saw one film like that, with the degree of contrast that struck me as outside the typical film realm.
One might say the films used in the forties and fifties were deficient in their ability to preset the real scale... hence we should try to "improve" them. Here we have the ghost of colorization raising its head.
"No Noise, pop, and crackle would be the equivalent of Edge enhancement or compression artifacts."
No, technically speaking, audio equivalent of Edge enhancement or compression artifacts would be dolby NR, and DBX 'breathing'
Btw. I have no use for all of those above.
Cinematic, (meaning artistic, not technical) equivalent of "pops, crackles" would be excessive use of special effects as 'eye candy', or some bizzare "art for art's sake" use of weird photographic angles, or too much and inappropriate 'rapid cut' editing, plus too much artificial lighting to make sure audience can see as much as accurately possible of the whole scene, in clinical detail.
Please notice Mike Figgis, the director of "Leaving Las Vegas", emphasized diffused lighting so that the audience can't see everything in clinical detail, that's right! He deliberately obscured the detail so as to not to distract the audience.
Now, contrast this with typical banal 60's studio movies, and notice how much 'fluff' one can see that doesn't do anything with story telling.
"Do you prefer the sound of cassettes over a good LP?"
Actually my ideal choice is 15ips 2track, live recording, after that 7 1/2 ips 2 track, 4 track, and 3 3/4 ips 4 track, and then comes totl vintage 70's cassette decks. That's right, I actually prefer totl 70's cassette deck over 80's cassette decks in general, they have very diffused sound that I really dig.
Btw. I only use LP to make my own dub. Cannot stand 'pops', and 'crackles', but can stand the 'hiss' within reason.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
