 
|
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 |
84.169.229.216
In Reply to: Re: Harry Potter and the Gobelet of Fire---- posted by Analog Scott on April 12, 2006 at 09:36:34:
Ha-ha!Well I meant with " shit " a big commercial product, that was more on the lovely side...From me.
I do not know if it was shot on digital, but many film are done that way now and even when shot on real film, many are digitally proceed in the final stage.
I meant the digital effect, I did not go in details for this film because I though nobody here would care!
The same was meant fo K-K, not the film but the effect, the trickery if you want.As for digital versus celluloid, it is a very long subject, each of the proceding has his advantage.
For me, it is of course, the old fashion way I pretend to like much more.
Follow Ups:
"Ha-ha!
Well I meant with " shit " a big commercial product, that was more on the lovely side...From me."Check the quotation marks and you will see that "shit" isn't isolated in my post. I was asking what your statement meant not what that word meant.
"I do not know if it was shot on digital, but many film are done that way now and even when shot on real film, many are digitally proceed in the final stage."
Digitizing film is a very differnt thing than shooting straight on digital. When done well you can't tell the difference between diitally scanned film image and the original. OTOH the digital cameras are still far from film quality.
"I meant the digital effect,"
Digital in film has any number of effects depending on what is being done digitally.
" I did not go in details for this film because I though nobody here would care!"Then why post at all?
"The same was meant fo K-K, not the film but the effect, the trickery if you want."
But much of what you see in King Kong is done without any digital processing. It does not look like it was shot on digital where as the last two Harry Potter movies do. You can tell the difference can't you?
"As for digital versus celluloid, it is a very long subject, each of the proceding has his advantage.
For me, it is of course, the old fashion way I pretend to like much more."
The only advantage I have ever seen in digital was only an advantage if one is doing forensic documantation in very low light. Ugly is ugly. Digital motion photography is ugly. I am sure it will get better but for now no thank you.
No I did not. I understood it and gave you an answer.
Well I read you can ( see the difference ) It was on " Cahiers du Cinema ) certainly the world best or near mag on films.
Because of you, obviously...
As for digital, no one of us needs to argue.
"No I did not."I suppose not now that Audiophilander made it clear that his "mistake" was actually deliberate.
" I understood it and gave you an answer."
You may have understood the question, you did not give me an anaswer to the qustion asked.
"Well I read you can ( see the difference ) It was on " Cahiers du Cinema ) certainly the world best or near mag on films."
Sorry patrick, I just don't understand what this is supposed to mean.
"Because of you, obviously...
As for digital, no one of us needs to argue."
Not really sure what you mean here either. It does seem you have a lot of misunderstandings about digital in film. There cetainly is plenty to discuss and even debate on the subject but it is futile if you have such basic misundrstandings about the technology.
Hello,
Getting too complicated!
Letīs meet another day on another theme.
Happy Eastern!
"Hello,
Getting too complicated!"The meaning of one senence that you posted has become too complicated? Um er ok.....
"Letīs meet another day on another theme."
To bad, this could have been a good one.
"Happy Eastern!"
I'm more Western.
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 ]
