Artemis Roach
Bree
Dec 6 2012, 9:39pm
Views: 776
|
|
Agree on the twitchfilm article
|
|
|
I was - and remain - a skeptic about the technology, but the twitchfilm article laid it out very nicely.
What my concern is:
I agree that film technology in 1927 is inherently inferior to the digital camera technology of the 21st century.
Yet that old technology still has high artistic value.
Look at Pabst's "Pandora's Box" from 1929, where you see Louise Brooks looking as ravishing and beautiful as any woman ever has on a silver screen. The film grain, the soft lighting, the camera lens, the motion blur, Brooks' flawless creamy skin - the result is otherworldly dreamlike, beautiful and immaculate.
Time-travel daydreaming hypotheses: I'm wondering if Pabst was to frame Louise Brooks in close-up with a 48 FPS RED Epic, that all I'd be looking at would be the pores in her skin, the eyebrow hair out of place, maybe a hint of a zit, or even the make-up trying to mask that zit - and then I'm really taken out of the story. That's my worry. (For that matter, how does Galadriel's skin look?)
Nevertheless, I'll put my faith in PJ and cross my fingers the digital projector can handle the payload.
(This post was edited by Artemis Roach on Dec 6 2012, 9:46pm)
|
