|
|
Post by Lokifan on Oct 4, 2013 2:52:05 GMT
Didn't they use 16mm for the film segments? Most shows of that era did...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 4, 2013 9:44:00 GMT
Didn't they use 16mm for the film segments? Most shows of that era did... It is still used today for TV, although it appears that it is being gradually replaced by 35mm film. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 4, 2013 15:14:38 GMT
Didn't they use 16mm for the film segments? Most shows of that era did... It is still used today for TV, although it appears that it is being gradually replaced by 35mm film. I'm a little surprised any of them still use film... |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 4, 2013 16:52:23 GMT
It is still used today for TV, although it appears that it is being gradually replaced by 35mm film. I'm a little surprised any of them still use film... Cost of a new digital studio film camera is around £50,300, cost of a 16mm film camera is about £2000 for a second hand camera in good condition. (Neither price includes the equipment needed for post-production and editing). In other words it is still cheaper to use a 16mm camera and convert it to digital, than it is to buy digital cameras. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Oct 4, 2013 16:55:52 GMT
Geez, 2000 pounds? Anyone want to buy my old Bolex 16? Or the Chinon Super 8? Or the Kodak Dual 8? Going cheap!  |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 4, 2013 17:00:49 GMT
I'm a little surprised any of them still use film... Cost of a new digital studio film camera is around £50,300, cost of a 16mm film camera is about £2000 for a second hand camera in good condition. (Neither price includes the equipment needed for post-production and editing). In other words it is still cheaper to use a 16mm camera and convert it to digital, than it is to buy digital cameras. but how much does it cost per year for the film? and why are you comparing the cost of a new digital camera to the cost of a used film camera? granted, it may be the economics of them already having film cameras, but if they are upgrading their cameras, wouldn't they upgrade to a new camera? and isn't $50,000 for a camera kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the million a year they are paying for an actor? Check that: we ARE talking about TV studios, right? I would have thought most of them would have upgraded from film back in the 90s, if not earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 4, 2013 17:12:47 GMT
isn't $50,000 for a camera kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the million a year they are paying for an actor? For a major motion picture studio then yes, it is pocket money*. However 16mm film continues to be used for TV productions, as the newer film stock can be converted to 35mm quality without much trouble. It is difficult to get prices for brand new 16mm film cameras as the places that sell them are part of the movie industry, and don't usually advertise the prices for their movie-quality cameras to the general public. Probably in the knowledge that the general public could never afford them and a company wanting to make say a training video would simply hire one for a few days. To put this in context a single movie quality digital camera probably costs more than replacing all the cameras Mythbusters currently own with new models would. (*Actors these days don't get paid as much as you think. The days of actors being able to demand millions and a private jet are gone. Robert Downey Jr earned a huge amount of money for the Avengers not through wages, but because he was given a percentage of the films profits - something that is starting to become more common with the big name actors.) Movie quality cameras are not usually required for TV, or for low budget films that have little or no CGI. For the blockbusters such equipment makes sense, as the higher quality works a hell of a lot better with the expensive CGI. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 4, 2013 17:19:17 GMT
isn't $50,000 for a camera kind of a drop in the bucket compared to the million a year they are paying for an actor? For a major motion picture studio then yes, it is pocket money*. However 16mm film continues to be used for TV productions, as the newer film stock can be converted to 35mm quality without much trouble. It is difficult to get prices for brand new 16mm film cameras as the places that sell them are part of the movie industry, and don't usually advertise the prices for their movie-quality cameras to the general public. Probably in the knowledge that the general public could never afford them and a company wanting to make say a training video would simply hire one for a few days. To put this in context a single movie quality digital camera probably costs more than replacing all the cameras Mythbusters currently own with new models would. (*Actors these days don't get paid as much as you think. The days of actors being able to demand millions and a private jet are gone. Robert Downey Jr earned a huge amount of money for the Avengers not through wages, but because he was given a percentage of the films profits - something that is starting to become more common with the big name actors.) Movie quality cameras are not usually required for TV, or for low budget films that have little or no CGI. For the blockbusters such equipment makes sense, as the higher quality works a hell of a lot better with the expensive CGI. I was basing the cost of an actor on what the Gosselins stopped earning when their "john and Kate plus 8" world fell apart. did you post this before I made the edit that I thought we were talking about TV? |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Oct 4, 2013 22:39:54 GMT
Monty Python often used "Super 8" Film material, in some cases even ordinary consumer material with poor colours. I guess they liked to use lightweight consumer cameras rather than bulky camera equipment fooling around. All studio takes are of a very high quality but most of their takes on the street or in the woods are of a pretty poor quality, you can often see the edges of the film pictures in the corners of the screen.
Nowadays, most ordinary TV productions are made with digital HD cameras, especially reality shows. But the expensive commercials and blockbuster movies are still made on real film. Especially skin colours look much better when captured on film, especially in natural light environments. Also night scenes are taken with full light but special colour filters and greater shutter speeds. Digital videos tend to look odd or fuzzy with low contrast.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 6, 2013 10:22:32 GMT
There are still some people making Film on FILM....
There is some unimportant film makers prize awarded each year to certain catagoriesw, and I think they still celebrate black-and-white....
Just why I dont know.
And on that subject, what with the Black?....
Modern films, why is it that some of them are shot in semi-darkness where you just cant see a bloody thing anyway?....
Does it HAVE to be that dark?....
Its gloomy in there, we get the idea, now can we please see a bit of the action without straining eyesight.............
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Oct 6, 2013 11:51:58 GMT
And on that subject, what with the Black?.... Modern films, why is it that some of them are shot in semi-darkness where you just cant see a bloody thing anyway?.... Does it HAVE to be that dark?.... Its gloomy in there, we get the idea, now can we please see a bit of the action without straining eyesight............. Semi-darkness is a method to conceal cheap FX. For example, the Next generation Enterprise TV series is very dark. You would expect that they have invented bright artificial lighting in the future but the TV series is rather dark everywhere. They use that to disguise cheap mockups and do cheap special effects with ordinary TV gear. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 6, 2013 12:23:46 GMT
TNG wasn't dark, nor were the sets 'cheap' - most of them were originally built for Star Trek the Motion Picture* so were movie quality. In fact this seems to be the reason why TNG onwards had a tradition of building their standing sets to movie standards.
Some of the swing sets did tend to be filmed rather darkly - especially the cave set. While this was partly down to the fact that it would look fake if brightly lit, it was also a artistic choice because the set was usually meant to stand in for part of a planet where the drama was taking place. This was to contrast with the (usually) brightly lit bridge sets. The crew quarters were usually filmed with less light, but then this was because they are living quarters and the reduced lighting was meant to give the impression that this was someone's 'home' rather than work station.
The lighting for TNG sets was reduced for Generations, something that was commented and complained about. This was, again, an artistic choice although it did help to hide the state of the carpet on the bridge set - The carpet had to be replaced after a year of filming, but they didn't do this for Generations as they started filming almost as soon as they'd finished the last season.
Films might be filmed more darkly than TV shows because they are screened on a big screen. If the movie is too bright you'd blind the audience on a big screen, as well as possibly risking loosing the immersion as if the screen is too bright it will reveal the entire room and everyone in it.
(*The officers quarters set used on TNG was the same set, slightly redressed, used in TMP as Admiral Kirks quarters. Ironically TNG sets ended up being used for the later films with TOS cast - with the lighting reduced to try and make this less obvious. Likewise the bridge set for the Enterprise 1701 ended up being reused for almost every Federation Bridge seen in TNG, DS9 and Voy, but again with different lighting to try and hide that you were looking at the exact same set - or to hide the fact that there was only one or two people on set when the Captain is sitting there talking on the big screen. After all a full view of the bridge should show at least six people there including the Captain - so that's five extras they'd have to dress up and pay for. Much quicker and easier to just show the Captain.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Oct 6, 2013 16:20:07 GMT
I found this & thought of you all. Hope you enjoy it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Oct 6, 2013 17:19:17 GMT
Actually, I'm with SD on this one. I'll even go one further...
Why, in most of the comic book films, are the characters almost always dressed in black?
X-men, Batman, Superman--their "new" looks almost always are so dark they almost disappear. After all, their source material was four color wonders of the books--why not SOME color to make them stand out?
I get the idea that there's an art school somewhere that says "Black is cool and sophisticated---anything else is garish".
And when they get in a dark room during the tiresome shaky camera fight scene, it tends to bore me because it's so dim and fast that I have no reference to stay involved in the staging.
I bet it irks some big wig that they have to paint the Hulk green...
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Oct 6, 2013 18:49:51 GMT
For Batman, it's changed over the years between all mediums as to whether or not the dominant color in his outfit is black or blue. Complicating factors further is that up until a mere 15 years ago (give or take), the printing technology used in comic books (including the ink, the paper, and the presses) was such that large swaths of black would frequently wind up rendered as being blue but with thick black borders; as a result, one would have to look at how each individual colorist handled him.
With the X-Men, I recall hearing that there were concerns with how the traditional blue & yellow tights would wind up looking on the action figures and other proposed merchandise for the movie franchise, and so black leather outfits were selected for the first movie; the remaining movies apparently just went with it.
Superman was supposedly affected by a back-room decision to make the film dark in keeping with the recent Batman movies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Oct 6, 2013 19:37:56 GMT
Yep. Thanks for reinforcing my point. The powers that be think "Dark is cool, and Black is dark--so let's change it."
Seen the new Robocop? Black, not silver. Oooh, how original!
It's just the style of the day. Hopefully, styles will change and the next reboot won't make everything look like an overcast day in Iceland.
Heck, back in the '60s, it was silver jumpsuits and gold lame miniskirts...
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Oct 6, 2013 21:26:12 GMT
right, so you can't do that, it'll look like the 60s.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Oct 8, 2013 6:47:38 GMT
Plus which actor is going to be the men in Tights, TIGHT tights......
Black leather is the Biker look, cool, menacing, but actually quite friendly when you get to know them?...
And on that, the "Dark secrets", that Batman isnt quite as "Nice" as we first believed, the dark Knight rises, Spiderman is a bit of a bad boy on the side, what next, superman is transsexual and goes by the name of Mandy at weekends?...
|
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Oct 12, 2013 11:53:49 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Oct 12, 2013 12:44:33 GMT
Green Lantern will be gay, but was never written as such until this new series comes out (no pun intended).
Northstar was originally just written as part of Alpha Flight - in the Marvel Universe the Canadian equivalent of the Avengers. While Wolverine was also part of Alpha Flight (when he first joined the X-Men Professor Xavier recruited him directly from Alpha Flight, although it wasn't named at that point) the group was simply written for that story, and the only character who had any real background was their leader James Hudson aka Guardian. When Marvel decided to give Alpha Flight its own comic - this was during the first secret wars series - they quickly had to come up with backgrounds for the members of the group. Northstar was meant to be gay at this point, but Marvel was unwilling to have an openly gay character so they simply had to imply he was gay.
Batwoman, or rather the second and current version*, was always written as being gay. In fact the fact that Kate Kane was gay is a major part of why she became Batwoman. Her back story is that she attended West Point, following in her fathers footsteps as he is a highly decorated colonel, and was in a relationship with another woman. When this was found out she refused to lie about being gay and resigned. Her history also ties in with two other DC characters.
Rene Montoya** was a cop who pulled her over for speeding, and the two of them ended up dating before getting into an argument about what Kate was doing with her life (at the time Kate was living off her step mothers money). Rene would go on to become the second Question.
Maggie Sawyer is a detective originally from the Superman comics who is gay, but who is now one of the supporting characters in the Batwoman series and involved with Kate.
(*Ironically the first Batwoman was created because of accusations that Batman was gay - Why anyone might think that of a guy who spent all his time running around with a young man who wore tights....)
(**The character of Rene Montoya was created for the Animated Batman series of the early 1990's, but proved popular enough she was moved to the comics. The other character to do this was Harleen Quinzel, also known as Harley Quinn - the Jokers girl friend. In both cases the characters were developed as supporting characters for one episode and just kept coming back.)
|
|
