AlanG Posted February 3, 2016 Share #121 Posted February 3, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I prefer the original "flat" version to your gaudier interpretation. That you'd bother doing this (and presumably think your version is better ) amply demonstrates you simply don't get what some people are doing. Why can't you accept that and move on? I think you have a basic misunderstanding here. You seem to be expressing that the look of this movie is somehow determined by the film itself. And you are insinuating that my opinion is for a "gaudier interpretation." Further you postulate that others will be using Super 8 film for this this kind of look as a more artistic form of expression than I am somehow unable to appreciate. E.g. you and some elite(?) others somehow have a more refined sense of aesthetics that I can't "get." The reality is that this film stock surely can produce a range of vivid or muted "looks" considering what Hollywood filmmakers have done with it. But any look is far less dependent on the film stock than it is dependent on the video conversion process and the final color grading that the color editor employs. In the case of this posted video, it looks like the entire piece was a basic series of random takes with no application whatsoever of color grading... rather than any kind of artistic statement. It is just whatever the scanning process was set for regardless of the various scenes. Now if you like that look, it is fine by me. That is similar to what some other unprocessed "raw" video looks like from digital cameras too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Hi AlanG, Take a look here New Kodak Super8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted February 3, 2016 Share #122 Posted February 3, 2016 I didn't like your version, Alan. Simple as that. No "basic misunderstanding" at all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted February 3, 2016 Share #123 Posted February 3, 2016 I didn't like your version, Alan. Simple as that. No "basic misunderstanding" at all. Why the emoticons and your comments about me? So care to tell us what you actually do understand by the original film that you appreciate so much? To me it looks like some very basic unadjusted test shoot, nothing more. I can't see why this would impress many. My point is that it does not seem to get the most out of what the film can do, not whether I liked it or not. If there was a little more effort put into adjusting the images, I think it would better represent the potential of the product. I have no idea if the Kodak camera and scanning service will be better or worse. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted February 3, 2016 Share #124 Posted February 3, 2016 Why the emoticons and your comments about me? So care to tell us what you actually do understand by the original film that you appreciate so much? To me it looks like some very basic unadjusted test shoot, nothing more. I can't see why this would impress many. My point is that it does not seem to get the most out of what the film can do, not whether I liked it or not. If there was a little more effort put into adjusting the images, I think it would better represent the potential of the product. I have no idea if the Kodak camera and scanning service will be better or worse. My impression is that the video wishes to attract those unconcerned or ignorant of color grading. This lame Kodak thing seeks the Instamatic genre. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.