On Jul 11, 2006, at 11:59 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > What's this film stuff you two are going on about?
Heh -- has anyone gone to see Superman Returns on a big screen? As both a Film (movie) Guy and a Film (the stuff you take pictures on) Guy, I have to say that the bell is tolling for motion picture film. While the second and third Star Wars prequels looked kind of crappy and acceptable, respectively, Superman Returns does not look like a film that was shot digitally. In fact, I would say that it looks less "digital" than the Lord of the Rings films (which were shot on film and processed heavily in the digital realm). I was really surprised -- I sat close and was prepared to be underwhelmed, and I wasn't. It looked great, and that's not just my low expectations talking. I thought when I heard that interview with Singer, the director, that his chatter about testing out all of the different motion picture formats and comparing them projected before making his choice was a load of publicity hooey (much like Lucas' "no one noticed the one digital scene in the Phantom Menace" -- I noticed it, it looked wretched), but I'm with Singer. It looked better than Super 35 and yet held all of Super 35's advantages with lens lengths and depth of field. (I saw it projected on film, by the way.) Oh well. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
