I think that scene was shot on a 1080/50i Sony HDW-700 type camcorder, the generation before the 24P F900. But it isn't far off to call them Digital Betacams...
Still, getting back to the original thread issue: it takes a lot of guts and commitment to shoot a given aspect ratio (like anamorphic scope) and having to way to fix headroom problems. To me, the flexibility of shooting in 16x9 and then reframing when needed is a major benefit.
I generally try to avoid arguing with directors over writing or story points when I'm color correcting. BTW, the version on home video came from digital files, so at least it avoided the IN/IP stage in the theatrical film print, and it's cleaned up a little more.Originally Posted by Jason Beckwith
I think the only thing that's required to shoot in the aspect ratio you're releasing in is talent and a knowledge of composition, which hopefully every working cinematographer and his or her operators have in abundance.
My point is, if they're shooting full-ap 2:1, there's nowhere to go if they're projecting in the same aspect ratio. We can always blow up, but if there's insufficient headroom, we can't magically paint it back in. (OK, maybe they could in a dreamworld of unlimited time and money, but not for everyday projects.)
I agree completely. The only exception is: directors love to change things.I think the only thing that's required to shoot in the aspect ratio you're releasing in is talent and a knowledge of composition, which hopefully every working cinematographer and his or her operators have in abundance.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|