Did the dIgital format bother you?!
This movie was shot with inexpensive digital cameras... Did this bother you on projection???
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > Tiny Furniture (2012) Discussion > Did the dIgital format bother you?!
You know the Canon 7D is not just any inexpensive digital camera and what's most amazing is what they did with it. I showed the trailer to a friend... I said guess, is it 35mm or Super 16mm? His guess? 35mm. It looks really gorgeous, the DP certainly did a wonderful job and composition looks nice. I say we should celebrate that this tools give the opportunity to indie filmmakers to tell stories without the need for studios :)
shareYea, I definitely agree. It doesn't matter what camera one uses. It's what one puts in front of it that's important.
I saw this trailer maybe a month or so ago, and today I heard Lena on NPR mention it was shot on a 7D...I was surprised, because initially I too thought it was just a 35mm cam. I have a T2i, which has the same sensor as a 7D... essentially the same cam just cheaper. It's a wonderful camera
shareJody Lee Lipes is very talented. Check out "Afterschool".
shareYes, the projection bothered me. This is the first full length digital movie I've seen on the big screen. The digitalization was very distracting, as you could see the "rectangles" on the screen. I understand that using digital cameras is alot less expensive than film, and I gather from the comments that this was done with equipment on the less expensive end of the digital technology spectrum, but it just doesn't project the same quality as film. I was facinated with the movie, but definitely thought the the poor quality of the digital projection was to the movie's detrement.
shareBlack swan was shot using a 7d too..Ok.. they used 16mm film and a 5D, but some stuff was 7D....people are raving about that movie
shareYes, but the scenes in Black Swan that were filmed in digital looked terrible (The film is great, don't get me wrong, but I noticed pixelation throughout several scenes in the film, and it was noticable. According to Aronofsky, he did it on purpose, so it is excused). I haven't seen this film yet (I am checking it out on Friday), but I will definately check for quality issues. I am a huge fan of film, and have never been blown away by digital at all.
Movies Last Seen
Soul Kitchen: 4/5
Howl: 3.5/5
Fair Game: 4/5
Well my local cinema showed it in their "screening room", where the screen is about 12x7 feet and projection is a highend DVD/BluRay driving something similar to what you see for computer presentations mounted near the ceiling of the theater. (It seemed appropriate seeing Tiny Furniture in a Tiny Theater:-)
(They probably initially used this room to preview stuff they were considering for their bigger screens. Now they've opened it to the public and schedule "art-house" fare in there while their three bigger screens remain mainstream. Great idea.)
At this size, I couldn't see any digital artifacts at all (and I was sitting in the front row). In fact the photography looked gorgeous.
[days later ...]
I saw it again at a different theater, this time projected the old-fashioned way from reels of 35mm film. The screen was larger, but still relatively small, my guestimate is 22x12 feet. Again I couldn't see any digital artifacts at all.