filmmakers/sarmatianus
 

Can anyone tell me why color reversal film is a popular film stock for music videos? I understand it's alot cheaper, but I was just wondering if there are also certain aesthetic benefits from using that particular stock for that type of format

im not sure about film for movie cameras, but colour reversal is basically positive film which pretty much all film stock should logically be made in. positive film can be projected negative cant (correctly).

i think it's also because kodak pushes it so much as being perfect for music videos/documentaries. atleast that's how they advertise it. colors seem to be more saturated too. just more striking i guess. it's all edgy and hip. you can shoot this stuff on a high-quality camera and have the negative transferred to a professional video format for an end result that looks like it was shot on 16mm.

if your talking about cross-processing, itd make sense cause thats used for heavy saturation and contrast, which it popular in a lot of music videos

sleeper- it's the same for movie cameras, and that's what makes reversal film stock the cheaper alternative- less prints, less money. But you and noyen have both given me confirmation of what i suspected: that's it's the edgy and hip thing to do. thank you my brothers.

viddy well!

:confused:

i bought a disposable camera yesterday and it rocks. i hope that helps.

No, but you rock.

I should also point out that I'm a neophobe when it comes to technology and post production wizardry or whatever you call it. I absolutely refuse to invest any time in learning something that will eventually be delagated to someone else in the scheme of the production process. As is the case with my ignorant ass, right or wrong, I naively think that whatever image you have on film can always be manipulated in post regardless of the type of film stock- color correction, more saturation, more contrast etc- like dave myers' video for bombs over baghdad as an example, which I believe didn't use reversal. There's also that bleach bypass bullshit that'll work on any film if you want that edgy look. So when I was told that for music videos you have to use reversal film stock I gave the usual huh what why's while keeping post in mind. I didn't really get a concrete answer other than that it's the accepted business practice- bla bla bla bla bla bla semi colon crank.

What R U making? I want 2 read the script.

dude fuck that, do whatever you want. dont let anyone tell you how to make your shit. and in some ways im with you. im not for this digital camera revolution and ill stick to film for a long while. i dont care what anyone says, theyre still much different. have you ever shot with a digital camera? even good ones are cold as fucking ice. who the hell wants to look at that shit? film 4ever

Digital isn't bad and it's cheap. If you have no money it's the way to go. Film stock isn't so expensive as getting it processed and doing the editing afterward.

I got an offer to do a video for some cheap ass hood who doesn't want to cough up the dough for a real production company. It's for his r&b band that he manages. Whether i do it or not all depends on the treatment i submit. No bling bling'in allowed is my main condition.

I think that instead of doing the usual rap video with hot chicks in bikinis that it would be better with some real crack whores from the street dancing. That would get you some attention!

The artist may not see that vision however...

I was actually thinking about going digital believe it or not with panasonics dvx 100- It's the only digital camera I'd consider to use other than hd because of it's progressive scan. (that is until mr color reversal started talking) But yeah even if it's more expensive, film is always the coolest option. SP's cherub rock video used Super 8 film of all things and even that looks cool- i mean warm.

The short answer: reversal is more saturated color. I'm more than happy to go in depth on this, but it basically comes down to higher saturation and contrast.

As far as projection goes, you are NOT going to project your original positive. That's stupid. Standard processing now is, regardless of negative or reversal, to get a telecine to digital and do all the editing there. If you need any special processing, of course order it.

Anything else?

im talking about still photography, thats what the floats the boat, but you definately right about price. im still kinda drawn to digital photography cause of the financial advantages. i could shoot as much as i wont and just dump the card when i get home every night. thats attractive. in terms of digital video cameras, i still find them pretty cold and white, but with some tweaking you can get a good "rough" quality out of it. and editing is a piece of cake on with digital

Nope, I think everything's covered.

Excellent. :D

quick, lets all circle jerk

Since we're talking filmmaking....

http://www.savonarolamustburn.com/sq08.jpg

This is an actor from my latest project just chilling between takes. I love the way that the smoke looks, though.

http://www.savonarolamustburn.com/sq18.jpg

Keeping the operation going! My hard-working crew for my upcoming short.

im working on a short now too. based on camus's "the renegade". its more fun than i thought. brief little moments of pain and bullshit, but fun overall. whats yours about?

It's a romantic comedy thing involving a pair of extremely squeaky shoes and sex. Essentially I'm doing it with this writer-producer friend of mine so that we can decide if we're compatible enough to work together on a feature he's written.

So now I'm editing it. Hopefully it'll be done within this week. After that, I'm hoping to conclude some restoration work on a "lost" Italo Calvino lecture that was taped twenty-odd years ago.

you should upload it when its done. you joking about that calvino thing? i cant tell. if not, please eloborate

Got to do the festival circuit first...

Totally serious on the Calvino lecture, lectures actually. A series of lectures from March 2-4, 1976, all filmed in U-Matic! I arranged for a transfer to DV and now I'm doing some minor re-editing and, if I can find a way to do this correctly, de-ghost it some. Then it'll get a limited issue to institutional libraries.

what are his lectures on? gimme a little taste

One discussses the Tarot; I think in another he reads from "Cosmicomics," among other things. His accent is thick as a brick - I'm seriously considering making subtitles.