Session 9 - Video sucks!

John_Doe · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:58 am **Post subject:** Session 9 - Video sucks!

I thought it was fairly cool, but why the hell did they shoot it on video?!?!

That ruined so much of the mood and suspence IMO. Was a real shame too, for otherwise the cinematography was really beautifull.

It looked crap in this and it looked ?bercrap in 'Once upon a time in Mexico'.

Video will never look as good as film. It looks too 'real' and clear and doesn't add the magic effect that film does.

Using film the makers can get away with so much more because it always looks kinda cool, but on video you notice every tiny flaw in acting, make-up, scenery and coloring. It just looks too amateurish, like a family home video which you watch as a nobility, without any real interest in what goes on.

karstmobile · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 9:59 am **Post subject:**

I've made my tv b&w before so that a movie looked better. Think I'll give this movie a watch and see if that improves it.

spudthedestroyer · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:25 pm **Post subject:**

Quote:

Video will never look as good as film. It looks too 'real' and clear and doesn't add the magic effect that film does.

I think cameras are far too good today, it takes a really talented director and crew to get the atmosphere they could using worse technology nowadays.

The problem is, everything looks too clear, and that makes it look plastic and fake. I've noticed it take its toll more an more, with horror films being the ones that suffer majorly from it. The grain seems to add something to the atmosphere, but with the crystal quality picture they get with modern cameras... its counter productive imo.

This doesn't mean this is always the case, but it seems as though director, and art/set designers have to work harder to acheive the same.

Might be psychological caused by the amount of shit they put out today, but I'd hazard a bet, Aliens will look much better and atmospheric than Alien vs. Predator partly because it isn't such a clean print.

PC_Arcade · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 12:28 pm **Post subject:**

Those arguments about DV are all true, BUT it's not that difficult to make it look good, the League of Gentlemen is shot on DV then made to look like film in post processing.

Straight DV looks like shit though

I've stopped downloading those DV releases because they are by and large appalling

paul-scream22 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 1:01 pm **Post subject:**

Yeah there is a process/app to change DV/video and make it look more like it was shot on film.

You can even get it for PC

Not sure what the results are but have heard alot about it.

John_Doe · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:18 pm **Post subject:**

PC_Arcade wrote:

...shot on DV then made to look like film in post processing.

Straight DV looks like shit though

yeah I know, but why the hell would someone not add that post editing film filter?

PC_Arcade · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 3:23 pm **Post subject:**

God alone knows, maybe they can't afford Premier :lol:

Chadman · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 5:58 pm **Post subject:**

Why? It only costs about 2 days of bandwidth. Or did you mean actually buying it?

Hmmm, Session 9 uses the same cameras as Attack of the Clones. That must be why Attack sucks so bad. It seems so clear to me, now.

John_Doe · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 6:45 pm **Post subject:**

Quote:

Attack of the Clones

never heard of it...

Chadman · **Posted:** Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:52 pm **Post subject:**

Its one of those Michael Moore-style documentaries about some scammer who made some art in the 70's and bilked his fans for the rest of his life. Decent bit of social commentary.

helenahandbasket · **Posted:** Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:31 pm **Post subject:**

I imagine they used video because of money and time issues. It was an extremely low budget picture. They were on state owned land in a condemned building so they weren't allowed much time in there. They could only be in about 20% of that building because the rest of it is deemed unsafe. The floors and walls are literally falling away in there. I imagine it was all much easier and quicker on them to use video as opposed to film. They shot the whole movie in 19 days.

John_Doe · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2004 3:45 am **Post subject:**

Very interesting helenahandbasket. I heard they are tearing the whole building down. Sad.

Acording to this guy http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261983/board/nest/10111048
however it was not shot on video after all...

helenahandbasket · **Posted:** Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:35 pm **Post subject:**

He could be right for all I know. I was under impression that the whole thing was done on video. I'll watch my dvd again and see if I can confirm that. It's been a while since I've watched the extra features and commentary on that movie so it gives me a good excuse to. :mrgreen:

And you're right. They are tearing most of Danvers down and developing the whole area. I sure wish they wouldn't. Way too much history in that place for it all to just be demolished. Restoration would probably be a fortune though, considering it's full of asbestos. If you get a hold of the dvd again, watch the featurette on there called The Haunted Palace. It's really interesting.

hexxonvoudouenforcer · **Posted:** Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:42 pm **Post subject:** Session 9

I thought Session 9 was excellent, looked great to me. Had wicked atmosphere and if it was shot on DV then I have seen tonnes of horror movies shot on film that were not nearly as creepy or atmospheric.IMHO at least it had some originality, the same cannot be said for the massive amount of shitty slashers wasting good celluloid out there. :-o

Session 9 - Video sucks!

Who is online