Ouch. Sorry, N/M. He didn't choose Super 16, but Panavision Genesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(Panavision)). I'd delete this thread, if I could.
Then again, you know what, let me ask you about this. I recently re-watched Apocalypto, and I was thinking, gee, this looks a lot like video. Then I found this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Super_16, and erroneously thought Mel had shot it in Super 16mm.
So, I was right in the first place... it's video. Hey, I'm a fan of the movie. I think it's damn good and that Mel is an outstanding director. But gee wiz, you really can tell it's video, can't you? So, is that a bad thing, good, or does it matter? Here is a man who is purported to be worth one billion dollars. Why did he chose what he chose? What if he had filmed it in Super 16 or 35mm? If Mel had asked you, should I go with HDV or film, what would you have adviced him to do? Would it have been better in film, or was video the way to go?
Then again, you know what, let me ask you about this. I recently re-watched Apocalypto, and I was thinking, gee, this looks a lot like video. Then I found this link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Films_shot_in_Super_16, and erroneously thought Mel had shot it in Super 16mm.
So, I was right in the first place... it's video. Hey, I'm a fan of the movie. I think it's damn good and that Mel is an outstanding director. But gee wiz, you really can tell it's video, can't you? So, is that a bad thing, good, or does it matter? Here is a man who is purported to be worth one billion dollars. Why did he chose what he chose? What if he had filmed it in Super 16 or 35mm? If Mel had asked you, should I go with HDV or film, what would you have adviced him to do? Would it have been better in film, or was video the way to go?
Last edited: