[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
It could be a cinematic atrocity of biblical proportions, and I'd STILL want it to do better box office than Meet The Spartans, Rambo and 27 Dresses. But alas crap, like cream, always rises to the top... Chris --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, influxxmedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: FWIW, Wil Wheaton has a good review of CLOVERFIELD on his blog. Gives it an enthusiastic thumbs up. If i can ever secure some babysitting i really want to see it in the theatre before its gone, experience the full effect vomit-cam. http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2008/01/cloverfield.html adam
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
That said, I am curious about CLOVERFIELD and do hope that it's good. If only because I've always loved giant monster movies but have always secretly wished for one that had some legitimate scares... FWIW, Wil Wheaton has a good review of CLOVERFIELD on his blog. Gives it an enthusiastic thumbs up. If i can ever secure some babysitting i really want to see it in the theatre before its gone, experience the full effect vomit-cam. http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2008/01/cloverfield.html adam
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
Kind of doesn't matter... but on the battery front... personally, when I'm not using the camera, when I'm done taping something, I instantly turn it off... and don't most cameras have an auto-off after a couple minutes? The battery wouldn't have to LAST seven hours, persay... Susan http://vlog.kitykity.com --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Sull [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but i'll offer up a counter perspective. why did the the characters go into an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes and batteries? the electronics store scene came from one characters sole focus to get his phone working so he could try to communicate with another character. this relationship drove the story/path. the character had zero interest in getting equipped to document the devastation they were smothered in. the character who was filming everything was originally only supposed to film a going away party. as the events unfolded, this character did realize the importance of the footage but i am sure he also was not interested in getting more equipment that would allow him to document more than he could with what he had (within story, some unknown SSD camera) and would happily be rescued over further gallivanting around a city under attack by a monster. how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. not sure when the film is supposedly taking place. was their a year mentioned? but a 7 hour batter is not too absurd. personally, i could ask alot of questions and potential inaccuracies... but screw that. i thought it was fantastic. their will undoubtedly be sequels and this was just an introduction to the monster. more details and plot would be added in future. On Jan 27, 2008 12:03 PM, David S Kessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i can't help thinking about these things. I know it's just supposed to be entertaining and it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but in this case wasn't the whole movie just a gimmick anyway? wasn't the whole thing just about how clever the filmmakers thought they were being? so if they were so clever, why did the the characters go into an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes and batteries? that's all they would have had to do to keep me from thinking about how this footage looks edited and how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. but forget all of that. if they were so clever, how did they think they could get away with making a movie that supplants a plot for a gimmick. that's never a good idea! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
Challenge for 2008: To have a thread this long about a videoblog ;) Did see a mainstream media article about the film causing vertigo in some people, and that cinemas are putting up warning signs. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, influxxmedia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That said, I am curious about CLOVERFIELD and do hope that it's good. If only because I've always loved giant monster movies but have always secretly wished for one that had some legitimate scares... FWIW, Wil Wheaton has a good review of CLOVERFIELD on his blog. Gives it an enthusiastic thumbs up. If i can ever secure some babysitting i really want to see it in the theatre before its gone, experience the full effect vomit-cam. http://wilwheaton.typepad.com/wwdnbackup/2008/01/cloverfield.html adam
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
i can't help thinking about these things. I know it's just supposed to be entertaining and it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but in this case wasn't the whole movie just a gimmick anyway? wasn't the whole thing just about how clever the filmmakers thought they were being? so if they were so clever, why did the the characters go into an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes and batteries? that's all they would have had to do to keep me from thinking about how this footage looks edited and how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. but forget all of that. if they were so clever, how did they think they could get away with making a movie that supplants a plot for a gimmick. that's never a good idea. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got back from the movies. I saw CLOVERFIELD and all I knew about it going in was that it was a monster movie. I had no idea that the entire movie would be from the point of view of a character with a hand held video camera. You never see the actual camera and while they refer to tape in the movie I would strongly suspect that the camera is a memory card based device, not a tape camera, and that they (the writers) intentionally had the characters use the most common term. Frankly I was not impressed with the beginning of the movie and actually closed my eyes for the first half hour or so. I didn't want to watch all the shaky footage .. and was considering leaving the theatre .. but when the s**t hit the fan I started watching and they really did a credible job. There was some times where I couldn't believe that the character operating the camera would be 'filming' certain scenes .. and that he would turn it on and off .. or NOT turn it on or off .. at certain times .. but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in. It's a decent monster movie .. I recommend it .. especially for video enthusiasts. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David S Kessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: but forget all of that. if they were so clever, how did they think they could get away with making a movie that supplants a plot for a gimmick. that's never a good idea. A horror movie doesn't need a plot in order to be good, any more than an amusement park thrill ride or a pizza-induced nightmare needs a plot. Whether a horror movie needs a plot in order to be great, well that's arguable. DUEL, for instance, is a horror movie I'd consider great despite having even less plot than CLOVERFIELD. As far as no-plot horror movies go, I tend to think less is more when it comes to budget. Give me an earnest shot-on-a-shoestring backyard zombie flick over some festering pile of big studio crap like THE RING 2. That said, I am curious about CLOVERFIELD and do hope that it's good. If only because I've always loved giant monster movies but have always secretly wished for one that had some legitimate scares... Chris
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but i'll offer up a counter perspective. why did the the characters go into an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes and batteries? the electronics store scene came from one characters sole focus to get his phone working so he could try to communicate with another character. this relationship drove the story/path. the character had zero interest in getting equipped to document the devastation they were smothered in. the character who was filming everything was originally only supposed to film a going away party. as the events unfolded, this character did realize the importance of the footage but i am sure he also was not interested in getting more equipment that would allow him to document more than he could with what he had (within story, some unknown SSD camera) and would happily be rescued over further gallivanting around a city under attack by a monster. how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. not sure when the film is supposedly taking place. was their a year mentioned? but a 7 hour batter is not too absurd. personally, i could ask alot of questions and potential inaccuracies... but screw that. i thought it was fantastic. their will undoubtedly be sequels and this was just an introduction to the monster. more details and plot would be added in future. On Jan 27, 2008 12:03 PM, David S Kessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i can't help thinking about these things. I know it's just supposed to be entertaining and it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but in this case wasn't the whole movie just a gimmick anyway? wasn't the whole thing just about how clever the filmmakers thought they were being? so if they were so clever, why did the the characters go into an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes and batteries? that's all they would have had to do to keep me from thinking about how this footage looks edited and how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. but forget all of that. if they were so clever, how did they think they could get away with making a movie that supplants a plot for a gimmick. that's never a good idea! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
I think Cloverfield does take things beyond the Blair Witch Project and does a great job of fictional organic Home Video story telling. The filmmakers have set some ground rules for themselves and they stick to those ground rules. Everything that happens on that tape from a storytelling point of view happens in real time with nothing other than in camera edits. I'm envious of what the filmmakers have done with Cloverfield. I've been exploring fictional organic home video storytelling since I did For the Love of Julie in 1999 and I Can Still Tell Your Wife Bill in 2001 and I've been waiting for more stories to be told this way so that it doesn't seem gimmicky. I think Loney Girl 15 does a good job of this but every so often their characters get a little bit too cinematic in the production of their videos and it pulls me out of the story but non the less LG15 is breaking new ground with this type of storytelling and they are intertwining it with ARG which is way cool. I really look forward to seeing what new films are created using this approach to storytelling and how it matures so that it's not seen as a gimmick. If this type of filmmaking is embraced it lowers the financial bar of entry for what is acceptable for theatrical film releases and increases the chances of getting theatrical distribution for storytellers who can't afford a traditional cinematic production. If you are at all interested in telling stories that are shown on the big screen I urge you to take a closer look at Cloverfield and think about what emotionally compelling stories you could tell using this organic home video approach. There are some very creative people on this list and I think one or several of us could someday have a theatrical release by using this type of storytelling. Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Sull wrote: it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but i'll offer up a counter perspective. why did the the characters go into an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes and batteries? the electronics store scene came from one characters sole focus to get his phone working so he could try to communicate with another character. this relationship drove the story/path. the character had zero interest in getting equipped to document the devastation they were smothered in. the character who was filming everything was originally only supposed to film a going away party. as the events unfolded, this character did realize the importance of the footage but i am sure he also was not interested in getting more equipment that would allow him to document more than he could with what he had (within story, some unknown SSD camera) and would happily be rescued over further gallivanting around a city under attack by a monster. how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. not sure when the film is supposedly taking place. was their a year mentioned? but a 7 hour batter is not too absurd. personally, i could ask alot of questions and potential inaccuracies... but screw that. i thought it was fantastic. their will undoubtedly be sequels and this was just an introduction to the monster. more details and plot would be added in future. On Jan 27, 2008 12:03 PM, David S Kessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i can't help thinking about these things. I know it's just supposed to be entertaining and it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but in this case wasn't the whole movie just a gimmick anyway? wasn't the whole thing just about how clever the filmmakers thought they were being? so if they were so clever, why did the the characters go into an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes and batteries? that's all they would have had to do to keep me from thinking about how this footage looks edited and how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. but forget all of that. if they were so clever, how did they think they could get away with making a movie that supplants a plot for a gimmick. that's never a good idea! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
I appreciate the points that you are making. I do think that this home movie style can influence and inspire in some interesting ways. I do however have to disagree on some points. Cloverfield has the appearance of being low budget with all in camera editing but of course that was not the case in reality, that was just the premise of the movie. it wasn't edited in camera it was just made to look that way. even if much of the film was shot on an HVX, that's not a home movie camera. Cloverfield had big money special effects. this is a studio film made by established, rich people, and promoted with a huge budget. This film cost $30 million to make. yeah, that's low budget for Paramount. yes, go run with the premise, be inspired. but as you say use the device to tell interesting stories. that's what truly independent filmmakers should be doing. if you don't have 30 million to create Cloverfield you can't get away with repeating the lines What was that thing? over and over again and expect nobody to actually care what that thing was. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Tim Street [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think Cloverfield does take things beyond the Blair Witch Project and does a great job of fictional organic Home Video story telling. The filmmakers have set some ground rules for themselves and they stick to those ground rules. Everything that happens on that tape from a storytelling point of view happens in real time with nothing other than in camera edits. I'm envious of what the filmmakers have done with Cloverfield. I've been exploring fictional organic home video storytelling since I did For the Love of Julie in 1999 and I Can Still Tell Your Wife Bill in 2001 and I've been waiting for more stories to be told this way so that it doesn't seem gimmicky. I think Loney Girl 15 does a good job of this but every so often their characters get a little bit too cinematic in the production of their videos and it pulls me out of the story but non the less LG15 is breaking new ground with this type of storytelling and they are intertwining it with ARG which is way cool. I really look forward to seeing what new films are created using this approach to storytelling and how it matures so that it's not seen as a gimmick. If this type of filmmaking is embraced it lowers the financial bar of entry for what is acceptable for theatrical film releases and increases the chances of getting theatrical distribution for storytellers who can't afford a traditional cinematic production. If you are at all interested in telling stories that are shown on the big screen I urge you to take a closer look at Cloverfield and think about what emotionally compelling stories you could tell using this organic home video approach. There are some very creative people on this list and I think one or several of us could someday have a theatrical release by using this type of storytelling. Tim Street Creator/Executive Producer French Maid TV Subscribe for FREE @ http://frenchmaidtv.com/itunes MyBlog http://1timstreet.com On Jan 27, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Sull wrote: it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but i'll offer up a counter perspective. why did the the characters go into an electronics store and not consider grabbing a couple extra tapes and batteries? the electronics store scene came from one characters sole focus to get his phone working so he could try to communicate with another character. this relationship drove the story/path. the character had zero interest in getting equipped to document the devastation they were smothered in. the character who was filming everything was originally only supposed to film a going away party. as the events unfolded, this character did realize the importance of the footage but i am sure he also was not interested in getting more equipment that would allow him to document more than he could with what he had (within story, some unknown SSD camera) and would happily be rescued over further gallivanting around a city under attack by a monster. how they went 7 hours without having to change a battery. not sure when the film is supposedly taking place. was their a year mentioned? but a 7 hour batter is not too absurd. personally, i could ask alot of questions and potential inaccuracies... but screw that. i thought it was fantastic. their will undoubtedly be sequels and this was just an introduction to the monster. more details and plot would be added in future. On Jan 27, 2008 12:03 PM, David S Kessler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i can't help thinking about these things. I know it's just supposed to be entertaining and it never pays to over analyze a movie like this but in this case wasn't the whole movie just a gimmick anyway? wasn't the
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
The battery in the camera is not an issue. My Digital 8 camera circa 1999 has an 8 hour battery. I once took it to New Orleans and shot nearly 4 hours of footage over a 3 day period without recharging. - Verdi
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
- Original Message - From: Michael Verdi The battery in the camera is not an issue. My Digital 8 camera circa 1999 has an 8 hour battery. I once took it to New Orleans and shot nearly 4 hours of footage over a 3 day period without recharging. Besides .. if it was a memory card based camera might not the battery last longer since there is not electric motor needed to move the tape? But, I'm not familiar with card based cameras .. do they have larger than normal batteries available .. or even replaceable batteries? Frankly I think we're over thinking this ... it was a good movie and as with many movies it was not an attempt to be scientifically accurate. Remember ... Suspension of Disbelief Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
This one (already played at Tribecca Film Festival) is due out next month. The Poughkeepsie Tapes http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1010271/ ;) On Jan 25, 2008 1:55 PM, Chris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So was there anything in this movie that had progressed further than Blair Witch style, reflecting the areas of progress in video over the last decade or so? I've not seen it, but I imagine the progress was simply that they were able to throw more money at it... as much as I'm a fan of minimalist suspense, there's a lot to be said for being able to include a giant monster, a horde of mini-monsters and scenes of colossal destruction. not that Im ever likely to bother watching it, or Blair Witch for that matter. Is it the horror you don't like, or the faux documentary style? Chris [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
- Original Message - From: Bill Cammack I guess that's possible if the camera was in some sort of extended play (read: lower quality) mode, since tapes are 60 minutes long to begin with, and 40 minutes if you're recording DVcam instead of miniDV. My mini-DV records 60 min on standard and 90 min on long play. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Steve Watkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So was there anything in this movie that had progressed further than Blair Witch style, reflecting the areas of progress in video over the last decade or so? I've not seen it, but I imagine the progress was simply that they were able to throw more money at it... as much as I'm a fan of minimalist suspense, there's a lot to be said for being able to include a giant monster, a horde of mini-monsters and scenes of colossal destruction. not that Im ever likely to bother watching it, or Blair Witch for that matter. Is it the horror you don't like, or the faux documentary style? Chris
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
I have read that the concept of the movie's TRT is that the entire movie lasts 80 minutes, no longer than a tape would in the camera. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I didn't see the movie, but based on the synopsis in the wiki, it would have had to have been tape. That's the only way that they would have had scenes from a previous recording. Had it been disk-based or card-based, that would not have happened because there's no recording over disk files. There's deleting disk files so you have more space to record. Also, files are recorded in sequential order, so if it were disk or card-based, all of the old footage would have been first, and all of the new footage would have been after it. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault ramirault@ wrote: - Original Message - From: Michael Verdi They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the device of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't happen with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot with the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23 which is not a consumer camera. I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was a disc based camera (either DVD or hard disk) . What came to my minds eye was something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit .. *very* rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk. I think using the term tape was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and does not need any further explanation. If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my next choice. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
I guess that's possible if the camera was in some sort of extended play (read: lower quality) mode, since tapes are 60 minutes long to begin with, and 40 minutes if you're recording DVcam instead of miniDV. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mcmpress [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have read that the concept of the movie's TRT is that the entire movie lasts 80 minutes, no longer than a tape would in the camera. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: I didn't see the movie, but based on the synopsis in the wiki, it would have had to have been tape. That's the only way that they would have had scenes from a previous recording. Had it been disk-based or card-based, that would not have happened because there's no recording over disk files. There's deleting disk files so you have more space to record. Also, files are recorded in sequential order, so if it were disk or card-based, all of the old footage would have been first, and all of the new footage would have been after it. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault ramirault@ wrote: - Original Message - From: Michael Verdi They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the device of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't happen with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot with the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23 which is not a consumer camera. I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was a disc based camera (either DVD or hard disk) . What came to my minds eye was something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit .. *very* rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk. I think using the term tape was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and does not need any further explanation. If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my next choice. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
Maybe someone should make a film with a load missing from the end 'cos the tape ran out' and see if anybody roits in the cinemas ;) So was there anything in this movie that had progressed further than Blair Witch style, reflecting the areas of progress in video over the last decade or so? not that Im ever likely to bother watching it, or Blair Witch for that matter. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I guess that's possible if the camera was in some sort of extended play (read: lower quality) mode, since tapes are 60 minutes long to begin with, and 40 minutes if you're recording DVcam instead of miniDV. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, mcmpress mcmpress@ wrote: I have read that the concept of the movie's TRT is that the entire movie lasts 80 minutes, no longer than a tape would in the camera. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bill Cammack billcammack@ wrote: I didn't see the movie, but based on the synopsis in the wiki, it would have had to have been tape. That's the only way that they would have had scenes from a previous recording. Had it been disk-based or card-based, that would not have happened because there's no recording over disk files. There's deleting disk files so you have more space to record. Also, files are recorded in sequential order, so if it were disk or card-based, all of the old footage would have been first, and all of the new footage would have been after it. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault ramirault@ wrote: - Original Message - From: Michael Verdi They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the device of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't happen with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot with the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23 which is not a consumer camera. I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was a disc based camera (either DVD or hard disk) . What came to my minds eye was something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit .. *very* rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk. I think using the term tape was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and does not need any further explanation. If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my next choice. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
Agreed. Some Cloverfield thoughts of my own. http://videopancakes.blogspot.com/2008/01/seeing-cloverfield.html http://videopancakes.blogspot.com/2008/01/seeing-cloverfield.html --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got back from the movies. I saw CLOVERFIELD and all I knew about it going in was that it was a monster movie. I had no idea that the entire movie would be from the point of view of a character with a hand held video camera. You never see the actual camera and while they refer to tape in the movie I would strongly suspect that the camera is a memory card based device, not a tape camera, and that they (the writers) intentionally had the characters use the most common term. Frankly I was not impressed with the beginning of the movie and actually closed my eyes for the first half hour or so. I didn't want to watch all the shaky footage .. and was considering leaving the theatre .. but when the s**t hit the fan I started watching and they really did a credible job. There was some times where I couldn't believe that the character operating the camera would be 'filming' certain scenes .. and that he would turn it on and off .. or NOT turn it on or off .. at certain times .. but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in. It's a decent monster movie .. I recommend it .. especially for video enthusiasts. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the device of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't happen with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot with the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23 which is not a consumer camera. http://gizmodo.com/347463/the-real-camera-behind-cloverfield - Verdi On Jan 24, 2008 10:27 AM, mcmpress [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Agreed. Some Cloverfield thoughts of my own. http://videopancakes.blogspot.com/2008/01/seeing-cloverfield.html http://videopancakes.blogspot.com/2008/01/seeing-cloverfield.html --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just got back from the movies. I saw CLOVERFIELD and all I knew about it going in was that it was a monster movie. I had no idea that the entire movie would be from the point of view of a character with a hand held video camera. You never see the actual camera and while they refer to tape in the movie I would strongly suspect that the camera is a memory card based device, not a tape camera, and that they (the writers) intentionally had the characters use the most common term. Frankly I was not impressed with the beginning of the movie and actually closed my eyes for the first half hour or so. I didn't want to watch all the shaky footage .. and was considering leaving the theatre .. but when the s**t hit the fan I started watching and they really did a credible job. There was some times where I couldn't believe that the character operating the camera would be 'filming' certain scenes .. and that he would turn it on and off .. or NOT turn it on or off .. at certain times .. but that's where suspension of disbelief comes in. It's a decent monster movie .. I recommend it .. especially for video enthusiasts. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] -- http://michaelverdi.com http://freevlog.org http://nscape.tv
Re: [videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
- Original Message - From: Michael Verdi They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the device of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't happen with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot with the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23 which is not a consumer camera. I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was a disc based camera (either DVD or hard disk) . What came to my minds eye was something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit .. *very* rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk. I think using the term tape was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and does not need any further explanation. If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my next choice. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
Heh, I'm more a horror geek than a tech geek, so this is a camera that records video is all the explanation I need. :) Chris --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Michael Verdi I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was a disc based camera (either DVD or hard disk) . What came to my minds eye was something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit .. *very* rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk. I think using the term tape was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and does not need any further explanation. If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my next choice. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
[videoblogging] Re: Cloverfield hand held major movie
I didn't see the movie, but based on the synopsis in the wiki, it would have had to have been tape. That's the only way that they would have had scenes from a previous recording. Had it been disk-based or card-based, that would not have happened because there's no recording over disk files. There's deleting disk files so you have more space to record. Also, files are recorded in sequential order, so if it were disk or card-based, all of the old footage would have been first, and all of the new footage would have been after it. --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Richard Amirault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Michael Verdi They refer to tape in the film, I think, because they use the device of having taped over previously recorded video. That wouldn't happen with a disc based camera. That being said, some of it was shot with the panasonic hvx200 but most was shot with the Sony CineAlta F23 which is not a consumer camera. I didn't get the impression that we were supposed to believe it was a disc based camera (either DVD or hard disk) . What came to my minds eye was something like an XACTI .. a very small, memory card based unit .. *very* rugged compared to either real tape or DVD or hard disk. I think using the term tape was more as a convenience. It's the most common term and does not need any further explanation. If not a card based camcorder .. than a mini-DV unit would be my next choice. Richard Amirault Boston, MA, USA http://n1jdu.org http://bostonfandom.org http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
