Does anyone here speak Norwegian?
 

I just came across this forum discussing The Silencer and have absolutely no clue about what they are saying! Any help appreciated!

http://forum.voodoofilm.org/showthre...light=silencer

Perhaps with some help I could post a reply to them assuming they aren't being too harsh about it!

Simon, I do, they are not speaking norwegian but swedish. I just wonder what you are going to replay if you not able to understand what they are talking about!!??

Thanks Per. My co-director pointed out to me. I should have been more astute at finding out what language it was in! Oh well, it was close! :-)

So, anyone here from Sweden?

I'm from Sweden... :)

They are saying something like this:


#1:
Happened to find this at Sony's forum when I was looking for stuff to MBML. Check it out and make your own judgements, but myself I was thinking 35 mm for about 10 seconds into the trailer.
[LINK]
And to summarize some of the questions that appeared at the [Sony] forum, here's an excerpt from the guy who uploaded the trailer.

#2:
What do you mean "framed to 2.35:1"? How do you do that? It looked f***ing good for being XM1. It's crazy beautiful. Hard to believe it.

#3:
It took me 18 frames to see that it was shot with a DV camera with a CCD less that 1/3".
They should have increased the shutter speed, so that they could've gotten rid of the video look.
They could never put that together with 35 mm without it showing.

#4:
Do you mean shorter shutter speeds create more movie feeling? I thought it was the other way around, since movie cameras normally have a shutter speed that's half the frame rate (i.e. 1/48 seconds). Shorter shutter speeds create more strobing. They used it in 28 days later, with shutter speeds, I think, up to 1/1000 seconds. And the result seemed really videoish.

#5:
I'm not sure at this, but in Vegas 5 you can pull out the picture to 2.21:1 if you want to render it to PAL DVD or MPG-2... Maybe you can work around a bit to get a cropped image of 2.35:1.
But what do I know? I'm still at an amateur level when it comes to filming and editing...

#6:
OK, they used Vegas so if that is the case, then it looked real good!

#7:
I think the images is somewhat pale. Some higher contrast would look nicer.
But I'm a lover of high contrast, so... :-)

#8:
I wasn't so impressed. I think they should've put more color in it (even though it's hard with a one-chip camera). Now it's all grey and too little black in the faces.

#9:
What?! Isn't the XM-1 a 3-CCD?!

#10:
Yes, it is.

#11:
Maybe they've used a 16:9 adapter on the camera (and gotten, hmm, around 1.78:1) and on top of that used the camera's built-in 16:9 mode and thus receiving 2.35:1.

#12:
Well, certain shots were nice, but no... It doesn't look like 35 mm shots! But not everything must look like that, does it? It could be nice looking anyway!
[And then talks about the quality of the script etc. vs. the look, and concludes that many movies/tv-series are extremely good even though they don't have the highest picture quality.]

#13:
It looked real nice, but I still don't think that digital media can replace the film media completely. Film still looks best on film. The same applies to 3D animations, a 3D animated person can't replace a human actor and you can still see it's animated even though you can achieve great results. But for those with zero or low budget, it's definitely great that you can play with the "movie feeling" on video, it looks so much better than an interlaced picture and that "news look".

#14:
[Discusses more about the movie 28 days later.]


Hope this helps! :-)


/ Kiwi

Hi Jan,

Excellent, thanks very much for the translation! :-))

Quite interesting what they are saying!

You're welcome. :)


/ Kiwi

Damnit! Jag önskar jag hade varit på den här tråden tidigare!

Jag med, fast jag kommer fran skottland........