This issue, available as I write, features an interesting article on Robert Altman's current HD work on a feature titled "The Company". He's using Panavision HD cameras.

One of the most interesting remarks he makes: "I didn't want to give it a film look. I just wanted to take away the video look. To give it more of a sexy or sensual look, which film has in its very nature and video doesn't. ... It's not necessarily to make a it look like film, but to make it look as sensual as film." It's a fairly detailed article that anyone who follows the subject of feature production with HD ought to enjoy reading.

I find these types of articles inspiring in my own quest to make digital movies. By the way, do you subscribe to DV Mag or did you purchase it at a news stand?

I subscribe. So there may be a brief lag before the issue hits the newstands.

I subscribe but have not yet received my issue.

I thought it was an excellent article. Once again, he points out that the "cost savings" of shooting Digital is minimal, if any at all. You still have to spend money on everything else, and when you do it on "the cheap"... it looks like it.

I also liked his comments about how difficult it was to move between set-ups. That this essentially cost time, but that since you didn't have to wait on dailies before striking a set, you made up time.

Generally, the article points out how the NATURE of the project, will dictate the choice of the medium.

I subscribe. So there may be a brief lag before the issue hits the newstands.

Ha! Up here in Vancouver, by the time a new issue hits the stands, the US subscribers are 2 issues ahead.

Indeed, as some of the production pro's here have noted, it seems that video is nearly as cost and time demanding for large productions as film. After all, sets and scenes have to be created regardless of the camera type.

It was interesting to read Altman's remarks about how they tried to offset video's deep DOF, and establish a greater sense of depth, by avoiding strong frontal lighting and using layered planes of light behind primary subjects. Knowing this objective it will be interesting to see how effective it is when the film is released.

Off topic, film look related.

Boy! did I have a bad evening today. All of Pender St. from from Granville to Main was blocked to film a Scobby Doo 2 segment. Stupid me took the bus down to that area, and eveything (including buses) were re-routed. I wasted like 3 hours doing my errands in and about that part of town.

As Alex would say, just to keep this on topic, I should have had my camera to shoot Scooby Doo, not once, but twice. :)

I wouldn't have needed my flash because there were camera lights so bright that only the sun could appreciate. Lucky I was wearing my Serengeti shades.

Hope you didn't step in any of Scooby's doo.

Na, I think they "cartoon" him in after the footage's been shot. :)

From Main and Hastings I walked up to Pender, asked a cop where to catch the 22 bus, wlaked back to Hastings, waiting, waiting, still no 22---then I got lectured on the evils of drugs, a food bank type truck stopped and gave out sandwiches and candy---yes, I ate one---then I finally decided to take any bus. Of course, it went the wrong way, but at least I got out of that lovely part of town.

Frank... go to the park. Sit on a bench enjoy the lovely weather
and look up at the sky every once in a while..... (and no, we
aren't alone out there)