That just blows my mind and what even does anymore was that this movie was accepted and distributed even though it was. How is it that this movie was accepted not shot on something more higher quality? I'm not sure what they used for sound and have not seen the movie yet.
The movie A Love Affair of Sorts shot on a flip cam!
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
It also had really, really awful reviews. It's currently got a 0% rating on Rotton Tomatoes with 12 reviews. I don't think I've ever seen a move with that low of a score.
I watched the trailer, and it looks like it might be kind of a neat film, but also that it would get boring and the constant jello-cam and shakiness of the Flips would get annoying really fast (I've shot stuff on a Kodak Zi8, which is basically the same thing, and it's awful to work with and the footage quality is pretty much complete crap for anything other than web video, and even then it's a stretch for a lot of things).
And the thing is, it's getting attention because it's the "first" feature shot on a Flip cam. That's part of the gimmick. You couldn't get away with it if it wasn't integral to the story. Even so, I think I would have opted for something a bit better (I think even the new iPhone's camera takes better quality video, even if it's lower resolution).
I watched the trailer, and it looks like it might be kind of a neat film, but also that it would get boring and the constant jello-cam and shakiness of the Flips would get annoying really fast (I've shot stuff on a Kodak Zi8, which is basically the same thing, and it's awful to work with and the footage quality is pretty much complete crap for anything other than web video, and even then it's a stretch for a lot of things).
And the thing is, it's getting attention because it's the "first" feature shot on a Flip cam. That's part of the gimmick. You couldn't get away with it if it wasn't integral to the story. Even so, I think I would have opted for something a bit better (I think even the new iPhone's camera takes better quality video, even if it's lower resolution).
I don't know much about those cameras or how many pixels they shoot at and all, so I don't know how bad the quality would look on the big screen and such. But yeah they should have used a tripod. Well it's not good news that it got a 0 on rottentomatoes, but it's good news that it even made it to the critics! Most movies shot like that wouldn't even go to the critics, or get distribution.
Every time 1000 people get rich by working hard, 1 mental cripple wins the lottery. There's not much rhyme or reason to it, just the Chaos of the universe. There's really no lesson to be learned from fluke successes. Flukes can't be replicated, solid efforts can.
Don't film movies intended for release on a phone, but then you already knew that.
Don't film movies intended for release on a phone, but then you already knew that.
Try telling that to Park Chan-wook...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Fishing_(film)
I don't disagree in the slightest, but I do find this very interesting. Not sure if everybody's heard of this, or if anybody's seen it? I haven't, so I can't comment on the quality, but it certainly seems interesting. I need to check it out. Perhaps the filmmaker really is more important than the medium?
This, a thousand times over!
That film was also sponsored by the iPhone distributor in Korea. Interesting to note that they used additional lenses for the phone (you can actually buy a case that works as an adapter for Nikon or Canon lenses for the iPhone) and that the rest of their equipment (I'm assuming sound, lighting, etc.) was all pro-level equipment.
Again, it's a gimmick. People do these things to prove it can be done, and other people overlook the lack of image quality because it's something new and different. But because it's a gimmick, there's little room for more than one such film of a given type.
If I were just filming a web series, and knew that it would never be shown theatrically and I had no interest in festivals, then I might consider filming on something like the iPhone. But after attempting to shoot a short on a Zi8 (which is basically the Kodak equivalent of the Flip), I'll never go that route again. All the time/effort I put into it was basically wasted because the video quality was so incredibly horrible.
True. If James Cameron filmed Avatar on the Iphone, the companies would still widely distribute it.
That's most definitely not true, or at least not the way you make it sound. If anyone was idiotic enough to film 10 actors charging 50k a day on a flip phone, they would without a doubt be fired.
What they mean by "the director is more important than the camera" is that you have to know how to work the machine for the machine to work.
It's the same with guitars. It really is the guitarist and not the guitar (obviously) but then you rarely see a guy playing an arena with a plastic toy squire stratocaster. Once you get good, cheap equipment becomes a liability.
Oh that's what was meant, I see.