Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

you made the same wrong assumption as audiophilander

Posted by Analog Scott on April 12, 2006 at 10:32:58:
"Ha-ha!
Well I meant with " shit " a big commercial product, that was more on the lovely side...From me."
Check the quotation marks and you will see that "shit" isn't isolated in my post. I was asking what your statement meant not what that word meant.
"I do not know if it was shot on digital, but many film are done that way now and even when shot on real film, many are digitally proceed in the final stage."

Digitizing film is a very differnt thing than shooting straight on digital. When done well you can't tell the difference between diitally scanned film image and the original. OTOH the digital cameras are still far from film quality.
"I meant the digital effect,"

Digital in film has any number of effects depending on what is being done digitally.

" I did not go in details for this film because I though nobody here would care!"
Then why post at all?
"The same was meant fo K-K, not the film but the effect, the trickery if you want."

But much of what you see in King Kong is done without any digital processing. It does not look like it was shot on digital where as the last two Harry Potter movies do. You can tell the difference can't you?
"As for digital versus celluloid, it is a very long subject, each of the proceding has his advantage.
For me, it is of course, the old fashion way I pretend to like much more."

The only advantage I have ever seen in digital was only an advantage if one is doing forensic documantation in very low light. Ugly is ugly. Digital motion photography is ugly. I am sure it will get better but for now no thank you.