- Joined
- Sep 4, 2004
- Messages
- 398
- Format
- 4x5 Format
In the Public I he also used 35mm cameras in the seen where he rolled them out in the middle of the floor during the shoot out in the restaurant. I would have to watch it again to maybe find out
In the Public I he also used 35mm cameras in the seen where he rolled them out in the middle of the floor during the shoot out in the restaurant. I would have to watch it again to maybe find outthe public eye with joe pesci
he was felling-esque
and of course used
a speed or crown graphic.
Or the prop department simply feels the selected camera is close enough for the time period represented. After all, the movie serves primarily as entertainment and the great majority of viewers are more concerned with experiencing the general feel of the period, not historical accuracy of every detail. When a film flops in the theaters, it is almost certainly not because of a camera prop.New movies with old cameras offer opportunities to spot mistakes. Perhaps the new movie is to portray an earlier time (e.g. 1935), so the cameras should be period correct. My father would always discover this type of problem with cars in movies.
Also, because those people who are responsible for the camera as a prop are likely unfamiliar with the camera, they might make silly mistakes (such as not removing the dark slide when making a photo).
As I showed somewhere in this thread such issue already was seen in old movies, with cameras depicted not used at that period for such task (my example was police photography). It seems often figurants were asked to bring with them some camera, to then act as press photographers.New movies with old cameras offer opportunities to spot mistakes. Perhaps the new movie is to portray an earlier time (e.g. 1935), so the cameras should be period correct. My father would always discover this type of problem with cars in movies.
Or the prop department simply feels the selected camera is close enough for the time period represented. ... When a film flops in the theaters, it is almost certainly not because of a camera prop.
Not a whole camera, but a sight through an SLR finder...
The camera pictured in the movie relating to the viewfinder view is a Praktica SLR - here's a screenshot moments before. However, I'm not sure if the viewfinder image truthfully represents what one would see in the viewfinder of that model. At least the actor seems to know how to properly hold and operate a camera, which is not always the case when cameras appear in movies.Not a whole camera, but a sight through an SLR finder, used in the generics.
"Declaratie De Dragoste", Romania 1985
View attachment 189537
I somehow overlooked that scene.The camera pictured in the movie relating to the viewfinder view is a Praktica SLR - here's a screenshot moments before. However, I'm not sure if the viewfinder image truthfully represents what one would see in the viewfinder of that model.
This was on last night. I noticed the Rollei too.Close Encounters of the Third Time has one 110 camera and one Rollei 35 but those were contemporary.
Close Encounters of the Third Time has one 110 camera and one Rollei 35 but those were contemporary.
...
But I would not complain if someone comes up with an old movie showing a futuristic camera. As long as it uses film...
...
Jan got an Exakta Varex, well, kind of....
from 3:15 to 4:50
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?