As soon as I started watching
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Session 9
Don_Cheech — 10 years ago(February 24, 2016 10:05 AM)
As soon as I started watching
Session 9
, I noticed its interesting cinematography. It was quite obvious it was filmed with a digital camera. The natural lighting and odd focus of certain shots just gave off a very nightmarish vibe. The blur is something you dont see in movies shot on film. Its almost like youre looking through a door's peephole- or a security camera. Especially the shots of the long hallways- also reminiscent of
The Shining
(even though that was shot on film). But not too many horror films look like this. Now, if you havent seen
Inland Empire
, directed by the legendary David Lynch, I highly suggest you do so. Its an experience to say the very least. Its literally a nightmare. And one of the most labyrinthian
films I have ever seen. Im still figuring out 2 years after seeing it.
So, anywayusing IMDB, I looked into the technical aspects of
Session 9
, and compared it to the info on
Inland Empire
. Turns out- there are more technical similarities than I thought.- They are both filmed with Sony digital cameras.
- Both films use the same Cinematographic Process. HDCAM (1080p/24)
- Both films even used the same "laboratories" to process. (LaserPacific (high definition laboratory) FotoKem Laboratory, Burbank (CA), USA (prints)
- Both have dolby digital sound
- Both have the same print format 35 mm (which isnt rare, but still).
So, what can we extract from this? Im not really sure. But; for some reason- this type of format really works well with these type of films. I hope its not just a thing of the past.
Does anyone know any other films that use a similar format? And did anyone else notice the similarities in cinematography?