1. Join Now

    AVForums.com uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Film 2004 - picture quality

Discussion in 'TV Show Forum' started by Bert Coules, Sep 29, 2004.

  1. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    Did anyone watch Film 2004 on Tuesday night? Was it my eyes, or was the picture quality on the film clips very poor? It was particularly noticeable on the new Jude Law Sky Captain excerpts, but all the clips seemed distinctly soft and lacking in punch. The studio footage was fine.

    Bert
    http://www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  2. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,436
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,027
    I cannot say I really noticed much after Sky Captain all the others looked good, (and switched form the W/S to a portableTV) and the film itself of the good captain was made bad so it had nothing to do with the quality of the clips they showed of it.
     
  3. SimonO

    SimonO
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2002
    Messages:
    3,193
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    Ratings:
    +64
    I thought the Sky Captain CGI look realy cheap, but Ross said the film looked good... One for Blockbuster rather than the cinema for me...
     
  4. buckaroo

    buckaroo
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    128
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings:
    +2
    I didn't see the programme in question. But I have seen clips of the movie, and that fuzzy look is down to the art direction of the film methinks. Because it was made without using any sets whatsoever. All the backgrounds were produced via CGI.

    It looks crap IMHO.
     
  5. Bert Coules

    Bert Coules
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    2,995
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    86
    Ratings:
    +119
    I agree that it must have been a deliberate stylistic decision; presumably an all-CGI environment can look as sharp (or as fuzzy) as the film makers desire. Strange idea to make the whole thing look out of focus.

    Bert
    http://www.bertcoules.co.uk
     
  6. Mr.D

    Mr.D
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2000
    Messages:
    11,041
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    Ratings:
    +1,112
    They've made it soft an fuzzy to hide the bad compositing a poorly done CG.
    Absolutely awful and they cap it all with proclaiming it stylistic intent. They may as well have shot it on sd video for all the information thats left on screen. Terrible clipped whites ( big no no in vfx land) and ridiculously poor bluescreen work: its total anathema to anyone trying to do decent vfx work.

    Then they've banged a big promist filter over the top to hide all the bad edges.

    terrible terrible terrible.
     
  7. Garrett

    Garrett
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2001
    Messages:
    31,436
    Products Owned:
    2
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    The best thief you’ll never see.
    Ratings:
    +4,027
    I notes the picture was terrible on the clip of White Chicks it had sort of a herringbone pattern on screen I was thinking it was a bad transmission but when it went back to the studio the picture was fine.
     

Share This Page

Loading...