Re:Bad photography and/or printing (maybe both)
on
Shadow Of The Vampire
·
· Score: 1
I wonder if the cineplex where you saw it was running the projector bulb at a lower wattage to try to get more life out of it.
No, I regularly drive a good 30 minutes out of my way just to see movies at this theater, simply because they do such a good job with the projection and sound. They usually seem to hit the SMPTE recommended brightness level without too much trouble. The showing of "Shadow" that I saw was no exception. The parts that looked too dark were not really black, but rather an underexposed, washed-out grayish black. It was clear that it was actually printed that way on the film, and not just a problem of projector brightness. I'll bet the filmmakers probably did make it look that way on purpose, even though there are other ways to create "atmosphere" that don't involve throwing away color, contrast, and shadow detail.
I agree that brightness is a very big problem with most theaters today, but the Century 25 (as well as most other Century-owned theaters) seems to actually take the time and spend the money to do it right. For that, they get my business, even if I have to drive a long way. I should point out that people who are excited about Texas Instruments' new DLP projectors are in for a disappointment if those machines ever see widespread use. They also use xenon lamps to provide light, just like film projectors. Spendthrift theater managers looking to save a few pennies on electricity and bulb replacements will likely underpower the bulbs on DLP projectors too. So this digital "revolution" will just give us the same old crappy, dimly-lit pictures, only with lower resolution and compression artifacts to boot!
If I understand correctly: by "cinematography", you mean framing and composition, and by "photography" you refer to film exposure... so where does lighting fall; under cinematography or photography? That's a bit of an arbitrary distinction though, since the same person, namely the director of photography, is responsible for both (yes, yes, he/she has to answer to the director, but so does everyone else working on the film... my point is just that it's the same person's job).
The entire screen is almost totally black except for the barely-visible floating heads
I remember that scene. It would have been great... if the shadow areas had actually been black, but instead they were a very dull, washed-out grey. The whole movie had that underexposed, "push" look that I really hate. I understand the idea of going for a murky, dark atmosphere, but it seems like it could have been done without those problems.
I don't know about most other folks who saw it, but the print I saw of this movie (Shadow of the Vampire that is, not the original Nosferatu) looked horrible. It was unbelievably grainy, much more so than most movies made in the Super-35 format (which often ends up looking somewhat grainy, but not this bad). There was almost zero shadow detail. It may have been due to bad lab work in making the release prints, but it almost looked like all the photography in the movie was severly underexposed for some reason. This may have been done on purpose, but I can't imagine why the filmmakers would do that, since they already had a seperate way of simulating the "old" style of movie making with the grainy, "iris in" look that always showed up when Malkovich and his team were shooting. It looked like the "real" parts of this movie were meant to be done in that grand glowing, golden style that you see in most historical fiction. I wonder why it turned out looking as bad as did?
I'm not sure which online book store is "in" at the moment...
I say it should be Wordsworth. No silly patent nonsense or big-company-trying-to-crush-the-little-guy crap.
p.Plus, they were on the 'net a full two years before Amazon.
They could just wait a few more months, after which time EToys will be out of business completely, just like all the other lame-brained "dot com" ideas. Problem solved!
Ah, that's interesting. 33 vantage points would definitely make it look a lot smoother than 16.
Beats me how they are keeping the cameras aligned. Since they are working with Princeton Video (the company that does the yellow first-down line stuff), I imagine they are using some real-time image recognition software to keep the cameras focused at the same vantage point. I'll bet they are physically moving the cameras only enough to get it roughly aligned, and then zooming and panning the images slightly to do a more fine-grained alignment.
In any case, it sounds like they spent their money on the cameras' motor control and alignment mechanisms, which is why there currently isn't any interpolation. Adding 3D approximation/interpolation between the frames will likely be the next step.
I wonder how they are setting up the controls for this. It seems like it would be pretty simple. Broadcasters already have one dial to control the video's movement through time (the jog/shuttle dial), and now they have a second dial to orbit the virtual camera about its vantage point. If it's something easy like that, they might even let John Madden take control of it.;v)
No, stealing motion picture studios' work is not ok. But that's not what DeCSS is about.
Bull. Making MPEG4 rips of DVDs that can be played with "DivX;-)" is the biggest use of DeCSS right now, and will be for the for the foreseeable future. Just look at all the movie warez sites out there, all competing with each other to make zero-day rips available whenever a new DVD comes out. Regardless of the original intent, that is what DeCSS has become: a DVD-ripping tool.
It is true that the CBS system is more flexible, but the Matrix system did allow for the scene to continue moving forward in time while the virtual camera moved. In fact, there were a few shots that did this, such as the famous shot with Keanu bending over backwards to dodge bullets in very slow motion, while the camera circles around him twice.
The real limitation with the Matrix's system was that the camera's movements had to be planned out ahead of time. There were 35mm motion picture cameras at the two endpoints of the virtual camera's planned path of travel, with 35mm still cameras spaced out inbetween. Those still cameras could be timed to fire all at once, or in succession, which would make the scene either frozen or moving during the virtual camera's movements (respectively). But in either case, the movement of the virtual camera was planned out ahead of time, and could not be changed once the shot had been filmed, due to the fact that still cameras were used (which only snapped a single frame at a pre-determined time).
In the CBS system, all of the cameras involved are video cameras, meaning that they all capture frames continuously throughout the entire time the cameras are running. During playback, the operator can choose any of the vantage points for any particular frame. In other words, the virtual camera can be moved around freely during playback, with no pre-planned restrictions.
In the RealVideo clip linked from the story, I noticed that there were only a few vantage points, and that these were spaced out fairly far apart. There also seemed to be no morphing/interpolation between the frames. This resulted in a very jerky, stop-motion sort of feel, rather than the smooth, fluid sort of movements seen in The Matrix and various TV commercials. Perhaps they will use more cameras and some interpolation in the actual event to make it look better.
Actually it was in the late 60s and early 70s that Kubrick researched "Napolean". I had never heard of it until I read this Salon article about it. It's too bad, just tragic really, that he never made the film.
Well, when some people believe in something, they actually stand by it. It's called having convictions.
CmdrTaco is not one of those people. He has talked about spending time playing "Diablo II" on occasion, which would certainly require him to boot into Win9x. The notion that he "can't" see this trailer because it's in Quicktime is nothing but stupid posturing. He's full of shit. If he really wanted to see it as much as he obviously wanted to play Diablo II, he would boot into Win9x and watch it.
You are correct that the 3D camera technique was popularized by The Matrix, but invented before that movie was made. It was used in commercials such as those for The Gap, and is called virtual camera. VC has their own camera rigs, which are patented, but I believe the people working on The Matrix seem to have built their own rigs, and thus avoided having to pay any royalty fees. (Notice that there is little mention of The Matrix on the virtual camera website.)
Dude, just because the "massive radio dish" was the most prominent feature, doesn't mean the moviemakers were trying to imply that was what was doing the actual sensing! All satellites look that way -- the dish is always the biggest part (other than perhaps the solar panels). The cameras were there, they were just hard to see: some small little piece down in one corner.
What, you wanted to see a giant Nikon floating out in space?:v)
I understand that movies take a long time to make, but I am fairly certain that the technique in question was developed independently, first used in commercials, and then later used in movies such as "The Matrix".
I am not sure if the people behind the Matrix used equipment from the "Virtual Camera" people, or if they just rolled their own. Probably the latter, since the virtual camera website makes no metion of "The Matrix".
A recent article in the NY Times talks about how the researchers from Princeton and Rice are having to work out the legality of publishing their results, due to potential problems with the DMCA.
It should be pointed out that the "Virtual Camera" technique saw its first prominent use in commercials for The Gap, long before "The Matrix" was produced.
With that in mind, I believe this technique should no longer be called "bullet time". Instead, it should be called "khaki time".
I don't think it was copy-protection which killed DAT as a consumer platform. Sure, it's bad ("What do you mean I have to pay them a 'tax', even when I make my own recording?!"), but the problem is it didn't offer any significant advantage over CDs in the consumers' minds, while offering the disadvantage of having no random access like CDs. Most consumers were willing to put up with playback-only, until CD-R became popular, and now we can do everything DAT could do, and more, without having to pay a "tax".
If and when HDTV takes off, it won't be because of broadcasts. It will be due to home video playback formats. Once some sort of HD-DVD format becomes available, and people can watch movies at high resolution, that will drive the adoption of HDTV. Until that happens, HDTV is going to progress slowly. So, once again, it's in the MPAA's hands. Who knows how long it will be before and HD-DVD format is available, and what sorts of draconian restrictions there will be on it...
Take this with a huge grain of salt, but "Nessie", the mysterious online coulmnist for the San Francisco Bay Guardian, recently wrote an interesting column in which he speculates that Tesla developed some technologies that found their way into military applications. Such devices are meant to be kept secret, which might explain why public school textbooks and the Smithsonian have little or no mention of Tesla.
If nothing else, it's fun to speculate about such things. As I said, take it with a huge grain of salt.
That pretty much sums up the way Gore dealt with every issue. By the time this election came around, many people had had enough of his sorry ass. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why he lost the election (and yes, he did lose -- the ongoing press/student recounts in Florida have not given him the victory everyone thought he had).
So you work at WETA? I have to ask -- why did you make all the CG lens flares in that trailer oval shaped as though they were from anamorphic lenses, when you know bloody well that the movie is being filmed in Super-35 with spherical lenses? Please tell me you're not making that mistake all throughout the movie!
Hey you f**king stupid moderator! That's not a troll! What I said about spherical vs. anamorphic lenses is a common issue in movies made in the widescreen format (that's 2.39:1 aspect ratio according to the SMPTE standards, not 2.35:1 -- the backs of DVD packages are wrong). Some movies of that aspect ratio are made in Super-35 (spherical lenses), and others are made in "scope" (anamorphic lenses). The two types of lenses produce different flares when shooting on set, and the SFX people have to make sure any stuff they add matches or it will look funny. I noticed that it didn't match in the LOTR trailer, and I commented on it. How on Earth is that a troll?!
Just because you're too damned stupid to know what I'm talking about does not make me a troll!!
I agree, I really wish they would show that earlier "internet preview" in theaters at some point. Not only for the mention of Tolkien, but also because it just looks like it was meant to be shown on a big screen, especially the part where it expands from a TV-sized image to the full widescreen "scope" image!
Maybe they figure audiences in theaters will be turned off if they mention books.
Well, the Sony Metreon in SF is also all-THX certified, and their picture quality sucks great big donkey balls.
I've complained to THX a whole bunch of times, but to no avail. Apparently, as long as Sony pays their fee for using the THX name, Lucasfilm is happy. I think Century does a good job because they want to, not because THX makes them.
The new Century 20 at the so-called "Great Mall" is pretty nice, but the auditoriums are a lot smaller than the ones at the Century 25 at Union City. I hate it when the screen is below a certain size, because then the little perforations in the screen's surface become objectionable. Still, I'd rather go the the Century Great Mall than most other places.
Also of note is the Century 16 on Shoreline Blvd. in Mountain View (your town!). True, they don't have stadium seating or THX, but they still do a very good job. And unlike the Union City or Great Mall theaters, their screens are "maxed out" for a 2.39:1 image, rather than a 1.85:1 image. That is, they use masking on the sides for 1.85 movies instead of masking on the top for 2.39 movies. That's the way it should be in all theaters.
I think the best thing Peter Jackson has is a feel for colour.
I noticed somebody complaining about the lighting of that final shot on the message board at TheOneRing's SFX page. It's obviously artificial lighting, and not filmed outdoors (the background's been added in), but I think that just contributes to the "fantasy" feel. I wouldn't want it to look like a nature documentary.
He's also a nice guy, I had dinner with him in Wellington a few years ago...
Slashdot Mirror
No, I regularly drive a good 30 minutes out of my way just to see movies at this theater, simply because they do such a good job with the projection and sound. They usually seem to hit the SMPTE recommended brightness level without too much trouble. The showing of "Shadow" that I saw was no exception. The parts that looked too dark were not really black, but rather an underexposed, washed-out grayish black. It was clear that it was actually printed that way on the film, and not just a problem of projector brightness. I'll bet the filmmakers probably did make it look that way on purpose, even though there are other ways to create "atmosphere" that don't involve throwing away color, contrast, and shadow detail.
I agree that brightness is a very big problem with most theaters today, but the Century 25 (as well as most other Century-owned theaters) seems to actually take the time and spend the money to do it right. For that, they get my business, even if I have to drive a long way. I should point out that people who are excited about Texas Instruments' new DLP projectors are in for a disappointment if those machines ever see widespread use. They also use xenon lamps to provide light, just like film projectors. Spendthrift theater managers looking to save a few pennies on electricity and bulb replacements will likely underpower the bulbs on DLP projectors too. So this digital "revolution" will just give us the same old crappy, dimly-lit pictures, only with lower resolution and compression artifacts to boot!
The entire screen is almost totally black except for the barely-visible floating heads
I remember that scene. It would have been great ... if the shadow areas had actually been black, but instead they were a very dull, washed-out grey. The whole movie had that underexposed, "push" look that I really hate. I understand the idea of going for a murky, dark atmosphere, but it seems like it could have been done without those problems.
I don't know about most other folks who saw it, but the print I saw of this movie (Shadow of the Vampire that is, not the original Nosferatu) looked horrible. It was unbelievably grainy, much more so than most movies made in the Super-35 format (which often ends up looking somewhat grainy, but not this bad). There was almost zero shadow detail. It may have been due to bad lab work in making the release prints, but it almost looked like all the photography in the movie was severly underexposed for some reason. This may have been done on purpose, but I can't imagine why the filmmakers would do that, since they already had a seperate way of simulating the "old" style of movie making with the grainy, "iris in" look that always showed up when Malkovich and his team were shooting. It looked like the "real" parts of this movie were meant to be done in that grand glowing, golden style that you see in most historical fiction. I wonder why it turned out looking as bad as did?
I say it should be Wordsworth. No silly patent nonsense or big-company-trying-to-crush-the-little-guy crap. p.Plus, they were on the 'net a full two years before Amazon.
Heh, yeah, there's likely to be plenty of overlap between the etoy and EToys customers. They're practically the same demographic!
They could just wait a few more months, after which time EToys will be out of business completely, just like all the other lame-brained "dot com" ideas. Problem solved!
Uh, what I mean is, they are likely using such software to determine what commands to send to the cameras' control motors. That wasn't too clear.
Beats me how they are keeping the cameras aligned. Since they are working with Princeton Video (the company that does the yellow first-down line stuff), I imagine they are using some real-time image recognition software to keep the cameras focused at the same vantage point. I'll bet they are physically moving the cameras only enough to get it roughly aligned, and then zooming and panning the images slightly to do a more fine-grained alignment.
In any case, it sounds like they spent their money on the cameras' motor control and alignment mechanisms, which is why there currently isn't any interpolation. Adding 3D approximation/interpolation between the frames will likely be the next step.
I wonder how they are setting up the controls for this. It seems like it would be pretty simple. Broadcasters already have one dial to control the video's movement through time (the jog/shuttle dial), and now they have a second dial to orbit the virtual camera about its vantage point. If it's something easy like that, they might even let John Madden take control of it. ;v)
Bull. Making MPEG4 rips of DVDs that can be played with "DivX ;-)" is the biggest use of DeCSS right now, and will be for the for the foreseeable future. Just look at all the movie warez sites out there, all competing with each other to make zero-day rips available whenever a new DVD comes out. Regardless of the original intent, that is what DeCSS has become: a DVD-ripping tool.
It is true that the CBS system is more flexible, but the Matrix system did allow for the scene to continue moving forward in time while the virtual camera moved. In fact, there were a few shots that did this, such as the famous shot with Keanu bending over backwards to dodge bullets in very slow motion, while the camera circles around him twice.
The real limitation with the Matrix's system was that the camera's movements had to be planned out ahead of time. There were 35mm motion picture cameras at the two endpoints of the virtual camera's planned path of travel, with 35mm still cameras spaced out inbetween. Those still cameras could be timed to fire all at once, or in succession, which would make the scene either frozen or moving during the virtual camera's movements (respectively). But in either case, the movement of the virtual camera was planned out ahead of time, and could not be changed once the shot had been filmed, due to the fact that still cameras were used (which only snapped a single frame at a pre-determined time).
In the CBS system, all of the cameras involved are video cameras, meaning that they all capture frames continuously throughout the entire time the cameras are running. During playback, the operator can choose any of the vantage points for any particular frame. In other words, the virtual camera can be moved around freely during playback, with no pre-planned restrictions.
In the RealVideo clip linked from the story, I noticed that there were only a few vantage points, and that these were spaced out fairly far apart. There also seemed to be no morphing/interpolation between the frames. This resulted in a very jerky, stop-motion sort of feel, rather than the smooth, fluid sort of movements seen in The Matrix and various TV commercials. Perhaps they will use more cameras and some interpolation in the actual event to make it look better.
Actually it was in the late 60s and early 70s that Kubrick researched "Napolean". I had never heard of it until I read this Salon article about it. It's too bad, just tragic really, that he never made the film.
CmdrTaco is not one of those people. He has talked about spending time playing "Diablo II" on occasion, which would certainly require him to boot into Win9x. The notion that he "can't" see this trailer because it's in Quicktime is nothing but stupid posturing. He's full of shit. If he really wanted to see it as much as he obviously wanted to play Diablo II, he would boot into Win9x and watch it.
You are correct that the 3D camera technique was popularized by The Matrix, but invented before that movie was made. It was used in commercials such as those for The Gap, and is called virtual camera. VC has their own camera rigs, which are patented, but I believe the people working on The Matrix seem to have built their own rigs, and thus avoided having to pay any royalty fees. (Notice that there is little mention of The Matrix on the virtual camera website.)
What, you wanted to see a giant Nikon floating out in space? :v)
I am not sure if the people behind the Matrix used equipment from the "Virtual Camera" people, or if they just rolled their own. Probably the latter, since the virtual camera website makes no metion of "The Matrix".
A recent article in the NY Times talks about how the researchers from Princeton and Rice are having to work out the legality of publishing their results, due to potential problems with the DMCA.
With that in mind, I believe this technique should no longer be called "bullet time". Instead, it should be called "khaki time".
If and when HDTV takes off, it won't be because of broadcasts. It will be due to home video playback formats. Once some sort of HD-DVD format becomes available, and people can watch movies at high resolution, that will drive the adoption of HDTV. Until that happens, HDTV is going to progress slowly. So, once again, it's in the MPAA's hands. Who knows how long it will be before and HD-DVD format is available, and what sorts of draconian restrictions there will be on it...
If nothing else, it's fun to speculate about such things. As I said, take it with a huge grain of salt.
That pretty much sums up the way Gore dealt with every issue. By the time this election came around, many people had had enough of his sorry ass. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why he lost the election (and yes, he did lose -- the ongoing press/student recounts in Florida have not given him the victory everyone thought he had).
So you work at WETA? I have to ask -- why did you make all the CG lens flares in that trailer oval shaped as though they were from anamorphic lenses, when you know bloody well that the movie is being filmed in Super-35 with spherical lenses? Please tell me you're not making that mistake all throughout the movie!
Just because you're too damned stupid to know what I'm talking about does not make me a troll!!
Maybe they figure audiences in theaters will be turned off if they mention books.
I've complained to THX a whole bunch of times, but to no avail. Apparently, as long as Sony pays their fee for using the THX name, Lucasfilm is happy. I think Century does a good job because they want to, not because THX makes them.
The new Century 20 at the so-called "Great Mall" is pretty nice, but the auditoriums are a lot smaller than the ones at the Century 25 at Union City. I hate it when the screen is below a certain size, because then the little perforations in the screen's surface become objectionable. Still, I'd rather go the the Century Great Mall than most other places.
Also of note is the Century 16 on Shoreline Blvd. in Mountain View (your town!). True, they don't have stadium seating or THX, but they still do a very good job. And unlike the Union City or Great Mall theaters, their screens are "maxed out" for a 2.39:1 image, rather than a 1.85:1 image. That is, they use masking on the sides for 1.85 movies instead of masking on the top for 2.39 movies. That's the way it should be in all theaters.
I noticed somebody complaining about the lighting of that final shot on the message board at TheOneRing's SFX page. It's obviously artificial lighting, and not filmed outdoors (the background's been added in), but I think that just contributes to the "fantasy" feel. I wouldn't want it to look like a nature documentary.
He's also a nice guy, I had dinner with him in Wellington a few years ago...
Really? Wow, do you work in the movie industry?