Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > HD Talk

HD Talk The place to discuss HD DVD, Blu-ray and all other forms and formats of HD and HDTV.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-21-17, 11:00 AM   #76
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
Do the U.K. BDs of either retain the 50i?
Keep in mind that the movie was always intended for a theatrical release, which would be projected at 24 fps. Even if the camera shot at 50i (which is possible, but I'm not certain of), it would have been slowed down during post-production to the film projection frame rate.

The Blu-ray editions are transferred from a film-out source, not from the original camera recordings. Therefore, 24 fps is the correct frame rate, regardless of what happened in-camera.

Generally speaking, a slowdown from 25 frames to 24 frames is much less noticeable than a speedup from 24 to 25. The production team may have also tried to compensate for it by pitching up the audio during mixing. If that happened, returning the frame rate to 25 fps would sound wrong.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.

Last edited by Josh Z; 06-21-17 at 11:09 AM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-17, 11:08 AM   #77
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
With the advent of BD, is it easier just to shoot 24p to have it for the home video released and then speed it up for PAL? I assume that U.K. HDTVs are 50i, how do they manage that?
UK TVs are typically capable of displaying at either 50i, 60i or 24 fps. It's only in America that TVs lock out 50i.

UK HD television broadcasts are 50i, but the Blu-ray release may be returned to the original frame rate if it was shot at 24 fps.

Quote:
Huh, I wondered about that. I'd always assumed most older U.K. shows were shot 25 FPS. Was it easier to shoot 24 then speed up the to PAL video?
It was a mix. Anything shot on video would have been 50i. If shot on film, the production team had the option of 24 fps or 25 fps. 25 would be more directly compatible with PAL, but sometimes concerns about international syndication may have dictated shooting in 24 fps regardless.

European viewers are accustomed to PAL speedup and pitch shift due to having grown up watching content that way. It usually doesn't bother them as much as it bothers an American viewer. Likewise, European viewers may be much more sensitive to 60 Hz judder than Americans are.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-17, 11:55 AM   #78
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,618
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Keep in mind that the movie was always intended for a theatrical release, which would be projected at 24 fps. Even if the camera shot at 50i (which is possible, but I'm not certain of), it would have been slowed down during post-production to the film projection frame rate.
For 28 Days Later, the movie was shot with a PAL Canon XL1 in 25 fps "frame mode", simulating 25P, although the tape still recorded in 50i. It wasn't true progressive, but it was possibly the closest to it on a consumer level camcorder at the time.

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-xl...n-use-not.html
ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasoni...ressive-WP.pdf
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-17, 01:50 PM   #79
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
For 28 Days Later, the movie was shot with a PAL Canon XL1 in 25 fps "frame mode", simulating 25P, although the tape still recorded in 50i. It wasn't true progressive, but it was possibly the closest to it on a consumer level camcorder at the time.
Thanks for the confirmation.

As I said, even with this being the case, the movie had to be slowed down to 24 fps during post in order to be compatible with theatrical projection. Also, the final scene was shot on 35mm at 24 fps, so the earlier footage had to be made to sync with that. It's very likely that the audio was pitch adjusted during the mixing stage to compensate for frame rate conversion issues.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-17, 01:55 PM   #80
Moderator
 
Groucho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 69,484
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Maybe if/when they do a 4K transfer they'll finally get it right.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-17, 02:06 PM   #81
DVD Talk Reviewer/ Admin
 
Adam Tyner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Greenville, South Cackalack
Posts: 19,206
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Groucho View Post
Maybe if/when they do a 4K transfer they'll finally get it right.
__________________
"When you're in your twenties, you wonder what everyone's thinking of you. When you're in your thirties, you don't care what people think of you. And when you reach your forties, you find out no one was ever thinking of you in the first place."
-Patton Oswalt
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-17, 08:27 PM   #82
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
hanshotfirst1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Livonia MI
Posts: 9,678
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Keep in mind that the movie was always intended for a theatrical release, which would be projected at 24 fps. Even if the camera shot at 50i (which is possible, but I'm not certain of), it would have been slowed down during post-production to the film projection frame rate.
Is it possible to project at 25 FPS? This was back during the 35mm days, I think DCPs can, wasn't Enter the Void projected at 25 FPS?

Quote:
The Blu-ray editions are transferred from a film-out source, not from the original camera recordings.
Which in this individual case, is actually better. I guess if it was shot on video, would there even be a "negative?"

Quote:
Therefore, 24 fps is the correct frame rate, regardless of what happened in-camera.
Boyle's visual aesthetic is kind of hyperactive anyway, so I took most of the slowdowns and speedups and deliberate choices.

Quote:
Generally speaking, a slowdown from 25 frames to 24 frames is much less noticeable than a speedup from 24 to 25. The production team may have also tried to compensate for it by pitching up the audio during mixing. If that happened, returning the frame rate to 25 fps would sound wrong.
In the vernacular, it looks the way it's supposed to look?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
UK TVs are typically capable of displaying at either 50i, 60i or 24 fps. It's only in America that TVs lock out 50i.
I wonder if my plasma could even play 50i or 576i? I doubt it.

Quote:
UK HD television broadcasts are 50i, but the Blu-ray release may be returned to the original frame rate if it was shot at 24 fps
.

I assume that with the advent of BD, more U.K. shows are shot 24p for easier Blu-ray transfers? Then again, my streaming always runs at 60p, so I'm sure that's scaled in some way?

Quote:
It was a mix. Anything shot on video would have been 50i. If shot on film, the production team had the option of 24 fps or 25 fps. 25 would be more directly compatible with PAL, but sometimes concerns about international syndication may have dictated shooting in 24 fps regardless.
Shooting 24 and speeding it up sounds easier an better for international syndication, but was probably only for shows intended for export. I wonder sometimes if a show like Robin of Sherwood should be 24p or not?

Quote:
European viewers are accustomed to PAL speedup and pitch shift due to having grown up watching content that way. It usually doesn't bother them as much as it bothers an American viewer. Likewise, European viewers may be much more sensitive to 60 Hz judder than Americans are.
We can't agree on anything, can we ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
For 28 Days Later, the movie was shot with a PAL Canon XL1 in 25 fps "frame mode", simulating 25P, although the tape still recorded in 50i. It wasn't true progressive, but it was possibly the closest to it on a consumer level camcorder at the time.
Wasn't digital video, particularly consumer-grade, fairly new at the time? The aesthetic isn't actually dissimilar to the grainy 16mm low-budget horror films that Boyle is probably trying to emulate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Thanks for the confirmation.

As I said, even with this being the case, the movie had to be slowed down to 24 fps during post in order to be compatible with theatrical projection. Also, the final scene was shot on 35mm at 24 fps, so the earlier footage had to be made to sync with that. It's very likely that the audio was pitch adjusted during the mixing stage to compensate for frame rate conversion issues.
I wonder if the PAL DVD sounds or looks more "right" than the 24p version? I doubt it's noticeable.
__________________
"What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one."
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death
"Smart can't beat free."
Gillian Flynn
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-17, 08:40 PM   #83
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,247
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
Shooting 24 and speeding it up sounds easier an better for international syndication, but was probably only for shows intended for export. I wonder sometimes if a show like Robin of Sherwood should be 24p or not?
Are you familiar with Michael Praed's normal voice?

(I'm only familiar with Praed's voice from seasons 5 and 6 of Dynasty, which I'm guessing is probably not modified).

If Praed's voice on the first two series of Robin of Sherwood, sounds lower in pitch than his normal voice, then most likely there is a 25fps -> 24fps type of slowdown.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-17, 08:51 PM   #84
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,618
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
Is it possible to project at 25 FPS? This was back during the 35mm days, I think DCPs can, wasn't Enter the Void projected at 25 FPS?
It's probably possible with digital projectors, but 28 Days Later was transferred to film prints for theatrical release.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
Boyle's visual aesthetic is kind of hyperactive anyway, so I took most of the slowdowns and speedups and deliberate choices.
The difference between 25fps and 24fps is minimal in terms of visual movement; you really wouldn't see a difference. It's only audibly noticeable because humans are so sensitive to pitch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
Wasn't digital video, particularly consumer-grade, fairly new at the time? The aesthetic isn't actually dissimilar to the grainy 16mm low-budget horror films that Boyle is probably trying to emulate.
Boyle wasn't going for a cheap aesthetic, just wanting to use cameras that were cheap, portable, and easy to use.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 09:14 AM   #85
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138 View Post
I wonder if the PAL DVD sounds or looks more "right" than the 24p version? I doubt it's noticeable.
I owned the PAL DVD back in the day. (It was released several months in advance of the American DVD.) As I recall, the audio had the typical sound of PAL speedup.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 09:17 AM   #86
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
Boyle wasn't going for a cheap aesthetic, just wanting to use cameras that were cheap, portable, and easy to use.
Boyle was very much going for a cheap aesthetic. He chose to shoot the movie in a mode that only got about VHS levels of resolution. He could have gotten a better image out of that camera if he'd wanted. He also then added a ton of post-processing, including very crude edge enhancement, because he wanted the movie to look as gritty and noisy and ugly as possible. That was his aesthetic decision.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 09:47 AM   #87
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,618
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Boyle was very much going for a cheap aesthetic. He chose to shoot the movie in a mode that only got about VHS levels of resolution. He could have gotten a better image out of that camera if he'd wanted. He also then added a ton of post-processing, including very crude edge enhancement, because he wanted the movie to look as gritty and noisy and ugly as possible. That was his aesthetic decision.
Well, again, going back to this interview with the cinemetographer:
http://indiediyfilm.blogspot.com/200...ot-on-xl1.html
Quote:
"There was a lot of location work and a lot of building on location, and that's expensive in London. We knew that if we shot on 35mm stock in a conventional format, we would probably have to lose quite a few scenes."

In order to maintain the integrity of Alex Garland's script, the filmmakers opted for MiniDV, a format at the lower end of digital video's resolution scale. The advantage of MiniDV, however, was that its inherently small cameras could be set up quickly, which proved key to pulling off the stunning shots of deserted London....

Choosing the MiniDV format wasn't just about logistics. Its harsh imaging characteristics corresponded well with the film's subject matter....

During preproduction, Dod Mantle performed extensive image tests in conjunction with Moving Picture Company in Soho, London, to achieve the best shooting combination for a filmout. MPC believed the best results occurred with footage shot in the 4x3 aspect ratio but matted for 16x9 by the PAL XL1 (625 lines of resolution, 900,000 effective pixels over three 1/3" CCDs) in Frame Movie Mode, its pseudo-progressive-scan method, which is performed electronically within the camera. "My post house was quite adamant that it would help in their work to maintain as much quality as possible from the original material," the cinematographer says...

Dod Mantle helped matters by securing the higher-resolving Canon EC (6-40mm) and Canon EJ (50-150mm) prime lenses to the camera bodies with Optex adapters....

Dod Mantle shot as wide open as possible with ND filters to minimize DV's seemingly infinite depth of field, and he underexposed by one to two stops to get more information on tape.. For daylight-exterior shots that featured prominent skies, which present difficulties in DV, grad filters were thrown into the mix... Dod Mantle shot sky plates to use as replacements in post by stopping down three to four stops and using filters to enhance the cloud formations.
Some info on how the release prints were made, and there appears to be at least an intermediate print that exists, if not a "negative".
Quote:
All footage was upconverted to D-1 tapes (125 in all) by Clear Ltd., who also handled the visual effects. D-1 provides YUV 4:4:2 uncompressed PAL images. (The PAL Canon XL1 is 4:2:0.) After editing and conforming, the seven D-1 masters were handed off to MPC, where Dod Mantle spent almost a month in tape-to-tape grading with colorist Jean Clement Sorret, who used a Pogle Platinum and a Cintel DSX with the PiXi secondary color corrector. The graded masters were captured onto a digital disk recorder for treatment on a Linux Shake workstation. Running through MPC's proprietary FilmTel software, the 16x9 images were enhanced and interpolated to 2K files, blown up slightly to 1.85:1, then recorded onto grain-free Kodak Vision Color Intermediate 5242 stock via the Arrilaser. The answer print was created by Technicolor London on Fuji HiCon 3519D. Deluxe handled the release prints on Vision 2383.
The article describes the post processing being done, but never states that it was ever to deliberately degrade the image. I can't find any reference online of Boyle or anyone else involved with the production making this claim either. The post house itself is cited as wanting to maintain as much quality as possible.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 11:04 AM   #88
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
The article describes the post processing being done, but never states that it was ever to deliberately degrade the image. I can't find any reference online of Boyle or anyone else involved with the production making this claim either.
I mean, have you seen the movie? That footage looks worse than any home movie that an average family might shoot with the same camera. Either that's deliberate, or everyone involved in the production of the movie was woefully incompetent.

From that article you just quoted: "Choosing the MiniDV format wasn't just about logistics. Its harsh imaging characteristics corresponded well with the film's subject matter...."
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 11:19 AM   #89
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,618
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I mean, have you seen the movie? That footage looks worse than any home movie that an average family might shoot with the same camera. Either that's deliberate, or everyone involved in the production of the movie was woefully incompetent.

From that article you just quoted: "Choosing the MiniDV format wasn't just about logistics. Its harsh imaging characteristics corresponded well with the film's subject matter...."
I'm not denying the movie has harsh looking footage. And I did specifically quote that they felt the image characteristics fit the tone and subject matter of the film. However, I can't find anything that states that they deliberately tried to make the image quality worse.

Frame mode was chosen because it was a better fit for transfering to film over an interlaced image. They probably tried de-interlacing the camera's interlaced image in post as a test, and felt frame mode was better. And again, the other aspects I quoted were all about improving image quality, or maintaining image quality.

The camera just had limitations, especially when cropping and blowing up to theatrical projection size. The footage I could find from amateurs isn't that great either.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 11:50 AM   #90
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,274
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I mean, have you seen the movie? That footage looks worse than any home movie that an average family might shoot with the same camera. Either that's deliberate, or everyone involved in the production of the movie was woefully incompetent.

From that article you just quoted: "Choosing the MiniDV format wasn't just about logistics. Its harsh imaging characteristics corresponded well with the film's subject matter...."
"Open Water" was another film from that same time that was shot and edited on DVCAM (which was the better "pro-sumer" version of MiniDV) and then transferred to 35mm film.

That film has much of the same harsh look to it as well so it may be a case of how the DVCAM video footage transfers to film.

I think the deleted scenes on the Open Water DVD are in their native DVCAM format and they look like a cheap home video with a stark, sharp image and bright colors - basically a standard-def "soap-opera" effect.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 02:07 PM   #91
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
"Open Water" was another film from that same time that was shot and edited on DVCAM (which was the better "pro-sumer" version of MiniDV) and then transferred to 35mm film.

That film has much of the same harsh look to it as well so it may be a case of how the DVCAM video footage transfers to film.
I haven't seen Open Water since the theater. I don't remember it looking nearly as bad as 28 Days Later.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 02:31 PM   #92
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,618
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
I haven't seen Open Water since the theater. I don't remember it looking nearly as bad as 28 Days Later.
I found some links to screenshots, including NSFW ones, of Open Water:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews7/openwater.htm
http://moviescreenshots.blogspot.com...ater-2003.html

The image quality doesn't look that good.

Screencaps of 28 Days Later:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...er_blu-ray.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...8dayslater.htm
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 02:40 PM   #93
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
andicus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,683
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

I wouldn't place any confidence in the screenshots from moviescrenshots blog. They look worse than DVD Beaver and aren't even in the correct aspect ratio.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 04:27 PM   #94
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
I found some links to screenshots, including NSFW ones, of Open Water:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews7/openwater.htm
http://moviescreenshots.blogspot.com...ater-2003.html

The image quality doesn't look that good.

Screencaps of 28 Days Later:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/DVDRe...er_blu-ray.htm
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDCom...8dayslater.htm
No, the image quality doesn't look very good in those screenshots. Nevertheless, you can tell that 28 Days Later had the contrast and sharpening jacked way up, whereas Open Water didn't.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 09:03 PM   #95
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,618
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
No, the image quality doesn't look very good in those screenshots. Nevertheless, you can tell that 28 Days Later had the contrast and sharpening jacked way up, whereas Open Water didn't.
Are you sure the contrast and sharpening isn't just a factor of that particular camcorder, or something with the transfer? For example, the PAL DVD seems to have less contrast and sharpening than the NTSC DVD. They were also filmed with different cameras (Canon XL1 vs Sony vx2000 and pd150).

Found an excerpt from an interview Boyle did:
http://scrapsfromtheloft.com/2017/06...ny-boyle-2003/
Quote:
RES: What were other benefits of using digital cinematography for this film?

BOYLE: The biggest benefit, to be absolutely honest, was the London sequences, because we would not have been able to afford to do those on celluloid and not only that, they would have been, in their very nature, completely different. If we were working with a celluloid camera, with the number of people you need to operate that, it would have been either much less ambitious or staggeringly expensive, in which case the film would have been very different, in part because we would have had to have a star in it to pay for it.

RES: What about disadvantages?

Boyle: Picture quality, especially on wide shots. We were fortunate; on the whole we got away with it. When you dwell on a wide shot, the human eye is so extraordinary that it goes to where it is interested on that big screen and it zooms in, just like that zoom in on the video game. Halo! If the eye is interested in that picture and if the detail isn't there, it looks a bit shitty. Whereas on film, you can go in that close and there's enough detail there so it is still acceptable. That's the only major disadvantage. I am not sure if DV would work for period films as there is something completely modern about its feel and about it as a recording or capturing process. If you did a Jane Austin novel or great period piece, I don't know what it would look like; it might feel very odd.
Still nothing about post-processing to intentionally degrade the image.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-17, 10:07 PM   #96
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,274
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
Are you sure the contrast and sharpening isn't just a factor of that particular camcorder, or something with the transfer? For example, the PAL DVD seems to have less contrast and sharpening than the NTSC DVD. They were also filmed with different cameras (Canon XL1 vs Sony vx2000 and pd150).
Not only did each movie use a different camera other factors such as lighting, lenses and lens filters also would have played a big role.

Even video transfer to Kodak, AGFA or Fuji film stock would have changed the look for each film as well.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 09:14 AM   #97
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Why are we arguing this? Anyone who watches the movie can tell what Boyle was going for.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 09:22 AM   #98
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,618
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Why are we arguing this? Anyone who watches the movie can tell what Boyle was going for.
Because I've seen the movie and disagree with your assessment. You're acting like your claim that they deliberately degraded the image in post production is self-evident, but the actual evidence doesn't show that to be the case. You're presuming motivation based on end result. You've also made assumptions about the quality of the camera and the effects of what working with said footage and transferring it to film would result in, without any evidence to back up any of your claims.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 10:42 AM   #99
DVD Talk Legend
 
Josh Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 10,884
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay G. View Post
Because I've seen the movie and disagree with your assessment. You're acting like your claim that they deliberately degraded the image in post production is self-evident, but the actual evidence doesn't show that to be the case. You're presuming motivation based on end result. You've also made assumptions about the quality of the camera and the effects of what working with said footage and transferring it to film would result in, without any evidence to back up any of your claims.
Uh huh. He chose the lowest quality camera available to him at the time, set it for the lowest resolution mode, and jacked up the contrast and sharpening. But I guess that's all just an accident, and he couldn't possibly have had any artistic purpose behind doing it.
__________________
Josh Z
Writer/Editor, High-Def Digest (Blog updated daily!)
Curator, Laserdisc Forever
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily reflect those of my employers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-17, 12:09 PM   #100
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 15,618
Re: 28 Days Later - Poor video quality?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
Uh huh. He chose the lowest quality camera available to him at the time...
This is patently untrue. For one, he didn't use a VHS camcorder, or Hi8.

For another, the Canon XL1 was considered a "prosumer" camcorder, with a MSRP of $4699. There were cheaper Canon MiniDV camcorders around $1700 at the same time:
https://www.videomaker.com/article/c...the-high-price
https://www.videomaker.com/article/c...mcorder-review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
...set it for the lowest resolution mode...
He set it to the progressive mode the camera had, which likely helped in transitioning it to film. An explanation for the "Frame Mode" from a review of the G1, which had the same sensors:
http://www.bealecorner.com/gl1/
Quote:
Progressive scan mode: I thought the GL1 had a progressive mode, but it actually doesn't. Xiao-qing Wang sent me the following from a Canon rep:

"The GL-1 does not have a progressive scan CCD chip, instead it features an Interlaced Scan CCD. The Normal Movie Mode captures two fields (odd and even), then interlaces them together for playback. The time delay in scans creates a loss in vertical resolution and decreased sharpness of the still images. In contrast, the Frame Movie Mode captures 3/4 of a frame and interpolates the other 1/4 at the same point. Since both scans are effectively taking place at the same time, vertical resolution is 1.5 times higher. This produces high quality still images, but not quite the level of a camera with a Progressive Scan CCD."

The GL1 30 fps "frame movie mode" video looks quite good, usually, and to my mind is useful for video in a way that the TRV900's 15 fps prog.scan mode is not. The actual shutter speed is 1/60 (or higher) in this mode, so the camera is in essence recording only half the time, but for many subjects this is ok.
I remember another site mentioning the Frame Mode had an effective resolution of 360 lines, which matches with the "1.5 times higher" than a single field that Canon cites.

Too often we think that "more resolution is always better," but even in HD, there was debate between 1080i and 720p, and which was better for a given situation. They picked the mode, not because it was lower resolution, but because it gave a progressive image easier to transfer to film without interlacing artifacts. It was the lesser to two evils.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post
...and jacked up the contrast and sharpening...
You haven't shown that this isn't an artifact of the way the camera records, the way it was transferred to film, or the way the film was transferred back to video and authored for home video. For one, I showed how the PAL DVD had less contrast and sharpening than the NTSC DVD.

Not to mention, that even if it was done during the post processing, you don't really have any idea of the motivation behind what they did. You're assuming that they did it to deliberately make the image worse, when they could've been trying to make the image better. The debates about contrast and sharpening are old and ongoing. You're attributing a motivation based on your personal opinion of the results.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:36 AM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0