or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › No-Worst picture quality I have ever seen.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No-Worst picture quality I have ever seen.

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Not sure what is going on here but this 2012Cannes film festival winner looked so bad i could not watch it.First its presented in 1:40:1 anamorphic which i have never experienced before and puts the film right in the center of your widescreen with thick borders all around.The film itself looks like watching 3D without wearing glasses.The color is also dull and washed out.Cant imagine what the director was going for here but I could not watch it on my samsung 55 8500 even using an oppo player and a Darbee.I know my system is fine since i checked it all out after this disturbing experience.Could have been a defective dvd but i doubt it.
post #2 of 12
Which film? They award several prizes....which are you talking about? A film isn't awarded a prize so that it will necessarily look good on your tv, or particularly to you, either...but sounds interesting smile.gif

From wikipedia: The Palme d'Or was awarded to Austrian director Michael Haneke for his film Amour. Haneke previously won the Palme d'Or in 2009 for The White Ribbon. The jury gave the Grand Prize to Matteo Garrone's Reality, while Ken Loach's The Angels' Share was awarded the Jury Prize.
post #3 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattg3 View Post

First its presented in 1:40:1 anamorphic which i have never experienced before and puts the film right in the center of your widescreen with thick borders all around.
Most Anamorphic movies are presented in an aspect ratio between 2.37:1 and 2.40:1 so you have certainly seen a lot of 2.40:1 movies.
That the movie had thick borders on all sides has nothing to do with 2.40:1 or how the movie was framed, but must have been a technical fault at the particular presentation you saw.
Anamorphic widescreen "Cinemascope" movie only have black bars over and under the image on a 16:9 screen, never on the sides.

-
post #4 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

Most Anamorphic movies are presented in an aspect ratio between 2.37:1 and 2.40:1 so you have certainly seen a lot of 2.40:1 movies.
That the movie had thick borders on all sides has nothing to do with 2.40:1 or how the movie was framed, but must have been a technical fault at the particular presentation you saw.
Anamorphic widescreen "Cinemascope" movie only have black bars over and under the image on a 16:9 screen, never on the sides.

-
That was the aspect ratio printed on the dvd box and what i said is exactly as it appeared on my screen
post #5 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Which film? They award several prizes....which are you talking about? A film isn't awarded a prize so that it will necessarily look good on your tv, or particularly to you, either...but sounds interesting smile.gif

From wikipedia: The Palme d'Or was awarded to Austrian director Michael Haneke for his film Amour. Haneke previously won the Palme d'Or in 2009 for The White Ribbon. The jury gave the Grand Prize to Matteo Garrone's Reality, while Ken Loach's The Angels' Share was awarded the Jury Prize.
the film was called NO
post #6 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattg3 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by lovinthehd View Post

Which film? They award several prizes....which are you talking about? A film isn't awarded a prize so that it will necessarily look good on your tv, or particularly to you, either...but sounds interesting smile.gif

From wikipedia: The Palme d'Or was awarded to Austrian director Michael Haneke for his film Amour. Haneke previously won the Palme d'Or in 2009 for The White Ribbon. The jury gave the Grand Prize to Matteo Garrone's Reality, while Ken Loach's The Angels' Share was awarded the Jury Prize.
the film was called NO

It was at the 2012 festival it seems but only won the Art Cinema Award for the top prize in the Directors Fortnight section. Was nominated for an Oscar for best foreign film, too. According to IMDB the film was made in 1.33:1, according to Amazon the bluray is 1.85:1, the dvd might be the same but doesn't specify on Amazon under dvd specs. One of the Amazon reviews says that the film was supposed to look like Chilean tv in the 80s and looks grainy and shaky accordingly. I put the bluray in my queue on Netflix, will check it out.
post #7 of 12
Thread Starter 
I should have read about the film before i watched it but it was a library loan so no big deal.That does explain it since it definitely looked like an eighties presentation on a bad tv.Perhaps my Darbee added to the issue?
post #8 of 12
Haven't played with a Darbee, but extra processing to a signal can yield issues...and SD doesn't always look good on flat panels...
post #9 of 12
This movie was shot on 1980s videotape so that it would look like a TV broadcast from the era. (The main character is in advertising and marketing.) It's 1.33:1. It's very low-res. It has bad colors. All deliberate.
post #10 of 12
From CreativeCOW:

Using four Ikegami HL-79EAL cameras from 1983 to shoot "NO", the retelling of the historic events surrounding the peaceful overthrow of Chilean General Augusto Pinochet, was a creative choice made in an effort to provide viewers with an immersive experience in another format - original footage blending seamlessly with new movie footage. But to shoot the entire feature with a 1980s camera in an era of 4K, 3D and High Frame Rate? "To use the same camera was a daring choice," says producer Daniel Dreifuss. "As a producer, when I heard that, I immediately thought it was the right thing to do creatively. Commercially, I wondered for a couple of seconds how we would do this. But I felt that the creative narrative was our first responsibility."
post #11 of 12
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjames View Post

From CreativeCOW:

Using four Ikegami HL-79EAL cameras from 1983 to shoot "NO", the retelling of the historic events surrounding the peaceful overthrow of Chilean General Augusto Pinochet, was a creative choice made in an effort to provide viewers with an immersive experience in another format - original footage blending seamlessly with new movie footage. But to shoot the entire feature with a 1980s camera in an era of 4K, 3D and High Frame Rate? "To use the same camera was a daring choice," says producer Daniel Dreifuss. "As a producer, when I heard that, I immediately thought it was the right thing to do creatively. Commercially, I wondered for a couple of seconds how we would do this. But I felt that the creative narrative was our first responsibility."

Creatively they were very brave but watching this on an HD set with a darbee processor and not knowing they shot it this way lead to major WTF issues and a fear my Oppo,Samsung8500 or my Darbee had just taken a turn for the worst.
post #12 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattg3 View Post

Creatively they were very brave but watching this on an HD set with a darbee processor and not knowing they shot it this way lead to major WTF issues and a fear my Oppo,Samsung8500 or my Darbee had just taken a turn for the worst.

I've never been one to applaud making movies look bad for artistic reasons. They don't have to be "beautiful," but intentionally ugly is just self-indulgent most of the time.

I've got a darbee - one night I noticed that it wasn't doing anything. It appeared to be working normally, lights on and everything, but no effect. Rebooted it and all was well. Just saying it can happen smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › No-Worst picture quality I have ever seen.