[Grant Smyth]

 www.dvdfile.com gave Ali a very high score for image quality. I am somewhat confused since every display device I have shows all kinds of problems with the opening scene (that being DLP, CRT RPTV and direct view). In the opening scene Will Smith is running (training) and there is posterization everywhere - why? The rest of the film is very solid. Did I rent a dud DVD? Anyone else have this problem?


Cheers,


Grant

 

[Matt_Stevens]

I just rented it and will pay close attention to the opening.

 

[Bjoern Roy]

The opening shots and some of the other night shots (e.g. in the bus) are shot on the Sony HDCAM. Thats why they have the huge amount of video noise. The posterization could be on purpose, but is more likely due to high gain boost.


Being a photography nut and a sucker for cinematography, i think the use of the Sony HDW-F900 (HDCAM 1080p24) in this movies shows excatly why HD is NOT ready yet to replace film.


The HD sequences in Ali look terrible IMO. They have this typical HUGE depth of field effect that is unavoidable with HD cameras because of the small size of the sensors. Proper subject isolation through shallow DOF is not possible with HD yet which makes every HD scene in a movie look like nothing more than a highres home-made video.


I didn't like the cinematography of 'Session 9' (also shot on HD) for the same reasons. Yuck.


In ALI its especially sad, because the difference between the absolutely stunning film based cinematography and the poor HD shots is so dramatic. They used a huge range of lenses in the film based scenes, with some breathtaking shots, including many with a great use of shallow DOF.


This makes me really worried about Episode2, which is shot with the same Sony HDW F900, i think. We'll see if they somehow get the 'video' look away in that.

 

[Dean Roddey]

But if you look at something like The Anniversary Party, which was shot all on digital video, it has quite a nice look. So I guess its all in how you use it and the effect you are trying to get.

 

[joekun]

Quote:

This makes me really worried about Episode2, which is shot with the same Sony HDW F900, i think.

I heard Lucas had some special Panavision-designed lenses for the camera that were not yet available to other productions.

 

[Grubert]

Quote:

Originally posted by Bjoern Roy The HD sequences in Ali look terrible IMO. They have this typical HUGE depth of field effect that is unavoidable with HD cameras because of the small size of the sensors. Proper subject isolation through shallow DOF is not possible with HD yet which makes every HD scene in a movie look like nothing more than a highres home-made video.

That happened too with the French movie Vidocq (which sucked, BTW), also shot with HD cameras. Literally all the movie is in deep focus, and it is eventually very annoying.


Regards.

 

[JaM]

I saw the trailers for Star Wars in the theater. They looked breathtaking and i'm confident that it will look spectacular on May 16.

 

[Matt_Stevens]

Quote:

Being a photography nut and a sucker for cinematography, i think the use of the Sony HDW-F900 (HDCAM 1080p24) in this movies shows exactly why HD is NOT ready yet to replace film.

The effect you are all seeing is deliberate. That's the look they wanted. It has nothing to do with limitations of the HD cameras.


I have seen footage shot with the Sony HD cameras first hand and you would not be able to tell it was not film based. It looked exactly the same. I'm not just talking about a trailer, either. My feature will be shot on HD and I spent a good amount of time researching in order to make an educated decision.


As for ALI the film... I thought it was a big disappointment. Unfocussed, lacking in heart and soul and too artsy for its own good.

 

[pumori]

Just watched Ali last night on an LCD projector using an iSCAN Pro. I noticed that the blue light indicating 3:2 pulldown was never on when I was in a position to see it. This indicator usually remains lit throughout movies transferred from film. How much of the movie was shot with digital cameras rather than on film?

The effect did seem to be deliberate and I did not care for most the cinematography. Overall, the movie itself was marginally entertaining.

 

[hob]

I am not into these trms for I want to be blissfully ignorant not looking for this and that in short *perfection*. Not my scene at all, but good performance.