Question:
Just watched this on Saturday and really enjoyed it..Had to concentrate for the first hour though as theres a huge amount of characters and politics going on... not good if you're drinking a large quantity of tramp's beer..
Anyway, was it me or was the piture a bit dodgy.? I'm not one to be that bothered usually but I pick up on great and ****-poor pictures.. maybe it was to give it an older feel...was it just me?
From the DVD File review:
The film's theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35:1 is presented in anamorphic video, and enhanced with a new video processing technique called DarbeeVision. Designed to increase the illusion of depth, alas the experiment just doesn't work. Initially, there is a false impression that halos might not be an issue. For the most part, early scenes are indoors, where lighting is subdued and contrast is not exceptional, and these sequences are in foul weather, so sunlight does not provide the strong lighting to create transitions of high contrast. But by the 53:40 mark, as the shooters walk from the estate house to the fields, you should notice the last man on the left of the screen dressed in black. His dark clothing is surrounded by intrusive, bright halos against the muddy path. And as the shooting begins at 55:00, each pheasant, silhouetted against the gray, overcast sky, is enclosed by a bright halo.
The image is also a bit on the soft side, as the video was filtered to remove the high frequency textures that would make the compression more challenging. Pity. Color is spot on, with natural fleshtones and the occasional vivid primary color, such as the yellow on the Countess of Trentham's Roll Royce. The indoor lighting is quite warm, and that's reflected in the transfer. Film grain is apparent, but contributes to the illusion of film. I noticed no compression artifacts such as blocking or mosquito noise. In all, a disappointment.
Cheers Joe.. that just about covers it.... cack picture....great film though, evn though you guess who done it, before its been done:)
Anyway, was it me or was the piture a bit dodgy.? I'm not one to be that bothered usually but I pick up on great and ****-poor pictures.. maybe it was to give it an older feel...was it just me?
Answers:
From the DVD File review:
The film's theatrical aspect ratio of 2.35:1 is presented in anamorphic video, and enhanced with a new video processing technique called DarbeeVision. Designed to increase the illusion of depth, alas the experiment just doesn't work. Initially, there is a false impression that halos might not be an issue. For the most part, early scenes are indoors, where lighting is subdued and contrast is not exceptional, and these sequences are in foul weather, so sunlight does not provide the strong lighting to create transitions of high contrast. But by the 53:40 mark, as the shooters walk from the estate house to the fields, you should notice the last man on the left of the screen dressed in black. His dark clothing is surrounded by intrusive, bright halos against the muddy path. And as the shooting begins at 55:00, each pheasant, silhouetted against the gray, overcast sky, is enclosed by a bright halo.
The image is also a bit on the soft side, as the video was filtered to remove the high frequency textures that would make the compression more challenging. Pity. Color is spot on, with natural fleshtones and the occasional vivid primary color, such as the yellow on the Countess of Trentham's Roll Royce. The indoor lighting is quite warm, and that's reflected in the transfer. Film grain is apparent, but contributes to the illusion of film. I noticed no compression artifacts such as blocking or mosquito noise. In all, a disappointment.
Answers:
Cheers Joe.. that just about covers it.... cack picture....great film though, evn though you guess who done it, before its been done:)
1 2