That would be 35mm film with Panavision cameras, the industry standard for many years … I really don’t know what you’re complaining about, as I’m extremely fussy when it comes to image quality, and there is nothing wrong with the photography or film process, if there were, I’d be joining in with a chorus of disapproval … Could the problem be you, or do you just like stir it up with spurious posts ?
I have seen the film in 35mm director’s cut in the cinema, I have the Blu ray disc and there is nothing technically lacking in either. Give your glasses a wipe ffs
That would be 35mm film with Panavision cameras, the industry standard for many years … I really don’t know what you’re complaining about
There’s definitely something off that’s not present in other widescreen films of the era. I’m no expert on this stuff so idk what the source of it is exactly. It is just overall very blurry, and there’s this blue… outline (?) at times. Again, I’m no expert on this stuff so idk how to properly articulate it but the image quality is definitely not on par with most films during, and even before, its era.
as I’m extremely fussy when it comes to image quality
Clearly not lol. I’m not picky at all myself, but this film has truly poor image quality that I believe is inherent to the way the film was recorded.
Could the problem be you, or do you just like stir it up with spurious posts ?
I think it’s moreso you getting stirred up when you see anything that does not align with your own viewpoints bud
Looking at blu-ray.com, all of the blu ray releases are from early on when the format was new, so its likely the proplem of a dated restoration, not the film itself.
Good point, you may be right… as I said, I’m no expert on this stuff, idk what exactly is contributing to the poor image quality, but the image quality of the film stood out as being remarkably poor to me, and that screenshot matches my experience with the film. Perhaps we’re spoiled with all the great bluray releases that when its not great it really stands out.
Perhaps you mean chromatic aberration of the lens? It’s basically present in all older colour films. With modern lenses this has been virtually eliminated. So much so, that it’s sometimes being digitally generated in post production (to very low, barely noticeable levels) in order to achieve what many believe is a more organic, cinematic look, when for whatever reason the film can’t be shot with old cinema lenses. I’m also of the opinion that modern lenses are too flawless, looking too clinical to generate what I associate with cinema magic. There’s certainly beauty in imperfection.
Yep. That’s exactly it! Thank you. I think the film has too much of it, its way too strong. That must be what’s resulting in the blurriness.
I also couldn’t agree more on modern lenses being too flawless, I much prefer the texture that older films have… but with the wild bunch it’s a case of having too much of a good thing, like wayyyyyy too much lol
I do believe that to be the case. When this eventually gets a 4K release i’m assuming a new transfer will be put on a new standard blu ray release too.
They don’t even shoot on film nowadays so it’s probably not just the lenses that are too flawless.
Digital cinematography is the process of capturing (recording) a motion picture using digital image sensors rather than through film stock. As digital technology has improved in recent years, this practice has become dominant. Since the mid-2010s, most movies across the world are captured as well as distributed digitally.
Since 2016 over 90% of major films were shot on digital video. As of 2017, 92% of films are shot on digital. Only 24 major films released in 2018 were shot on 35mm.
My interest in picture quality is not that great, and I’m rarely annoyed by the image of discs.
But as long as I’m reading about film the photography of TWB by Lucien Ballard was always praised, and about the picture quality of the Blu I always read quite positive things, like this:
