You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

getting that dull look

Posted: Sat, 29th Mar 2008, 9:51pm

Post 1 of 33

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I realized that in most movies, the image is sharp, but not like the sharpness you get in camcorders? The movies more have a dull, soft look. what settings could I change to get that look. Usually when I film outside with a lot of sun, it's either something is really bright and other things really dark. How could I tone the look.
The HV20 has the cinelook that works the same, but I don't have an HV20
Posted: Sat, 29th Mar 2008, 10:04pm

Post 2 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Could you elaborate?

Usually what you see in movies devoid of stylization or the high-contrast look are (what I'm assuming you're talking about) 'dull' due to grading changes (listed very generally) in the color temperature, black point, and saturation. Don't discount the 'bright' look of your footage. A good amount of light, sometimes even a slightly overexposed shot, is used to great effect in many 'dull' shots.

Mostly you see this type of 'grading' per-se in comedies like 'Stuck on You' or cheaper movies with less time, talent, or equipment for lighting and grading. (Ala, Epic Movie)



Even sub-par or seemingly cheap comedies that do take a liking to a more technical edge have less of this 'flat' or 'dull' look. 'I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry' and 'Hitch' being good examples.



Movies in the 80s and 90s, like 'Mission: Impossible' look this way simply because cheap and fast enough grading tools weren't as easily-accessible as they are now, and it didn't matter as much. Still, much in the case of M:I, I'm sure Brian DePalma wanted a more timeless look.
Posted: Sat, 29th Mar 2008, 11:46pm

Post 3 of 33

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

If it helps, shows like Torchwood are shot with pretty flat lighting, and all of the rest of the look comes in post. I'd suggest experimenting a bit, especially with saturation, contrast and even a tiny sniff of gaussian blur if your edges are still too sharp!
Posted: Mon, 31st Mar 2008, 9:59am

Post 4 of 33

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

pdrg wrote:

If it helps, shows like Torchwood are shot with pretty flat lighting, and all of the rest of the look comes in post.
Dear god. I frankly get embarassed at the cinematography used in Torchwood and Doctor Who. It's like they've completely ignored 20 years of technical and artistic progression in the TV medium.

As Neil Gaiman put it last weekend, regarding his mid-90s show Neverwhere, they "lit it for film but shot it on video" - which I suspect is where a lot of the crappy BBC over-lit, stagey look comes from.

There's a LOT of British shows that are shot properly these days, so it's a shame that two of our biggest exports are so primitive still, and insist on looking like a disco. Combined with the seriously ropey effects, I'm amazed anybody actually watches it in the US, when it's up against shows like Battlestar Galactica, Lost et al.

And that's before I even get onto the general writing quality. smile
Posted: Mon, 31st Mar 2008, 9:15pm

Post 5 of 33

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

pdrg wrote:

If it helps, shows like Torchwood are shot with pretty flat lighting, and all of the rest of the look comes in post.
Dear god. I frankly get embarassed at the cinematography used in Torchwood and Doctor Who. It's like they've completely ignored 20 years of technical and artistic progression in the TV medium.

As Neil Gaiman put it last weekend, regarding his mid-90s show Neverwhere, they "lit it for film but shot it on video" - which I suspect is where a lot of the crappy BBC over-lit, stagey look comes from.

There's a LOT of British shows that are shot properly these days, so it's a shame that two of our biggest exports are so primitive still, and insist on looking like a disco. Combined with the seriously ropey effects, I'm amazed anybody actually watches it in the US, when it's up against shows like Battlestar Galactica, Lost et al.

And that's before I even get onto the general writing quality. smile
I've never looked into television production, but how do you light TV differently than film? I bet any info on this would be extremely helpful as most users here shoot on equipment that's more suited to television (video).

Also, isn't Lost shot on 35mm? Not trying to say the horribleness that is Dr. Who should be justified, but there are other shows to compare to. I'm not trying to pick apart your post, I'm just trying to understand the difference between film and television. Does anyone know what House is shot on? It's also very cinematic, I'd say, and there was know mention of it being shot on 35mm that I could find. Is Lost unique in that sense?
Posted: Mon, 31st Mar 2008, 9:17pm

Post 6 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Dr. Who, at least to me, is cringe-worthy bad in quality and technique. Even if you do shoot in SD, I agree absolutely with Tarn. You can't ignore years and years of progression.

Dr. Who does. At least, to me it seems so.
Posted: Mon, 31st Mar 2008, 10:59pm

Post 7 of 33

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Dr. Who, at least to me, is cringe-worthy bad in quality and technique. Even if you do shoot in SD, I agree absolutely with Tarn. You can't ignore years and years of progression.

Dr. Who does. At least, to me it seems so.
To me, that sounded like it was in response to me, but I misunderstand you all the time on the forum. But if it is, take a look at my post again. If not, ignore me, or make fun of me, take your pick.
Posted: Mon, 31st Mar 2008, 11:27pm

Post 8 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I'm agreeing with Tarn, actually. To me the most cinematic and film-look shows are, almost always, Smallville and Heroes. And then Battlestar Gallactica.
Posted: Mon, 31st Mar 2008, 11:36pm

Post 9 of 33

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

I'm agreeing with Tarn, actually. To me the most cinematic and film-look shows are, almost always, Smallville and Heroes. And then Battlestar Gallactica.
Yeah, I like Smallville. It has that fake artistic look that I like in movies. Every frame is like a painting lol The storyline's weak though
Posted: Tue, 1st Apr 2008, 8:27am

Post 10 of 33

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

I believe Doctor Who is shot on HD now (I remember them slapping their heads after shooting the first series in SD and then realising they couldn't sell it to loads of territories).

I'm not sure if it suffers from the same problem Gaiman mentioned with regard to Neverwhere, but in that case it was basically that they lit it for film (ie, lots of light) and then shot it on video. The result was a massively overlit, nice and bright and clear show, when it should have been dark and moody. Video is far more tolerant of low light than film - hence if you shoot the same lighting with a 16mm film camera or your miniDV camera, the results will be vastly different. Same reason your miniDV camera doesn't need a flash, but your stills film camera does.

Doctor Whoe seems to have the same thing - every sit is always 100% lit. <Patrick Stewart>You can see everything</Patrick Stewart>. There's no atmosphere, no proper darkness or contrast.

It's not specifically about film OR video, as I understand it. It's simply about understanding your format and having a decent cinematographer on board who knows how to get good results.

The aforementioned Battlestar Galactica, for example, is shot on HD, not on film, but with a talented cinematographer it ends up looking extremely atmospheric, cinematic and, dare I say it, 'filmic'.

There are lots of UK TV shows that are in the groove (particularly our period dramas), but Doctor Who really is pretty poor in the visual department - and I've really no idea why.
Posted: Tue, 1st Apr 2008, 8:32am

Post 11 of 33

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

Atom wrote:

I'm agreeing with Tarn, actually. To me the most cinematic and film-look shows are, almost always, Smallville and Heroes. And then Battlestar Gallactica.
Yeah, I like Smallville. It has that fake artistic look that I like in movies. Every frame is like a painting lol The storyline's weak though
Don't even get me started on smallville...
Posted: Tue, 1st Apr 2008, 8:51pm

Post 12 of 33

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

RodyPolis wrote:

Atom wrote:

I'm agreeing with Tarn, actually. To me the most cinematic and film-look shows are, almost always, Smallville and Heroes. And then Battlestar Gallactica.
Yeah, I like Smallville. It has that fake artistic look that I like in movies. Every frame is like a painting lol The storyline's weak though
Don't even get me started on smallville...
Don't get me wrong. I watch it almost every thursday. I'm just saying that it gets old after a while. Here's how it goes:
Something cool happens-
somebody save me-
Clark bugs Chloe to help him-
Lex is planning something bad but that's not the point of the episode-
Chloe finds something-
Clark faces off with bad guy but he loses-
you get a creepy Lex revelation-
After thinking hard enough, Clark finds the quite simple way to win-
clark fights bad guy, gets hurt and win-
a bunch of sad, emotional talking with a cool song playing in the background-
the end
Same thing next week.
Posted: Tue, 1st Apr 2008, 9:06pm

Post 13 of 33

Mellifluous

Force: 5604 | Joined: 6th Oct 2002 | Posts: 3782

EffectsLab Pro User Windows User

Gold Member

Great to see some others who don't think Dr Who is all that.

/start rant:

When I was about 10, I remember enjoying some old Dr Who with Baker and Pertwee. But I have only managed to get myself to see 5 episodes of Dr Who ever. Even though I love Christopher Eccleston, I just can't bring myself to watch his ones. I'm told the Steven Moffat written episodes are the best, but not sure I even want to subject myself to those. It really crushes me that many people (in England, anyway) seem to consider it as the pinnacle of British TV at the moment. To me, it represents all that is bad with UK TV, dominated by a middle-aged clique that discourages new directions. Which is why, next year, I'm applying to some US film schools. I'd love to see someone like Joss Whedon come over here and create a British series that knocks the socks off every series we've had here for decades.
Posted: Wed, 2nd Apr 2008, 8:28pm

Post 14 of 33

Staff Only

Force: 1805 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2005 | Posts: 1232

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

Thrawn wrote:

RodyPolis wrote:

Atom wrote:

I'm agreeing with Tarn, actually. To me the most cinematic and film-look shows are, almost always, Smallville and Heroes. And then Battlestar Gallactica.
Yeah, I like Smallville. It has that fake artistic look that I like in movies. Every frame is like a painting lol The storyline's weak though
Don't even get me started on smallville...
Don't get me wrong. I watch it almost every thursday. I'm just saying that it gets old after a while. Here's how it goes:
Something cool happens-
somebody save me-
Clark bugs Chloe to help him-
Lex is planning something bad but that's not the point of the episode-
Chloe finds something-
Clark faces off with bad guy but he loses-
you get a creepy Lex revelation-
After thinking hard enough, Clark finds the quite simple way to win-
clark fights bad guy, gets hurt and win-
a bunch of sad, emotional talking with a cool song playing in the background-
the end
Same thing next week.
Yup, I can do the same thing with House:

You see a normal everyday situation with characters ou don't know(so as to creep you out when something disturbing happens)

Something disturbing (in a medical way) happens

Theme(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuXWmbdVeQ0&mode=related&search=

Starts up at the hospital with House beeing a smartass about the new patient (the one we saw falling over at the start)

He (often reluctantly) diagnoses the patient and gets it wrong

We get some small sideplot about the main characters

Foreman shows up with lots of cool medical jargon. They discuss (House is a smartass)

A crisis happens- (seizure, blood, screaming, CGI etc.)

House is in deep thought about what he did wrong, and starts looking into the patients personal life. The patient lies about something.

House gets the diagnose wrong again, and the patiens dosen't get better.

House sends Foreman and Chase to the patients house (as in home).

They find something.

House puts two and two together and gets three, but really (as he proudly says) he got four because the patient lied.

He questions the patient about personal (often akward) things, and in the grand finalé saves the patient in the last minute.

The viewer is lucky to see a traditional "ending", mostly the show wraps up after he saves the patient, but often before the patient fixes his/her personal issues (which are revealed through the show).
Posted: Wed, 2nd Apr 2008, 9:03pm

Post 15 of 33

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

House is a lot less about the episode plots and the medical stuff on the show. It's more about the characters, philisophical, and psychological aspects of the episodes. It's really easy to point and House and say "repetitive."
Posted: Wed, 2nd Apr 2008, 9:45pm

Post 16 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

House is a lot less about the episode plots and the medical stuff on the show. It's more about the characters, philisophical, and psychological aspects of the episodes. It's really easy to point and House and say "repetitive."
I'd say House is more centered and focused on the diseases and mystery ailments than anything else. The 'character building' seems more like an afterthought that's filler between the residents questioning House and him always knowing the answer.

Don't get me wrong, it's a very good show and I'd say better than ER. But House focuses much more on the 'now' and is less grounded in the philosophical and psychological elements of the show. I've watched House for a while and never once cared about any character except for maybe House himself. His relationships with the other characters, Cuddy or Wilson, are funny but nothing anything special because they take up 2 minutes an episode primarily of witty jokes thrown at them with the same recuperating responses. I've always cared much more for the doctors in ER and the dime a dozen patients with random ER problems because they develop better per-episode.

Again, House is great. But it's entirely formulaic and just as predictable as any other sitcom where the gang is all back together and well at the end. Granted, one of my new favorite shows- Psych - uses this exact same technique and I think it's excellent as well.

But don't give House more credit than it deserves. An ice cream sundae is just as delicious as an ice cream sundae with several complex layers of toppings; no need to dress up the plain one any more than it's worth. If that analogy suits you, Serpent. smile
Posted: Wed, 2nd Apr 2008, 10:02pm

Post 17 of 33

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

I never felt a connection with ANY of the character in House. Thus I never liked that show. ER was addictive. You really got sucked in by the drama and explosive dramatic scenes that could come, literally, at any second (usually when you least expected it).

You really felt like you were in an ER at times. Incredible design of the show.

Plus that blonde girl is cute. smile

d
Posted: Wed, 2nd Apr 2008, 10:17pm

Post 18 of 33

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

On that "don't give House credit where it doesn't deserve it," that's entirely subjective. For me it's more about the philosophical and psychological aspects, characters aside (though I personally like and "care for" all of the characters on House seasons 1-3 not sure about the addons in 4 yet, waiting for 5 to decide. Though I probably won't care about them.) The philosophical lessons and conflicts are incredibly interesting. House isn't as shallow as that formula, even if you don't think much of that aspect of the show. I honestly don't know why you like the show. The wit and medical cases don't seem enough to keep one interested.

And Psych is such a bad show... (Do I need to add "IMO" to the end of that for you?)
Posted: Wed, 2nd Apr 2008, 11:12pm

Post 19 of 33

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I quite enjoy "House", almost entirely thanks to Hugh Laurie, who I've always liked a lot. The episodes mystery ailments themselves are pretty interchangeable, as are the supporting characters, which leaves House himself. Look at it this way - ER has a pretty high character churn rate to keep it interesting, but if you took "House" out of House, frankly it's a different (and not terribly exciting) show.

Back to grading for a moment (pdrg staying on-topic? What's gone wrong with the world?), or specifically Dr Who lighting and grading, it seems I'm alone in finding it perfectly decent. American dramas do have American drama look, and you can pretty much tell whose money made the show by the screen look in the same way American soaps are broadly similar (money, pretty people, vacuous lives) and British soaps generally different (poorer people, less pretty, grittier storylines - Hollyoaks being the blatant exception). So I don't object to Dr Who not looking like Buffy, it's not meant to. Whilst everyone apparently dislikes it, a heap of work and cash goes into the production design, a very decent team of directors and DoP's shoot the stuff, and some of the scripts are very smart and with amusing political comment (Belgrano, anyone? WMD's?). For me, Who works entertainingly on many levels, some great actors, and some really inventive 'baddies'. It's horror for kids, always was, but it has entertainment value for (some, at least) adults too.

See? Only partly back on-topic smile
Posted: Wed, 2nd Apr 2008, 11:44pm

Post 20 of 33

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Yeah to say that House is formulaic, or "all about the medicine" is rather silly if you ask me. I've watched every single episode, and while I remember some of the weird cases, I almost always forget what the ailment of the person is.

Each case is designed to bring House into contact with someone who either mirrors or opposes something he does, and he either takes something away from that person or doesn't. This is what I'd remember the most about individual episodes. I don't even understand the medicine 75% of the time.

What I do remember in the long run are the longer story arcs, and just the general connections between characters. I care about all the characters in the series. It's easy to not care of course if you haven't seen every episode like I have.

I also think it's a bit unfair to call it formulaic when the House creative team quite obviously tries to keep things fresh and interesting (realizing their deficiency I suppose). I mean come on, they could have gotten another 2-3 years out of the first team, like any other show would. But come season 4, they start new with a fresh team. Even the process of selecting the new team was great, and added tons of humor to the show.


I think if you only see House as a formulaic show, you're really, truly missing out on one of the best television shows in recent years, and seeing it only for what's on the surface, not delving into the deeper emotional, and quite often, philosophical issues that the show tackles every week.
Posted: Thu, 3rd Apr 2008, 12:14am

Post 21 of 33

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If we're talking about House, I have a lot to say, but I'll keep this short:

The drama and character development in House is nowhere near as progressive as a show like ER. But then again, it doesn't have to be.

House is a pretty complex character, but the show itself, as Atom says, isn't particularly 'deep', simply because this format of a show doesn't call for it. And having caught the 'House' bug this season and watched nearly every episode this season, I do agree a bit that it is more focused on serialized drama with wit in between than with larger arcs. I mean, House's faults and strengths are an arc, for sure, as is his RX addiction; but these, in a lot of episodes, take a backseat to the medical mystery.

In fact, it could just be this season but everything is a medical mystery or unknown disease that House pretends he doesn't know or care about: but in the end he does. The woman with breast cancer in her legs, the blind guy, the girl with VD form a horse- they're all rare or mysterious ailments that, in the end, don't kill the people because House finds an answer.

And while House has this sort of repetition, it works. As my brother said- though I doubt any of you will think it's on the same bar of quality- something comparable is the show Psych. It's almost always a robbery or murder episode solved by the main character's ideitic memory in the end (not as varied as Monk) but because of the caveats of the wit and inner-workings of main guy, the show stays fresh. It doesn't feel as disposable as most people think. And though House is obviously a bit higher-grade than Psych, I think it's the same case: there's pattern, but it works.

Nooooooow, onto ER. Because it's a non-Grey's Anatomy medical drama to compare House to. Though ER has outsourced ALL of its original cast (and again all of its replacement cast for the original cast) I actually felt for the characters. Eight or ten years later, I still care for the black doctor, Benton, whose son was deaf. Or Mark, the doctor who was reunited with his daughter right before brain cancer killed him. I remember him making a basket in the hoops outside of the ER as he left for his final surgery. I remember him arriving in Hawaii and surfing and the screen fading to white. I remember the fade then cutting to a dolly shot of everyone in the busy ER passing by a white note posted plainly on a messy bulletin board, and one person stopping to read it. I remember they cried, and then the screen went black. The note was about the doctor's death while in Hawaii. ER drew VERY, VERY memorable characters in its middle-to-earlier seasons. I don't remember episodes of ER, because the patients ultimately didn't matter. But I very distinctly remember each and every character.

Even going past that, I remember when the bald chief-of-medicine got his arm cut off by the helicopter in the sixth season; then, in fear of being on the roof while the copter took off in the ninth season, stood on the ground floor, only to watch it catch flames as it took off and plummet into the ground where he stood. And while this is standard irony: it took three years to draw out like this. Everything in ER is so well-developed that even though the medical issues are serialized, they are treated so lightly in comparison to characters that the show could almost be done without any patients in the ER.

Granted, the more recent characters like John Stamos, Linda Cardinelli, Mekhi Phifer, and others (and by recent I mean 2002-present) aren't as memorable, but they're still just as engaging. ER has become a bit more comic book/soap opera-ish in that what happens only happens to progress the storyline (a bit of a shark jump) because new episodes will always have to be made; but the quality in the overall storytelling is still there.

I dunno why I just went into a long rant about ER, but after not watching it for years I all-of-a-sudden felt bad when I remembered Eriq La Salle quiting on Christmas Eve or Anthony Edwards somberly emptying his locker as he prepared to face his soon-to-be death. God. What a moving show. Jesus, I wish ER hadn't killed off all of its cast. But you can see how important the show was to me at one time. It's that engaging.
Posted: Thu, 3rd Apr 2008, 1:37am

Post 22 of 33

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

While yes, in individual episodes, the other stuff will often take a backseat to the medical mystery, it's not the mysteries that are memorable.

I don't really think it's fair to compare House and ER. I'm sure if House had been on for 36 seasons like ER, the character development would be just as deep. razz
Posted: Thu, 3rd Apr 2008, 1:57am

Post 23 of 33

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Mark Greene Dying. Watch it. Not for any argument or anything, but it is quite possibly one of the best scenes I've ever seen on a TV drama.

This and this and this are why House will never be 'excellent'; never be as good to me as ER. This episode brings me chills and heartache everytime I see it and I'm not afraid to say it.

House is still a good show, though. Just not 'great' in my book for the reason I think it lacks real depth past each episode's setup.
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 3:28am

Post 24 of 33

Merrick

Force: 1067 | Joined: 12th Apr 2007 | Posts: 548

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I just read a magazine called "Student Filmmaker" and it said this about the film look:

Student Filmmaker wrote:

Use a 1/50th of a second shutter speed (1/48th on some cameras like the JVC). Video cameras default to a 1/60th of a second shutter speed which is approximately 17% faster than the film standard of 1/50th of a second. This does not seem like very much of a difference, but the slight additional blur of each frame at 1/50th of a second adds significantly to the film look
.
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 8:10am

Post 25 of 33

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

If you've got a Sony camera, there's a nice little trick you can use (Which I used to on my Vx2100)


Turn on the "Digital Picture Effect" entitled "Still". Then turn it all the way down, then turn it up a single click. It looks a LOT more filmic. Just de-interlace later.
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 9:56am

Post 26 of 33

NickF

Force: 2726 | Joined: 4th Jun 2004 | Posts: 933

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

If we're talking about House, I have a lot to say, but I'll keep this short:

The drama and character development in House is nowhere near as progressive as a show like ER. But then again, it doesn't have to be.

House is a pretty complex character, but the show itself, as Atom says, isn't particularly 'deep', simply because this format of a show doesn't call for it. And having caught the 'House' bug this season and watched nearly every episode this season, I do agree a bit that it is more focused on serialized drama with wit in between than with larger arcs. I mean, House's faults and strengths are an arc, for sure, as is his RX addiction; but these, in a lot of episodes, take a backseat to the medical mystery.

In fact, it could just be this season but everything is a medical mystery or unknown disease that House pretends he doesn't know or care about: but in the end he does. The woman with breast cancer in her legs, the blind guy, the girl with VD form a horse- they're all rare or mysterious ailments that, in the end, don't kill the people because House finds an answer.

And while House has this sort of repetition, it works. As my brother said- though I doubt any of you will think it's on the same bar of quality- something comparable is the show Psych. It's almost always a robbery or murder episode solved by the main character's ideitic memory in the end (not as varied as Monk) but because of the caveats of the wit and inner-workings of main guy, the show stays fresh. It doesn't feel as disposable as most people think. And though House is obviously a bit higher-grade than Psych, I think it's the same case: there's pattern, but it works.

Nooooooow, onto ER. Because it's a non-Grey's Anatomy medical drama to compare House to. Though ER has outsourced ALL of its original cast (and again all of its replacement cast for the original cast) I actually felt for the characters. Eight or ten years later, I still care for the black doctor, Benton, whose son was deaf. Or Mark, the doctor who was reunited with his daughter right before brain cancer killed him. I remember him making a basket in the hoops outside of the ER as he left for his final surgery. I remember him arriving in Hawaii and surfing and the screen fading to white. I remember the fade then cutting to a dolly shot of everyone in the busy ER passing by a white note posted plainly on a messy bulletin board, and one person stopping to read it. I remember they cried, and then the screen went black. The note was about the doctor's death while in Hawaii. ER drew VERY, VERY memorable characters in its middle-to-earlier seasons. I don't remember episodes of ER, because the patients ultimately didn't matter. But I very distinctly remember each and every character.

Even going past that, I remember when the bald chief-of-medicine got his arm cut off by the helicopter in the sixth season; then, in fear of being on the roof while the copter took off in the ninth season, stood on the ground floor, only to watch it catch flames as it took off and plummet into the ground where he stood. And while this is standard irony: it took three years to draw out like this. Everything in ER is so well-developed that even though the medical issues are serialized, they are treated so lightly in comparison to characters that the show could almost be done without any patients in the ER.

Granted, the more recent characters like John Stamos, Linda Cardinelli, Mekhi Phifer, and others (and by recent I mean 2002-present) aren't as memorable, but they're still just as engaging. ER has become a bit more comic book/soap opera-ish in that what happens only happens to progress the storyline (a bit of a shark jump) because new episodes will always have to be made; but the quality in the overall storytelling is still there.

I dunno why I just went into a long rant about ER, but after not watching it for years I all-of-a-sudden felt bad when I remembered Eriq La Salle quiting on Christmas Eve or Anthony Edwards somberly emptying his locker as he prepared to face his soon-to-be death. God. What a moving show. Jesus, I wish ER hadn't killed off all of its cast. But you can see how important the show was to me at one time. It's that engaging.
That's short? razz
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 9:58am

Post 27 of 33

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Digerati Media wrote:

That's short? razz
For Ben, it was quite succinct. smile
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 10:00am

Post 28 of 33

Xcession

Force: 42802 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 1964

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User Windows User

SuperUser

Yeah seriously dude - wtf? I'm interested in this thread but I have no intention of reading a post that long by anyone.

If you value peoples' responses to your opinions, try paring it down a bit before posting.
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 1:21pm

Post 29 of 33

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Xcession wrote:

Yeah seriously dude - wtf? I'm interested in this thread but I have no intention of reading a post that long by anyone.

If you value peoples' responses to your opinions, try paring it down a bit before posting.
...otherwise the thread title will apply to the readers... wink
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 1:27pm

Post 30 of 33

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

pdrg wrote:

Xcession wrote:

Yeah seriously dude - wtf? I'm interested in this thread but I have no intention of reading a post that long by anyone.

If you value peoples' responses to your opinions, try paring it down a bit before posting.
...otherwise the thread title will apply to the readers... wink
I get it... lol wink

Yeah, my longest post is probably wasn't even as long as Ben's post right there... I'm not sure I just insulted myself, ben, both, or neither of us... ah, I don't really even care, as it's 5:00 right now...
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 5:01pm

Post 31 of 33

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

ER was one of the last great series before TV got infiltrated by 9 zillion digital cable networks funded by every Wall St investment house in the books.

and now it's all low budget reality trash. Pump out as much stuff you can, as fast as you can, as CHEAP as you can. Bulk, Fast, Cheap.

Quality has declined. I don't even bother watching TV anymore. Heck, I don't even have cable.

d

Last edited Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 5:46pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 5:12pm

Post 32 of 33

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Meh, I'm concise in contrast to what I could write. Better a complete point than a misunderstood one, right? biggrin

This is just me, but I prefer posts that supply more information as opposed to one-sentence posts. So I fall on the former, usually. wink
Posted: Mon, 7th Apr 2008, 5:23pm

Post 33 of 33

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Just because I started reading this thread-

I also liked (like?) ER ALOT- I think it picked up for me where ST.ELSEWHERE left off. Is anyone old enough to remember watching "St. Elsewhere?" I really liked that show back in the 80's and it had some GREAT actors on there including one particularly amazing breakout star named Denzel Washington.

B