Girl with a Pearl Earing

Tony Brown · June 8, 2004

Having missed it on the big screen I was really looking forward to watching this on DVD.

Laid up with flu this week its seemed a good time to catch up.

What a turkey. I became confused as to wether it was simply over the top camera filtration (unlikely) or a terrible transfer. Some scenes were so forced the grain danced around like golf balls, other scenes looked like cross process when it was the last thing it needed. Washed out one minute, crushed and over saturated the next.

....and does that girl ever close her mouth?

Can somebody assure me it looked better on screen?

This was a really bad region 2 copy by the way.

Max Jacoby · June 9, 2004

I became confused as to wether it was simply over the top camera filtration (unlikely) or a terrible transfer. Some scenes were so forced the grain danced around like golf balls, other scenes looked like cross process when it was the last thing it needed. Washed out one minute, crushed and over saturated the next.

I haven't seen the dvd yet. But it looked better on the big screen. When I first saw it, I was a bit disappointed though, because the rushes (taken straight from the Super35 neg) looked absolutely gorgeous. Eduardo didn't want to shoot anamorphic though, because he was worried about flares from the candles.

The whole film was shot on 500 Asa stocks: 5218 for the regual interiors, 5263 for the studio interiors and 8592 for day exteriors. Eduardo never used diffusion, except for some of the close-ups in the studio (1/8 BPM or rarely a 1/4 BPM)

Tony Brown · June 10, 2004

Audiris - thanks for that, interesting choice of stocks :blink:

If anyone knows Eduardo it may be courteous to let him know about the quality of these R2 DVD's.

Max Jacoby · June 10, 2004

If anyone knows Eduardo it may be courteous to let him know about the quality of these R2 DVD's.

I'll make sure to mention it to the director when I meet up with him next time.

Max Jacoby · June 20, 2004

Some scenes were so forced the grain danced around like golf balls, other scenes looked like cross process when it was the last thing it needed. Washed out one minute, crushed and over saturated the next.

I watched the film last night and I was a bit disappointed by the transfer as well. There was one scene in the studio in particular that looked very grainy. Although it was shot on 5263, I don't remember it looking that grainy in the cinema (or during rushes for that matter)

John Pytlak RIP · June 20, 2004

5263 was not one of Kodak's finest grained stocks. However, many liked the low contrast / low saturation "look" in this high speed film.

Tony Brown · June 20, 2004

5263 was not one of Kodak's finest grained stocks. However, many liked the low contrast / low saturation "look" in this high speed film.

I shot some tests on it for a Nike commercial I shot on the London Undergroung. I didn't notice excessive grain for a 500asa, certainly nothing like the grain observed here.

Max Jacoby · June 20, 2004

I shot some tests on it for a Nike commercial I shot on the London Undergroung. I didn't notice excessive grain for a 500asa, certainly nothing like the grain observed here.

In the cinema the scenes shot on the 5263 obvioulsy looked a bit grainier than the ones shot on 5218, but I didn't find the grain objectionable. I will try to find out what happened to that scene.

David Mullen ASC · June 20, 2004

I saw the print in the theater and it had a somewhat soft & grainy texture, but not objectionably so. In fact, I was surprised at how dark & contrasty it looked considering the low-con stocks used. Standard optical printer blow-up to 35mm scope from Super-35.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the dim & grainier look was playing havoc with the compression used for the DVD.

Fuji Reala (500D) was used for the day exteriors and 5263 indoors. I never read anything about any 5218 being used.

Max Jacoby · June 20, 2004

Fuji Reala (500D) was used for the day exteriors and 5263 indoors. I never read anything about any 5218 being used.

I believe it is mentioned in the AC article on the movie. We used the 5218 for the interiors of the house (excluding the studio) and the courtyard (which was part of the interior set as well)

Carlos M. Icaza · September 20, 2004

Glad I found this thread.

Saw the movie today. Have to say that I really enjoyed the look of the film. I thought the composition was very well composed. The framing was really to my liking. About the story, a bit soft, some parts lingered for me. But overall I really enjoyed the cinematography. There were some parts that indeed were grainy in texture and threw me off, but overall I liked it.

Thanks Max for your feedback.

C.-

Sergei Levy · September 22, 2004

While I found the theatrical print a tad soft and grainy for my taste, I must say that the DVD does look quite bad. Perhaps this is a compression matter?