Super Size Me

Brad Grimmett · May 20, 2004

I saw "Super Size Me" last night. I liked it a lot, but boy did I have a headache at the end! The blowup looked awful! In the credits there is some mention of HD, but most of the film looked worse than the DV to film transfers I've seen in the past. Anybody know how much of this was HD and how much was DV? There was one particular interview that they cut back to multiple times that was so bad I could barely look at it. It was SO soft and pixelated it hurt my eyes. I guess there's a chance that I saw a bad print or that the projector was out of focus, but it varied so greatly throughout the film that it didn't seem like it could be a projection problem.

The operating itself wasn't bad. Of course it was mainly handheld, but good handheld for the most part. Just curious if anyone else had seen it and what their thoughts were.

Normally, I'm not too bothered by a DV to film blowup if the story is good, but this was worse than I've ever seen.

John Pytlak RIP · May 20, 2004

When I have to watch a picture like that, I try to sit at the back of the theatre, where the deficiencies are not as obvious. Most people don't watch their NTSC or PAL television sets much closer than 4 or 5 screen heights distance for good reasons.

Brad Grimmett · May 20, 2004

When I have to watch a picture like that, I try to sit at the back of the theatre, where the deficiencies are not as obvious.

Good point. I was a little closer than I would have liked to be. I was about in the middle of the theater, but I think had I been in the back row it still would have bothered me.

David Mullen ASC · May 20, 2004

It was shot in DV, with a PD-150 I believe. Looked like anamorphic lens artifacts in that Texas McDonald's parking lot at night, so perhaps an anamorphic adaptor was used.

What was funny was that the theater I saw it in had digital projection for the pre-show commercials -- not quite HD quality but OK, definitely good enough for standard def video-shot material. Using it instead probably would have made "Super Size Me" look better than the 35mm print did!

Brad Grimmett · May 21, 2004

What was funny was that the theater I saw it in had digital projection for the pre-show commercials -- not quite HD quality but OK, definitely good enough for standard def video-shot material. Using it instead probably would have made "Super Size Me" look better than the 35mm print did!

Did you see it in LA David, or did you see it on the east coast? I saw it at the Grove, which I find is normally pretty good as far as projection goes. I'm curious if they also project their ads digitally....

Was it as bad for you as it was for me, or should I consider it a possible projection issue, or possibly a combination of the two?

David Mullen ASC · May 21, 2004

I flew back into LA for that weekend to see my wife, and we caught the movie at the Grove as well. Big screen.

I'm one of those people who get used to that look once I'm sure the projector is in-focus (can't stand watching soft projection though because I know it can be better!)

When I saw "Troy" here in Philadelphia, the projection was awful. The middle of the top half of the screen was sort of sharp but the sides and lower half were blurry. I almost walked out except that my free time is so limited right now that I wasn't sure when I'd get another chance to see it.

I hate it when you can't get flat focus because you tell the projectionist to fix the focus but all he can do is make one spot in-focus at a time.

Brad Grimmett · May 22, 2004

I flew back into LA for that weekend to see my wife, and we caught the movie at the Grove as well. Big screen.

Yeah, it was still on the big screen when I saw it a few nights ago. I think I would have preferred to see it on a smaller screen....at least the flaws wouldn't have been as magnified.

Kevin Zanit · May 23, 2004

Odd, when I saw it I actually thought to myself it was better than I expected.

It had good color saturation, and not to much apparent artifacting. Granted I was sitting further back.

Don't get me wrong, it still looked like crap, but not as bad as I was expecting.

Good film though.

Kevin Zanit

Brad Grimmett · May 23, 2004

Odd, when I saw it I actually thought to myself it was better than I expected.

Well, I guess it's relative. I didn't really have any expectations about the look of the film, so I was surprised at how bad it looked. I think we pretty much agree. We both think it looked bad.