Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 10, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 10, 2006 I completely understand that, but these types of things happen much less often on studio films because they generally DO have the budget to fix the problem and often CAN reshoot it. Obviously, this wasn't the case on Deja Vu. Also, technical mistakes are often much less glaringly obvious than in this instance, and may only be noticed by folks like us that are actively looking for this type of thing. I'm still interested in what the actual problem is/was... Oh, I'm sure that Tony Scott & Paul Cameron are just as visually perceptive as we are... ;) but if the screen door artifact is in the original, I don't think it could be removed short of a reshoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Steelberg ASC Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 I noticed that pattern too and was very shocked they left it in. Incredibly noticeable. Looks like banding which occurs in some sensors in digital SLRs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted December 10, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 10, 2006 Oh, I'm sure that Tony Scott & Paul Cameron are just as visually perceptive as we are... ;) but if the screen door artifact is in the original, I don't think it could be removed short of a reshoot. You think Tony and Paul notice this stuff? :o Yeah, I agree that they must have seen it (I guess I didn't make that clear in my last post). I was just surprised that it made it to the screen that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Andino Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 (edited) I saw Deja Vu tonight. It looked great (I love the use of cross processed reversal) overall, but the Genesis stuff was awful! Any schmo off the street could spot the Genesis footage because of the awful vertical lines from top to bottom. Maybe I just saw a bad print, and maybe this problem wasn't only with the Genesis stuff, but boy was it bad. Did anyone else notice this problem? This was not an issue of seeing an old print. Most of it looked great. I just saw it... And didn't know some of it was shot with the Genesis I thought some of the survilance video was a bit off But that seemed intentional and it did work with the story. As for the average joe...my friends liked the film and thought it was fine. They didn't notice any problems and most other people in the audience seemed to have a good time. Seriously sometimes you guys just go beyond reason... Enjoy a movie once in awhile we don't have to break it apart always (there's a time for work and a time for......) Anyways I liked the film it was good way better than undefined Edited December 10, 2006 by Rik Andino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted December 10, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 10, 2006 They didn't notice any problems and most other people in the audience seemed to have a good time. Seriously sometimes you guys just go beyond reason... Enjoy a movie once in awhile we don't have to break it apart always (there's a time for work and a time for......) This makes me think that this particular problem isn't on every print. You must not have seen it. When the problem first occurred my friend and I looked over at each other like, "What the hell was that?" It's really obvious, so I'm sure if it was on your print you would have noticed. I'm not sure why you think discussing this is "beyond reason". If and when I shoot with a Genesis I want to be aware of the possible problems with the camera. If I can find out what those problems are in advance, it will allow me to avoid those problems in the future. This is my/our livelyhood afterall. I obviously enjoy movies, but I'm also going to pay close attention to the look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 10, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 10, 2006 Enough of us have seen it in different theaters to make a good assumption that is in the original... but maybe not, but it would have to be a mistake in the film-out, and then probably most of the prints have been made from one or two film-outs. But considering it would have been easy to catch the mistake in the check-print off of the film-out neg, I doubt that is what happened. It must be in the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted December 11, 2006 Author Premium Member Share Posted December 11, 2006 It must be in the original. I'm sure you're right. Please post if/when you find out what the issue was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Adam Frisch FSF Posted December 17, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted December 17, 2006 Not very impressed. Although I saw some obvious video-like footage during the daytime stuff, from reading this board I gather those were all shot on film? Don't know what to think. Def some of the night stuff was video. Anyway, the over saturation, the crappy skin tones and the blown whites made it all look like video to me. Also getting a bit tired of Scott's close-ups. Used to like his long lens work a lot, but either I have changed in my taste or he's not doing it as nice as he used to. Just feels like CSI in letterbox to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Suuronen Posted December 23, 2006 Share Posted December 23, 2006 If I understood correctly, the Genesis problem was kind of a vertical stripes in some of the night sequences (with Val Kilmer)? I liked the color quite much and the first act was to my surprise surprisingly good. Scott has heavily tone down the visuals comparing to Man On Fire and Domino. To me, after the first act the story was full of holes and it appeared childish... I was really annoyed for overusing close ups. I'm not at least surprised that I didn't like the story but it was a real big improvement from Domino and Man On Fire. Still, for comedy's sake, I'll hope they'll make a sequal to this named Deja Vu 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now