Yesterday I watched "Pride and Prejudice" Some Q's

[Rodrigo]

I thought the image, though beautiful was a bit odd at times. The overall resolution didn't seem too great and the lens flares were blurry and dirty like a cheap lens had been used...

I was wondering if there has been some article published that talked about the filming and posproduction process of this flick

[mmm]

It may well have been due to the projector and its lens.

Film prints can also look pretty poor, especially if the film has been through the projector a lot of times like this one probably had.

Sadly the quality control in cinemas is far lower than many of us strive for.

[limo991]

American Cinematographer has an ad on page 5 (for your consideration, best picture) and that also looks pretty bad:)

[Rodrigo]

Nah, the print was new since it was opnening yesterday...

I noticed some strange things involving grain, etc... the director likes to use long steadycam shots going through different light situations... A DI was surely used since the color correction in these moments makes a very creative but unorthodox use modifying the curves during the shots, thus increasing the grain/noise...

I dunno for sure, but I think that an HD cam has been used to shoot the pic, possibly a Varicam

[xl70e3]

Nah, it was film, 100% sure. And I didn't mind the grain, although there wasn't that much of it.

Anyway, what did you think of the cinematography on that one? I know it's a chick flick, but I couldn't stop thinking and talking about it after watching it, because it was amazingly beautiful. The camera work is the best I've seen in years and there's been some really great stuff to compete with. Totally let down by the fact that it didn't get an Oscar nomination. I was at the theater with a girlfriend, but stopped caring about it the moment I saw the opening steadycam sequence. Once again, everyone here at DVXuser ought to do him/herself a favour and watch P&P for its cinematography alone.

[Brandon Rice]

I have not seen it yet, but really want to! I heard it's gorgeous in terms of cinematography.

[Rodrigo]

well, IMO the director was much to eager to show all the tricks he has on the same flick... sometimes (like in the ball/dance scene it wirked) but ore times than it should the travelling shots became boring and, what is worse, decidedly confusing


imo

[imgentertainment@mac]

I watched it and the print I saw looked fine. It was sharp and clear. Looked good. Now I did notice some lense flare. But It was in places where it looked more of a style chose the by accident. And just because it opended in your city yesturday dosen't mean it is a new print. In fact I would highly dought it was. The movie has been out for atleast 4 months. And they are not going to make a new print now. So you saw a print that has been shown everyday at every different theater for the past 4 months. So it should not look the best