Does image quality really matter?

J

jkc123

Well-known member
Are we as videographers/filmmakers/cinematographers too obsessed with the endless pursuit of filmlook?
I have friends who won't even go to the movies anymore because they swear that these "bootleg" copies of films, which look like crap bytheway are just as good as seeing it at the show.
I believe that the reason we all purchased the dvx was to have the closet approximation to the look and feel of film. But a large number of people seem all to content to sit back and watch a "bootleg" copy of a movie that looks like really bad video. I love the experience of watching a movie at the show and don't understand why some choose to trade in that experience for a "bootleg" dvd. Futhermore how can one even make a judgement or comment on a film when they never truly "saw" it (as it was meant to be seen) in the first place?
I realize that piracy is a huge issue within hollywood right now but what is puzzling me on this issue is that if the "bootleg" videos look like crap, and a LOT of them do, then why are people (who usually go to the show) buying them?
Help me out here......
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

IMHO - Anyone who thinks a tape made from a camcorder in a movie theater is "good enough" doesn't count.

I believe 90% of the public enjoys/wants quality, even if they don't consciously think about it.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

A lot of the stuff hollywood puts out these days is only worthy of being watched via bootlegged copy. The good ones I agree should be watched in full everything mode. I don't go to theatres as I can never get comfortable for two hours in one spot, I need to move around a lot. Though the old lady with the hat who sat right in font of me is mostly gone, she has been replaced by the hyperactive sugar fueld kid who kicks my seat from behind. Hollywood is putting out too much crap these days for me to take my chances at the box office. Seems like the trailers are better than the films cos you don't have to sit through the remaining hour and some filler it took to make the feature.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

The movie may suck uh, uh, uh chooooconstantineooooooooooiiiiiiiiii. Oh, excuse me, but it sure does look good sucking. :)
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

Apparently it didn't matter with The Blair Witch Porject. Worst image quality on the big screen but yet grossed phucken 100mil + in the box office. Bamm!!


I still hate the movie by the way. :(
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

[quote author=BLUESPIDER link=board=Offtopic;num=1109134358;start=0#4 date=02/22/05 at 23:38:53]Apparently it didn't matter with The Blair Witch Porject. Worst image quality on the big screen but yet grossed phucken 100mil + in the box office. Bamm!!
 :([/quote]

Bad movie, bad quality, bad acting.....100mil.

They new their audience perfectly.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

the trend in home viewing will be towards bigger screens. the cinema viewership hasn't declined because people prefer small, crappy tv screens to movie screens--rather, they prefer the convenience of dvd's . the day is not far off when the average television screen in American homes will be wall-size. the technology is already heading that way.

i know of no one who watches a film primarily to appreciate the photography. no one. not even me. and not anyone on this site, i'll bet. no one here has ever said to a friend, "Cold Mountian really stank but you should see it because the cinematography is excellent." but i'll bet many of us recommended a film that, while technically not amazing, told an absorbing story.

the problem with "hollywood films" today is the penchant for the makers of films to simlulate that kind of movie experience without actually giving you anything. as in any business enterprise, the trick is to satisfy the consumer with the least amount of effort (and $$$). beautiful cinematography is one way to play the shell game.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

Exactly, Sarno. It's all about telling a story, which is why I spend so much time learning and developing my writing/storytelling skills than anything else. Sure, I'm learning about lighting, audio, cinematography, and all the other puzzle pieces--without a strong command of the craft, the audience will find it difficult to concentrate on your story. But those aspects are ultimately a means to an end. If everything isn't perfect but the story is great (and well acted), people will overlook A LOT of things.

That's one reason we all bought DVXs. It offers quality that is more than acceptable. And as Jan once said, it doesn't get in the way of making your film. My 2 cents.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

If you have a compelling story, pixel quality seems to be less important.

Given that, ideally, film makers want the best possible quality to start from, the DVX does an exceptional job at its price point.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

People often forget audio in the ultimate pusuit for filmlook. It's one thing to watch David Lynch's trippy visuals, but what really gets to you is the audio in his films.

I agree that storytelling comes first, without it you're shooting blanks.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

Going to the "movie shows" these days doesn't neccessarily mean you are going to get great quality either.  I went to see Oceans 12 at a theater over the holidays, and the film AND sound quality were absolutely horrible.  The contrast was so bad, it looked like the film was a dupe of a dupe of a dupe. There was dust and hair on the film, terrible color, and sound drop outs throughout. Unfortunately, Hollywood is all about money, and as long as they can get people to fill those unpersonal, antiseptic, black hole "theaters", viewing poor quality dupes of real films, things won't change.  Personally, I think you can get much higher quality renting or buying the DVD, and watching on a good home system.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

I consider myself primarily a writer, so I'm biased.  You would think that without a story you would have nothing, but it's not true in Hollywood.  Of course they play by different rules.  Snappy dialogue, beautiful scenery and well-known pretty faces coupled with a mammoth promotion machine will fill theatres.  As indies, we don't have that luxury.  So yes, the story comes first, if for no other reason than it doesn't cost any more money to shoot a good story than a bad one.  Why do you think so many succesful independent films have few characters, locations and effects?  THey generally have lots of scenes with people chatting.  It's what we can afford to do.  

That being said, I am a convert to the craft of filmmaking.  I once blindly stated on this site that I would rather see a well written movie that is poorly lit and shot, than a crappy one that is shot well.  I was wrong.  It's really hard to watch a poorly shot film.  But ConAir? I can throw that on and watch it over and over without thinking.  It's like candy.  There's something to that.  Should the story suffer for a great look?  No.  But should you put in at least as much energy, time and thought into creating a well crafted film, with good audio and a clean look that doesn't distract the viewer.  You better.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

So in your case the quality was no better than a bootleg. It really sucks that not every movie house has a visual/audio standard.

As soon as we get HD-DVD's a lot of people will skip the hassle of bad movie experiences. Drives me nuts seeing a film when two geriatric binnies are sitting behind me talking throughout. Or the reverse of that, a couple of giggling teenagers.
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

I don't have HD-DVD and I already don't go to the theater. 55" worth of of 480p is close enough . . .
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

EXT.  JIM BRENNAN'S HOME.  THE NOT-SO-DISTANT-FUTURE.  

A YOUNG COUPLE happen upon a derelict home.  The shutters hang from the windows.  The paint peels on the shingles.  The yard is overgrown.  They notice an ODD-LOOKING MAN busy raking his yard across the street.  The YOUNG COUPLE approach the ODD-LOOKING MAN cautiously.

YOUNG WOMAN:  Excuse me, sir, we're looking to buy a house in the area.

YOUNG MAN:  We really love the neighborhood!

YOUNG WOMAN:  We were wondering if anyone lives in that house there because we wanted to buy it.

The YOUNG WOMAN has pointed to the derelict house.  The ODD-LOOKING MAN sets his rake down and slowly chuckles to himself.

ODD-LOOKING MAN:  That house?  Oh, no.  You don't want to go a'knockin at that house!  That's crazy old Jim Brennan's house!  People says he watches that movie CON AIR all day and night, the t.v. just blaring away!  He used to be a famous screenwriter.  Then he drove his family away with that dang movie playing all the time!  That was years ago.  Now no one knows anymore if he's alive or dead!
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

Wow guys, it sounds like there are many different factors that come into play. So what's the magic bullet then (no pun intended)? Some say that they are more forgiving if the story is engaging while others say that it is impossible to watch a poorly shot film, and even the audio guys chimed in here with valid points :D.
I don't know guys... it seems like (as another poster pointed out) there are other factors that come into play here; the time it takes to go out and go see a film, the convience of watching it at home, and maybe even the $ comes into play.
I think that a bad film is just that. No matter how it looks, where it's viewed, or how it sounds.
So again; where does the "good" aspect/part of a film begin? Is it the look, sound, or story?
I know this is redundant ::), but indulge me guys.
Thanks
 
Re: Does image quality really matter?

I believ you should put every effort into all aspects of the film. Develop a good story, find good actors (then solicit feedback from them IMHO) plan your shoot well with as much forethought into the technical aspects as is necessary to create a "watchable" film. What I mean by that is, even if you don't have the cinematic chops to create mood and tension with the camera, the quality of your film (audio and visual) should not distract the viewer from the story.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top