Video quality less important when you enjoy content

I'm with you Luis. Just because people tolerate lower quality doesn't mean they wouldn't choose better if it was available.
 
Since having my home theater set up nicely with a good projector, blu-ray player and sound system, I've actually encountered the reverse phenomenon. Older films I last watched on VHS, seen in their full film quality glory are much more enjoyable because I can better admire the craftsmanship, to the point that I even re-evaluated my opinion of a few. Yeah, a lousy film will always be a lousy film and a great one will always be great, but I do think there is a threshold where the experience is elevated by the quality of the presentation. The difference between VHS and DVD might not be so vast on a 19 inch screen. But the difference between seeing Lawrence of Arabia on DVD on a 50 inch screen, and seeing it in 70mm on an 80 foot screen is night and day. Might as well be two different films.
 
You are all wrong... I say that just because I like to defy conventional wisdom :) But I'm only kidding a little. I actually think it's more complicated.

Quality of image is not an absolute variable - it is a relative variable, i.e., our evaluation of it changes depending on context. Think about it - how many ultra low budget movies make it because the quality of image is low. In other words, the low quality of image is a pre-requisite of success, and the movies would NOT succeed if the image was high quality. Take any number of examples, a famous being Blair Witch. The fact that it was a "low quality" amateur footage was a feature, not a bug. It wouldn't work if it was shot on expensive cameras delivering high quality images. It was the point of it. This is a specific example, but it touches upon a more general rule - by having the image of poor quality, you are tipping off the audience to adjust their expectations, and in fact, that works to their advantage as then such films feel more "authentic". But this is not only the purview of purely indie productions. There is a whole aesthetic that's developed around "rough" looking footage (an early example was the whole New Wave thing in France) - it had nothing to do with budget, it had to do with liking the fact that it was not "high quality", or polished looking, even if in fact the budget was a normal budget movie. It's like insisting that people would prefer to have slick high priced production in punk music, when the whole point of the genre was that it was supposed to sound rough and dirty and unpolished and unsophisticated and amateur.

As a matter of fact, I'm put off by the slick quality of "HQ image" of some amateur productions out there. It takes away from the experience, because it only underscores that you got the technical chops and/or budget, but have no story telling ability. I am 100% convinced that some films succeed precisely because they engender the sympathy of the audience due to the DIY home-made feel, and also because it is suited to the material.

In contrast, take a big-budget movie full of special effects - if the image there is bad, then that's an example of where poor quality of image bites you big time, never mind how interesting the content. Because the entire point of the movie is to wow you with technical fireworks and SF/X. So again, it tells us that contrary to the point of view pushed here, it can be about image rather than content.

Of course, the truth is that it all depends on context. Bottom line, image quality is relative in its importance vs content. It's not that content is always more important - it's that they influence each other.
 
OldCorpse said:
As a matter of fact, I'm put off by the slick quality of "HQ image" of some amateur productions out there. It takes away from the experience, because it only underscores that you got the technical chops and/or budget, but have no story telling ability. I am 100% convinced that some films succeed precisely because they engender the sympathy of the audience due to the DIY home-made feel, and also because it is suited to the material.
Click to expand...

Good point - and I couldn't agree more.
Seth Godin had a great post about that a while back in which he referred to it as the Dead Zone of Slick. It's a good read.

http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/08/the-dead-zone-o.html
 
Good link, Luis, and I was actually going to use the example of Pi. All that said though, much as I love defying conventional wisdom (and I love it with a passion), I cannot get around the one that says: "good sound quality in film is non-negotiable". People will put up with - or love! - rough image quality, but not poor sound in film. If you can barely see what's going on, that can be an aesthetic. If you can't hear the dialogue, or everything is very poorly miked and mixed, people are not going to be charmed or forgiving. Which is why, if I'm making a movie and paying for it, I'll skimp on everything, but I'll sell blood or my kidney to get good sound.
 
Batutta said:
Since having my home theater set up nicely with a good projector, blu-ray player and sound system, I've actually encountered the reverse phenomenon. Older films I last watched on VHS, seen in their full film quality glory are much more enjoyable because I can better admire the craftsmanship, to the point that I even re-evaluated my opinion of a few. Yeah, a lousy film will always be a lousy film and a great one will always be great, but I do think there is a threshold where the experience is elevated by the quality of the presentation. The difference between VHS and DVD might not be so vast on a 19 inch screen. But the difference between seeing Lawrence of Arabia on DVD on a 50 inch screen, and seeing it in 70mm on an 80 foot screen is night and day. Might as well be two different films.
Click to expand...

"Content" for some films is highly visual and will not work at low res on small screens. Larry of Arabia is a perfect example.

The aesthetic look of a film should reflect the total content in all aspects. If low res green grunge is what works for the story go for it. What matters is what is aesthetically appropriate and enhances the experience.
 
OldCorpse said:
I cannot get around the one that says: "good sound quality in film is non-negotiable". People will put up with - or love! - rough image quality, but not poor sound in film. If you can barely see what's going on, that can be an aesthetic. If you can't hear the dialogue, or everything is very poorly miked and mixed, people are not going to be charmed or forgiving. Which is why, if I'm making a movie and paying for it, I'll skimp on everything, but I'll sell blood or my kidney to get good sound.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
A sound designer friend of mine contantly repeats this to me:
"the eyes adjust, the ears don't"
 
LOL, I have been reading the comments here, and it has only furthered my opinion that film-makers make the worst viewers of film.

We are no longer the average viewer, we are not our target audience (well, shouldn't be). Spidey, since your's was the last comment, I will use it as an example:

Average Moviegoer Joe, who just paid to see a movie, will have no idea what you just said about 28 Days being "muddy". Ask him what he thought of the film when he comes out, and I give 10 to 1 he is not going to comment on framing, "mud", shot at the wrong ISO, the set was improperly lit or other technical aspects. His comments will be about the story itself.

And in the US, the Box Office takes were almost 45 million. Not a blockbuster, but still really decent.

But you noticed it, and why? Because you are no longer an average movie-goer.

So back to what I was saying before: What is your reason for making the film? To tell a story or to wow other film-makers? Sure, make it look decent. But if the content suffers because of over-doing the technical..........
 
Last edited:
True, Doc.
Which brings us back to square one... the very first comment in the thread:

Barry_Green said:
Always get the best you can, but in the end, if people are more worried about artifacts than they are about the content, then you did something wrong.
Click to expand...

Just thought it was worth repeating.
:)
 
i mean if anyone has an interest in film making, i mean i don't see how you can't starts to pick apart things, it normal becuase it your chosen feel. just like a musician picks apart notes and tempos etc.
 
Very true, Spidey. But where do we set the "line"? Average viewer interest Vs. Technical snob? Sorry about the "snob" comment, but too many film-makers are just that. If it wasn't shot on a 10K + camera, it wasn't anything. And that opinion is completely false. And that opinion needs to change to see an increase in quality films on the Indy circuit. I look at many Indie productions as glorified home videos, not because of technical quality, but because of the story they are trying to tell, or failing to tell.

I have seen some "blow me away" stuff shot at 480, and some absolute crap shot at 1080, having ask "why the hell did they bother to waste a viewer's time?????" and beyond. Forget the freaking electronics involved in the signal chain!!!!!!!! If the story is good...........Shooting on a POS handy-cam will make no difference. And shot in HD, if the script sucks, HD will do nothing for you, other than make people like me say "Uhhh. Why?????" Editing 480 is much easier on your computer, and better in the long run. Tell me you shot something in 1080, I will expect a higher quality film, just because of the complexity editing 1080. I don't see that.........and I will say......it's a POS.

I get pissed when I see gear-snobs tell people "only this piece of gear will work" when it is just gear snobbery. Everything you see on film or in the movie theatres is possible, if you have a willingness to attempt it.

And each of them were totally serious. The story has precedent. If you have a good story, shooting low res can actually help, as mentioned before. Try to enhance the story with V/SFX, outside of what is "standard", and you risk the viewer saying "you are working too hard to improve the storyline with just sfx/vfx." And lose that viewer.

Also known as "polishing a turd". Loved the bowtie comment. You have a turd of a script but shoot it at 3K on a RED, what do you have? A 3K turd. Simple. You have an amazing storyline shot at 480, what do you have? Something that a higher res will only enhance. It always falls back to story line. Is it a turd or not?

Guess what? I have seen some absolute crap passed off as passible storyline. Disjointed and huge gaps in the storyline, but the excuse I hear is "but we shot it on a "XXXXXX"" Who the FU$% cares? Get the story poo pooi$^ together or lose me. We rent Panavisions shooting 35mm and have a full lighting crew. If the story sucks, there is nothing we can do to assist, except rewrite your crap (toned down language- but not wanting to). Or shoot the POS you tell us to, wasting everyone's time, but getting paid for it.


Sorry, when it actually comes down to it, one has to ask: Why am I doing this? If your answer is "to impress other film-makers", find another profession, ASAP. Skid Row is in your future if you do not have an alternate plan. Because you have chosen to focus on the wrong demographic. As you have seen, film-makers will criticize you for the slightest thing, and why? You are competition. And that is the risk you face, when asking "opinions" of your work. Some will be "un" honest, just because of the competitive relationship. Better toughen the hell up, if you want to a make at living at this.

All in all, I call it a loss of perspective.

But if you are doing films to entertain people or educate them, then you are on the right path to success. The average viewer wants to be entertained, not blown away by your camera tricks or special edits. And that ultimately takes a good story.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting to see two sides of a conversation arise out of this one study. We have the discussion of the old "you can't polish a turd" in relation to obsessing over gear and not your plot line, and we also have the discussion of distribution and convenience.

I find the latter more interesting at the moment, so I'll lay out my habits as some have done.

I will almost always wait for the blu-ray of a new movie that is out or remastered if I have a keen interest in watching that film. I don't mind waiting for the USPS to bring it to my door (Netflix). However, I watch a fair amount of "spur of the moment" films with friends, loved ones and almost always they are either DVD or Instant Watch. After any one of the latter viewing experiences I have never once said to myself, "I would have enjoyed that more in HD"

Heck, I have spent the last month watching as much of the BBC's Top Gear catalog as I can get in either instant watch or bittorrent quality (640x3something ish-highly compressed) and couldn't be happier.
 
despite a personal need to obsess over such things, I find most people who are not in film (and even some who are) do not grasp the concept of varying aspect ratios between 2.40:1, 1.85:1 and what they have at home. and they do not easily perceive what we consider flaws like the skew and wobble we see in DSLRs. I've got filmmaking friends who just don't see it until its pointed out and explained. one assumed the camera had been tilted during the pan to achieve the "effect".

so without a sensitivity to these nuances of form and format, I can see how this poll delivered the results it did.
 
Zak Forsman said:
despite a personal need to obsess over such things, I find most people who are not in film (and even some who are) do not grasp the concept of varying aspect ratios between 2.40:1, 1.85:1 and what they have at home. and they do not easily perceive what we consider flaws like the skew and wobble we see in DSLRs. I've got filmmaking friends who just don't see it until its pointed out and explained. one assumed the camera had been tilted during the pan to achieve the "effect".

so without a sensitivity to these nuances of form and format, I can see how this poll delivered the results it did.
Click to expand...
Exactly the point.
 
jim, I agree and think the biggest shortcoming of American independents is that they do not ask themselves, "is this the best I can do" during the story development phase.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top