The Sci Fi Channel Look of Farscape

[ruckstande]

Okay I've been dying to know the answer to this for a long time but I'll be damned if I can find an answer on here. I own alll of the Farscape DVD's right, and the show couldn't look any better, but when I go back to the tv show on Sci Fi it is aired in "Dr. Who" vision. Why does it look like that? Stargate doesn't. Andromeda doesn't. :dunno: I could really see how just because of the way it looks this could turn off potential scapers. It makes it look dated or something.

[Doc Holiday]

Valid point.

[who45]

There's nothing wrong with "Doctor Who" vision :D :P

[JadedLegend3]

Do you mean widescreen? I'm confused. :)

[CrystalMoon]

I am too. Farscape looks great on my TV.

[Doc Holiday]

Same here I really have no clue what is being talked about. It still looks good to me.

[Spedoinkel]

When I first started watching it looked sort of Red Dwarfish to me. Never seen Dr. Who.
It's the way it looks, kinda hard to explain. Okay so watch Farscape, then watch say, StarGate or Star Trek. The visuals are different. Probabl;y has to do with film processing method, or filters.

[Spedoinkel]

Okay so here are two pictures. It depends on how observant, and sensitive you are, but you can see differences in picture quality. So it looks like Farscape more tends to use multiple light sources that are harder(sorryu I can't explain that term better, Theatre people will know) and have a small throw(agian threatre term, but meaning covers less area). Sg-1 on the other hand uses fewer light sources, and softer light, mostly floods.

[samati75]

Are you refering to the way it is recorded? Film as opposed to video? Or the style in which it is done? I prefer the film and the style, truth be told. Stargate is different, too, IMO. Things like Andromeda and Earth:final Conflict look like they were done on a Vancover tv show assembly line. No offense Vancover. Offense Earth: Final Conflict. Ick.

[Hank]

Are you talking about the way Farscape uses practical lighting, rather than the sort of uniform light level of the original Trek the TNG? I got into an argument about Farscape's lighting with someone at Scapercon last year. She was complaining about how dark (literally, not in terms of plot) Farscape is. She thought Star Trek was the epitome of proper lighting. I disagreed completely; from what I've read, Trek was well lit because the film stock in use during the 60s demanded it. Farscape uses lighting as another technique to achieve a kind of realism. It's a lot like Buffy and Angel; would they seem half as dark and atmospheric if they were well lit?

(Frank Oz talks about lighting in his commentary for the movie Bowfinger. He points out that most comedies use uniform light levels. But for Bowfinger, he wanted practical lights, where you could see shadows and tell that the light was coming from lamps or windows or other proper sources. It grounds the visuals in reality, which makes it feel less like a staged sitcom.)

[Doc Holiday]

Lighting is my one fault thus far in my film career.

[ruckstande]

What I am saying is, on my DVDs it is crisp and clean like Stargate is on Sci Fi as well as all of the other current dull shows except for Farscape. Farscape looks nothing like the DVD. Too me it looks foreign. It has nothing to do with lighting. The "Red Dwarf'ish" appearance is more like it. If you don't have a problem with it fine but to me it looks like vhs vs. dvd. And I no longer watch VHS unless it is absolutely necessary. Spedoinkel that Stargate picture is good but the Farscape one is really hard to tell. Bad quality picture.

[Doc Holiday]

Ok I see what you are saying. I hope Pk Wars is in Letterbox and is more crisp.

[ruckstande]

Hell yeah. If this is it they might as well go all out.

[Doc Holiday]

Even if it is not it, the season premiere of both Stargates were in LB.

[TheBladeRoden]

Shows naturally look better on DVD than over cable TV. Tis' the nature of the beast.

[Doc Holiday]

Indeed.

[tedbragg1]

Farscape's visual design required more lighting, to pull out detail in the backgrounds and such. Just look at Moya's detail on the cell bar doors...

Also, unlike the other shows like SG1 and (cough) Andromeda, FS's use of dramatic light is one of it's defining visual aspects, and adds so much punch to the show. Too many tv shows (like all those shot in Vancouver, sorry fellas, it's TRUE, they ALL LOOK THE SAME!!) don't employ lighting like they should.

Keep in mind FS is lit, shot and directed by MOVIE people from Star Wars, Matrix, etc., etc...so those people are going to bring that look and quality to the show.

Trek? The example of proper lighting?

Sheesh.

FS season 4 was shot on HD, which required darkening the sets, to give it better depth of field. HD has a narrower tonal range, and tends to blow out highlights if they're too intense.

When you see it on DVD, it looks GREAT, because ADV and Contender did a kick-butt job. When it airs on Skiffy, tho...

Most people have digital cable, and unlike dvds, their compression KILLS luminance and clarity data in visuals. So, you take a dark source to begin with, munch it through digital cable or direct tv (or DishNet) and it comes out looking terrible.

AS for previous seasons, where it looks like 'Dr. Who', this is a fault of digi-cable/sat's abusive compression methods. When watching on straight analogue cable, FS looked great but in the same house, when viewed thru the digi-cable connection, it looked horrible. Colors muted, highlights way too kinetic...that 'BBC sci-fi' look.

Blame it on the delivery system. If it were a fault of the show, we'd see it show up BIG TIME on the dvds, but they look fine.

[Doc Holiday]

Nice post Ted. He seems to be right in all respects. I should be getting HDTV soon. So I will finally be able to see some of Season 4 in HD.

[tedbragg1]

Erm, hate to break it to you, but FS S4 was shot on hd gear, but it was never broadcast, nor mastered to dvd, as HD. It's all standard def. (720x480) NTSC and PAL. Whenever they DO finalize and release a HD-DVD standard, then we'd really see how good FS looks.

If you view S4 on a HDTV, be sure to tell it to "scale up & crop" to get rid of the letterboxing. Despite the low res, on a progressive scan player it looks stunning on my friend's Sony 60" HD

[Doc Holiday]

Well it will be a while before I can actually get season 4. I want to get the box sets. Thanks for the info though.

[waltersgirl]

What I am saying is, on my DVDs it is crisp and clean like Stargate is on Sci Fi as well as all of the other current dull shows except for Farscape. Farscape looks nothing like the DVD. Too me it looks foreign. It has nothing to do with lighting. The "Red Dwarf'ish" appearance is more like it. If you don't have a problem with it fine but to me it looks like vhs vs. dvd. And I no longer watch VHS unless it is absolutely necessary. Spedoinkel that Stargate picture is good but the Farscape one is really hard to tell. Bad quality picture.


that's just how the channel comes in where you are. SciFi doesn't "do" anything to it. for whatever reason, SciFi doesn't come in as clearly as the other channels on my cable, but Stargate looks like Farscape looks like commercials on their channel, looks like whatever else they air.

[Spedoinkel]

I got into an argument about Farscape's lighting with someone at Scapercon last year. She was complaining about how dark (literally, not in terms of plot) Farscape is.
I've had the same argument on the bourds, people saying that they can't see anything on the screen. I just think that's silly.

And yeah the FS pic is kinda crappy. It was the first screen cap I came across. Where as the SG pic was a desktop wall paper, so you get more pixels.

[ExquisiteIrony]

Erm... so we're saying FarScape wasn't shot / finalized on film? It's... only VIDEO?! HD or standard, I give that a Hrmph. Coulda swore I saw film grain and minor artifacts on a few earlier eps... though S4 looks like it might have gone video. And yes I'm going to agree there are shots which are just plain underexposed - call it artistic licence, sloppy or the understandable result of just plain too little time to fuss with the lights / exposure / et al. During the course of capping, I see Chi's eyes entirely lost under black level more than a few times, and not every time looks like it would be a good shot to lose them in, if ya get me meanin' matey.

Hank: I disagreed completely; from what I've read, Trek was well lit because the film stock in use during the 60s demanded it.

Well somewhat perhaps, but I'd hazard a guess it was more of a practical neccessity owing to time and budget constraints. The same considerations probably apply, to a lesser extent, to Canadian productions shot on the cheap or any number of other TV shows. Lighting is not always left to artistic choice, nor is it always possible for lighting to fulfill artistic choice.

Yup FS looks fab on DVD (for a TV series it is second to none) and not so hot when compressed further on sattelite etc. Most of that isn't the channel's fault... except their blasted adds imposed during their own programming.

[nullbyte]

Hmm, Farscape looks different to me on SCI-FI too, but it's not the lighting that seems different. It looks vaguely choppy.. like they only "air" every other frame, and they last twice as long -- though not quite that extreme. All their other programming and commercials look normal by comparison. Seems like it reminds me of other shows on various networks, though none come to mind right now :)

[CrystalMoon]

I still have no idea what anyone is talking about. FS looks the same as everything else on TV, and no, I'm not talking about lighting because I can see the difference between the different types of lighting everyone is talking about. And yes, I think FS is too dark and it's hard to make out details. Season 1 and 2 were much lighter. The mini will be much lighter than Seasons 3 and 4, too. You can tell be the early screencaps that have come out.

But I have no idea what people are talking about when they say FS looks like Dr. Who or a British show because I've never watched those shows. Any way to explain what you mean in other terms?

[stellar]

Erm, hate to break it to you, but FS S4 was shot on hd gear, but it was never broadcast, nor mastered to dvd, as HD. It's all standard def. (720x480) NTSC and PAL. Whenever they DO finalize and release a HD-DVD standard, then we'd really see how good FS looks.

I'd buy a S4 special edition set in HD.

Could there be a greater quality degredation in the film-to-tape transfer for broadcast, than in the film-to-digital transfer? Irrespective of noise issues?

[Jat]

Havent they made season 4 darker in lighting terms to fit with the darker plot, this makes the story and action more dramtic... ever played max payne 2? ever wondered why the bad guy was dressed in white and had the angel glow and looked like he came from heaven and payne the hero dressed in total black and looked like he came out of the gutter? they are playing with standered conventions and twisting a few of them.

Well thats how I always thought about it, (I did an AS level in Media Studies).

[ruckstande]

I'd have to stand next to somebody and compare an episode with them to explain what I am talking about. It seems that nullbyte is the only person who kinda gets what I am saying. The Red Dwarf comparison is the only other thing I can compare it too. It looks British or something. It just turns me off to look at on TV. Like I said, it looks like VHS when every other show looks like DVD. Maybe it is just the way certain cable networks distribute the signal. Don't know. I'm on Comcast though and if everyone else sees what I see it isn't nearly as good as any other show on tv. DVD is perfect though. It looks like they made two different shows. One for DVD and one for TV.

[tedbragg1]

The dropout you mention is typical when a cable co. pushes too many channels with too little bit rate to stream it right.

Typical bit rate for DVD = 9 MBytes ps
Typical HD broadcast (over the air) = 45 MBps
Typical HD over cable = 12 to 15 MBps
Typical Sat-Dish/Digital Cable = 900 KILObytes per second to 1.5 MBps!

HUGE difference.

Another reason Season 4 of FS looks 'BBC' on Sci-Fi: FS's HD was probably shot at 30fps (30 full frames per second) This gives movement and highlights that BBC feel. When transfered to DVD, ADV and Contender must've done a 3:2 pulldown, to adjust the 30fps to 24fps, in effect smoothing out that kinetic feel. They also put it through a filter process to color correct for the DVD transfer.

Some scenes in S4 were shot on film early on, but the majority of it was on HD gear. And one more thing to keep in mind: when shooting on HD, you expose for highlights, unlike film where you expose for shadows.

Joan of Arcadia is shot on HD. A trade magazine had an extensive interview with their lighting director. Very informative.

[ruckstande]

Good explanation. But what about season one eps. I watched the one of them a couple weeks ago on Scifi I think and it looked the way I described.

[ruckstande]

You know what. I found out a good example. If you watch say for example the new DVD 4.5. And then you watch the deleted scenes. The deleted scenes have an entirely different look and feel to them. The way they look on SciFi. That fits my point exactly.

[justanotherFSlvr]

But Stargate lighting looks like "TV" lighting! Yuk!

Farscape's lighting is one of the best (of many "bests", I'll grant you :) ) things about the program: It's cinematic, and it is one of the few television programs that are lighted in such a manner. In fact, I can't think of any other current program that is. If you go back a bit, X-Files used lighting in a similar manner to great effect, although the cinematography was a bit closer to TV than film.

I think one of the inescapable things that happen when quality goes up in a TV show is that it requires more from the viewer than just passive watching. For instance, the plot requires more attention, so you can't just walk out of the room and figure if you're only gone a few seconds you won't miss anything.

I think the way Farscape is lighted also requires some adjustment from regular TV viewing. With a normal TV show, the light levels are quite a bit higher, and some of that is probably done purposely so that it can be viewed in normal room lighting. Rightly or wrongly, TV programs are generally not produced to require anything more of the viewer except to plop down and watch. :)

With cinematic lighting, the lighting director can use the light to more effect, but some of the darker values will require that the program be watched as in a theater, in near darkness, and that is very much so with Farscape.

[justanotherFSlvr]

Most people have digital cable, and unlike dvds, their compression KILLS luminance and clarity data in visuals. So, you take a dark source to begin with, munch it through digital cable or direct tv (or DishNet) and it comes out looking terrible.


I certainly agree. I heard all this noise from Sat people that the picture quality was sooo much better than cable, but when I switched from cable to Sat, I was extremely disappointed. It's grainy and harsh and the highlights are blown out. All of a sudden, my 52" projection TV had the picture quality of a 13" tabletop.

But as I say in another post, I think watching in a darkened room, just as you would see a film in a theater, will help quite a bit with the lower lighting values used in something like Farscape.

[scaperbuddy]

I am glad other people are noticing that the episodes are looking dark because I thought it was just me and something was wrong with my eyes or something. The DVDs do look better than when Farscape is on TV. I wonder how the mini is going to look?