What was this show shot on?

[Nessus]

I'm all but sure it was shot on standard def video, but I figured somebody here would know for sure, so here I am asking.

Thanks.

[stlscape]

IIRC, it's mentioned in a commentary or two that it's shot on 35mm film.

[StarsGoBlue]

*snort* where ben goes on about this size lens, and that size lens, and then there are the steadycam shots and the dv footage that they incorporated into certain eps... and claud says something to the effect about oh, so size does matter then? :rollin:

[waltersgirl]

IIRC, it's mentioned in a commentary or two that it's shot on 35mm film.


you are correct.

and claud says something to the effect about oh, so size does matter then?

she would. heh.

[Nessus]

Whoa! Really? The whole series was shot on film? Makes me wonder where I got the idea that is was shot on video. Although maybe I was thinking that the effects were done on standard def video. Does anybody know about the effects side of the show?

Well that gives me new hope. Since getting into HD-DVD, the #1 I've been drooling over is an HD-DVD release of Farscape. Of course, even now knowing it was in fact shot on film doesn't change the fact that an HD-DVD Farscape release is nothing more then a pipe dream, but at least know I know that it's a pipe dream that COULD possibly happen. Thanks for the info. :)

[waltersgirl]

i highly doubt that anyone is going to pay the money it would cost, especially because there is no reason.

[Nessus]

i highly doubt that anyone is going to pay the money it would cost, especially because there is no reason.

It's not about expecting it to happen. It's about wondering if the source elements are there to make it possible.

[TalynLives]

I'd sell my first born child for widescreen versions of earlier seasons.

[Mendilow3rd]

Shot on film.

But some digitial effects shots are cost-effective to be dumped onto digital video and inserted when editing.

Its highly likely an even more noticeable film grain is shown in low lights conditions on the show, but to overall match the cgi shots, which had them inserted to add dimension and that cinematic look.

[Nessus]

I'd sell my first born child for widescreen versions of earlier seasons.

Hells no. OAR ftw! ;)

[waltersgirl]

It's not about expecting it to happen. It's about wondering if the source elements are there to make it possible.

speaking only for myself, HD is IMMENSELY overrated. i have no deep desire to see the pixelation of facial pores on excessively large tv screens. hyper-crisp images don't do anything for me unless we're talking NASA shots of galaxies being born or something.

digital is all well and good, i guess, and certainly useful as a tool, but imho nothing is better than the cinematic quality of 35 mm film at 1.85, and of doing as much as humanly possible to camera.

[Nessus]

speaking only for myself, HD is IMMENSELY overrated. i have no deep desire to see the pixelation of facial pores on excessively large tv screens. hyper-crisp images don't do anything for me unless we're talking NASA shots of galaxies being born or something.

digital is all well and good, i guess, and certainly useful as a tool, but imho nothing is better than the cinematic quality of 35 mm film at 1.85, and of doing as much as humanly possible to camera.

Well this is a first. You say, in bold, that "nothing is better then the cinematic quality of 33mm film", and yet in the same breath you say that, again in bold, HD is immensely! overrated". No offense, but somewhere along the lines your ideas about the subject have gotten seriously warped. Good HD gets you to a place where, on an optical disc, there is transparency with the original film source! So unless you like the soft, smeared, detail less, artifact ridden content that is about what you get with the vast majority of content on standard definition dvd, how can you say that HD is overrated? Not to mention the fact that I have no idea what you're talking about when you say, "pixelation on facial pores". Pixelation only occurs when the image breaks up due to poor encoding or limited bandwidth. You won't see any pixelation on most HD broadcasts or any HD disks. :confused:

Hmm, it just occured to me that maybe you're confusing digital with HD. The term HD only indicates the resolution of the content on the disk. It says nothing about how it was shot. There are digital HD cameras that shoot at 1080p30, and you can plop that content on a HD-DVD, just as well as you can encode a movie shot on film, and put that on a HD-DVD. Film actually has a super high resolution of around 5000x5000. So when you make a statement like "HD is immensely overrated", it's confusing, because obviously one of the reasons that film looks so great is of it's incredibly high resolution.

Now, if you were just trying to say that you prefer the look of film to the look of content shot on a digital camera, but were a little confused about the terms, then I'd definitely agree with you. Nothing can beat the pleasing quality of celluloid. But still, digital HD cameras have their place, and stuff shot on them definitely has a pleasing sharpness. I definitely wouldn't call them "overrated". And hell, I'll take all the HD I can get, regardless of what it's shot on. It all certainly kicks the crap out of SD material.

[Nicola]

Let me start this by saying I don't know anything about HD TV. Except it is supposed to be good.

I knew that Farscape was shot on 35mm film - but I didnt really know what that meant in the grand scheme of things.

I have wondered if 35mm film was as good as High Definition and from what I think you are saying Nessus (correct me if I am wrong) but 35mm film is as good or better than High Def. Right?

However some of the CGI might have been filmed on something less high quality. Or something.

If you could explain the difference between 35mm film and High Def and where Farscape DVDs fit on the continuum I would be most grateful.

Thanks.

[Nessus]

Let me start this by saying I don't know anything about HD TV. Except it is supposed to be good.

I knew that Farscape was shot on 35mm film - but I didnt really know what that meant in the grand scheme of things.

I have wondered if 35mm film was as good as High Definition and from what I think you are saying Nessus (correct me if I am wrong) but 35mm film is as good or better than High Def. Right?

However some of the CGI might have been filmed on something less high quality. Or something.

If you could explain the difference between 35mm film and High Def and where Farscape DVDs fit on the continuum I would be most grateful.

Thanks.

I'd be happy to Nicola. I'm no expert, but I'd a very enthusiastic hobbyist, and I'm always happy to share what little I know. :) You're asking kind of a general question (film vs HD), so I hope you don't mind if I lay it out broadly.

Basically, when it comes to motion pictures film is the holy grail. As good as it gets. And 35mm is the staple film stock. The vast majority of movies are shot on 35mm film. But for obvious reasons it's not a consumer product. A roll is very big, VERY expensive, and requires an immensely expensive reel projector to play them back. In steps shiny discs. First dvds, now HD-DVDs and Blu-ray Disks. And that's where talk of resolution comes from. Standard definition for dvds, or 480x720 pixels. High definition for HD-DVDs/BDs, or 1080x1920 pixels. In contrast, film has a resolution of around 5000x5000, or about 23 million more bits of information per second then HD! What that works out to is, for a movie around 2 hrs long, uncompressed a film consists of 1000+ gigs of data. HD-DVDs have a 30 gig capacity, and BDs have a 50 gig capacity. And movies you watch in HD on cable are usually around 15 gigs. So to put it simply, film is king. Now, a great team of compressionists can compress a movie so that for all intents and purposes it looks identical to its source, but because all HD material has to be heavily compressed to get in the hands of consumers, film has to be given the nod for being superior.

Sorry to talk your ear off there. As to your second question, my explanation will be much shorter, because my knowledge of the subject is much smaller. Basically all I know is that only recently have tv shows started to created their cgi special effects in 1080p. Most older stuff was done in 480i, the resolution of tv broadcasts and DVDs. So for the effects shots that are all made in a computer, like shots of planets an space ships etc, those shots would have to be upconverted, which will make it look better then it does on dvd, but not as good as the rest of the show that comes from film. Basically it will add some inconsistency to the show, with effects heavy scenes looking softer and with less detail then say close ups and other shots of the actors.

But the Farscape dvds look pretty nice, and the show seems to have been shot pretty competently, so I think the source elements are there that would make for a pretty awesome HD-DVD release. Not that I'm holding my breath, but it's fun to daydream about this kid of stuff. ;)

[Nicola]

Thanks!

To paraphrase what you said:

Farscape film (the source) is unparalleled. But compressing it down to DVD (whether it be regular/HD/B-rDVD) the viewer is going to lose resolution.

However since the source material is of such high quality, as long as the compression process is done by a competant team of professionals the viewer shouldn't really notice a loss of quality. (Am I following you here?)

I will mention that when I got my Farscape DVDs I was astonished at how much more detailed and rich the image was vs watching on TV. Even some story elements became clear that I had to pick up from inference when TV watching that I could see clearly when viewing my DVDs. Just a comment.

So Farscape DVDs are pretty good, and if they ever do a HD release, Farscape is in great shape since the source material is of such high quality?

Yes?

[Nessus]

Exactly! You got it. We're very lucky to have such great dvds of this great show. And as you said there's a noticeable jump in quality from the tv broadcasts to the dvds. But the people who worked on the show, the editors, directors and anyone else who got to actually watch the original film stock or the uncompressed digital master on professional monitors are seeing a whole different show. A well done HD-DVD release would allow us to experience what they experienced. I for one think that would be pretty cool. ;)

[waltersgirl]

Well this is a first. You say, in bold, that "nothing is better then the cinematic quality of 33mm film", and yet in the same breath you say that, again in bold, HD is immensely! overrated". No offense, but somewhere along the lines your ideas about the subject have gotten seriously warped.

no, they haven't. it's simply a matter of taste.

[Nessus]

no, they haven't. it's simply a matter of taste.

You were confusing digital with HD. No harm in that. There's a lot of confusion in the average consumer about these topics.

[Nicola]

Exactly! You got it. We're very lucky to have such great dvds of this great show. And as you said there's a noticeable jump in quality from the tv broadcasts to the dvds. But the people who worked on the show, the editors, directors and anyone else who got to actually watch the original film stock or the uncompressed digital master on professional monitors are seeing a whole different show. A well done HD-DVD release would allow us to experience what they experienced. I for one think that would be pretty cool. ;)

Thanks for taking the time to clarify the situation for me. I have been wondering about the topic for a long time, but no one I have run across has been able to explain it to me. Thanks a lot.

I am going to assume that Farscape: The Peacekeeper Wars was 35mm film too - which hopefully means that when (if) there is ever another release in Region 1 we will get a better quality version. As well as the Region 1 PK Wars, I also bought the Region 2 version - and the difference is like night and day in quality.

So... keeping my fingers crossed for PK Wars (at least) to see one more release. :)

[grapeshot]

One other advantage that film has over every digital format is that it has a very large dynamic range. That means film can record many shades of black (or white), for example, most of which would not be picked up by an HD video camera.

(For a layman's discussion of films dynamic range, here's a good article: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm It starts off as a discussion of film resolution, but at the end there's a discussion about film's dynamic range. The subject is also touched on in this article: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/fixing-dynamic-range.htm. Both articles end with a paragraph or two about movie filming. An even more technical discussion but one that is still pretty understandable can be found here: http://www.reel-stream.com/DynamicRangeAndLatitude.pdf )

Despite all this pro and con discussion of the various formats, I would venture to say that a knowledgeable cinematographer could make a good looking product with either digital or film format - and of course, depending on what effect they were trying to achieve.

Regardless of the original source format, a part of our problem as viewers is how the content gets distributed to us, and how good our viewing equipment is.

Just as someone else mentioned above, I was also astounded by the increased degree of clarity of the DVDs over the originally standard definition broadcasts. And that was even before I got an HD TV. I would venture to say that as much as 10% of the picture is lost on the standard analog broadcasts. That lost 10% means that some expressions on faces are less clear, or some small objects are lost. Does that really matter? You bet. On Farscape, everything in the frame matters, and so does every action and reaction.

I recently watched a season 1 episode at a friend's house. She was watching on a 32" standard tube TV, but she had her picture set up way too red. It actually made Farscape seem more grating to the eye just because the color was mis-adjusted.

For those of us who really dig how beautiful Farscape looks on DVD, I recently read a review of a DVD upscaler where the reviewer used his Farscape DVDs for a comparison, and apparently the upscaler does improve the picture. (What's a DVD upscaler? http://www.engadget.com/2006/03/27/samsung-does-dvd-upscaling-for-a-hundie/)

As long as the original film isn't allowed to deteriorate (and what're the odds that it won't) then it is possible that someday it can be rescanned/reprocessed to a higher definition format.

[tedbragg1]

HD *is* overrated, unless you're *making* movies and tv shows and know what you're doing. Doctor Who and BSG use HD and looks wonderful -- but Superman Returns looked horrid projected on the big screen.The home video release looks okay, tho. WIsh they had shot it on film, but anyway...

Farscape was shot on 35mm film for the first three years, then switched to H, probably to cut costs, hide set damage, artistic license, whatever. It *is* cheaper to shoot HD.

PK Wars was shot on 35mm, too. Brian Henson likes to kick it old skool.

I recall scenes from season 2 that were shot on DigiBeta -- but they don't stand out UNTIL you punch them thru broadcast. I do video effects and production now & can spot video made to look like the rest of the footage...The DVDs are as close to perfect as you'll get, and an HD version won't do much improvement.

I must say tho, watching movies and shows on my HD set is WAY better than on the old TV I had.

[Nessus]

The DVDs are as close to perfect as you'll get, and an HD version won't do much improvement.


You wouldn't say that if you have watched them projected on a 10' wide screen, which is how I watch them. They're an above average looking dvd release when watched on a smaller TV set, but through any kind of projection setup, the limitations of the DVD medium are undeniable, and undeniably mar the viewing experience. I'd also be curious to know if you've actually spent any time with either of the two next gen DVD formats. I'm guessing not, because if you had actually seen the best of what both formats have to offer, especially HD-DVD, the last thing you'd be saying is "an HD version won't do much improvement".

[CaptMonkey]

HD *is* overrated, unless you're *making* movies and tv shows and know what you're doing. Doctor Who and BSG use HD and looks wonderful -- but Superman Returns looked horrid projected on the big screen.The home video release looks okay, tho. WIsh they had shot it on film, but anyway...

Farscape was shot on 35mm film for the first three years, then switched to H, probably to cut costs, hide set damage, artistic license, whatever. It *is* cheaper to shoot HD.

PK Wars was shot on 35mm, too. Brian Henson likes to kick it old skool.

I recall scenes from season 2 that were shot on DigiBeta -- but they don't stand out UNTIL you punch them thru broadcast. I do video effects and production now & can spot video made to look like the rest of the footage...The DVDs are as close to perfect as you'll get, and an HD version won't do much improvement.

I must say tho, watching movies and shows on my HD set is WAY better than on the old TV I had.

It seems like you're also being somewhat confused on HD/digital video as well... First off, I'm not sure where you're seeing BSG and Doctor Who in HD... since Sci Fi Channel does not broadcast in HD and there are no BSG or Doctor Who Blu-Ray/HD-DVD discs. They may be shot in HD, but they have never been shown in HD, unless BSG played in HD the one or two times it ran on NBC.

It is NOT cheaper to shoot in HD, it's quite a bit more expensive. That's the reason that only certain shows on the networks (Lost, Heroes, CSI, some others) are shot in HD while many are not.

If something is shot on 35mm (like most movies still are) then you can make a wonderful HD-conversion of it (as is done with most Blu-Ray/HD-DVD movies). It really doesn't matter how old it is, in fact, the Errol Flyn version of the Adventures of Robin Hood (from 1938) looks wonderful in HD.

DVD conversions of 35mm are never as close to perfect as you can get, an HD conversion will always be much better, since you're displaying over double the amount of pixels. Try playing a computer game on 800x600, then 1280x1024 and you'll notice a huge difference, it's the same thing when going from standard-def to Hi-def.

Sorry if I'm seeming overly-defensive on this topic, but I hear the same thing time and time again from people "HD is overrated." "It doesn't look that good." Yet I've not had a single person who's seen my TV playing something in HD who wasn't in complete amazement at the difference in picture quality. In fact, I can think of about 4 people who after seeing my TV decided they had to go out and buy an HD set, immediately. So, I'm pretty convinced that anyone who is trying to argue against it has little to no experience watching anything in HD.

[Nessus]

It seems like you're also being somewhat confused on HD/digital video as well... First off, I'm not sure where you're seeing BSG and Doctor Who in HD... since Sci Fi Channel does not broadcast in HD and there are no BSG or Doctor Who Blu-Ray/HD-DVD discs. They may be shot in HD, but they have never been shown in HD, unless BSG played in HD the one or two times it ran on NBC.

It is NOT cheaper to shoot in HD, it's quite a bit more expensive. That's the reason that only certain shows on the networks (Lost, Heroes, CSI, some others) are shot in HD while many are not.

If something is shot on 35mm (like most movies still are) then you can make a wonderful HD-conversion of it (as is done with most Blu-Ray/HD-DVD movies). It really doesn't matter how old it is, in fact, the Errol Flyn version of the Adventures of Robin Hood (from 1938) looks wonderful in HD.

DVD conversions of 35mm are never as close to perfect as you can get, an HD conversion will always be much better, since you're displaying over double the amount of pixels. Try playing a computer game on 800x600, then 1280x1024 and you'll notice a huge difference, it's the same thing when going from standard-def to Hi-def.

Sorry if I'm seeming overly-defensive on this topic, but I hear the same thing time and time again from people "HD is overrated." "It doesn't look that good." Yet I've not had a single person who's seen my TV playing something in HD who wasn't in complete amazement at the difference in picture quality. In fact, I can think of about 4 people who after seeing my TV decided they had to go out and buy an HD set, immediately. So, I'm pretty convinced that anyone who is trying to argue against it has little to no experience watching anything in HD.

I definitely agree with your post, but I thought I'd make a couple interjections. For one, I'm pretty sure Doctor Who has never been broadcast in HD unless it was done during it's original run in the UK. To that I have no clue. But BSG is actually show in reruns on UniversalHD. I think they're up to around the midway point of season two now. But I agree, tedbragg1 obviously hasn't actually seen BSG in HD, because again, the difference between the SD and HD broadcast of the show is night and day. And that's with the horribly over-compress mpeg2 broadcast standard, and the fact that the they're using a 720p encode. With a 1080p VC-1 encode of the quality Universal has put into their disks like King Kong etc, the difference would be greater still. And just for the record, HD has over 6x the pixels of standard definition. ~6 million vs ~1 million. But in the rest we're in agreement. ;)

[waltersgirl]

i've watched a lot of hd. and i've watched it on a really expensive, very large screen. it did nothing for me.

Farscape was shot on 35mm film for the first three years, then switched to H, probably to cut costs, hide set damage, artistic license, whatever. It *is* cheaper to shoot HD.

hd costs more in the post production process unless your final output is also digital, and/or you have no intention of using a digital intermediate for corrections. the cheapest DI runs about $750 an hour. if your final output is film, then you have to pay to make it look like film.

and hd does absolutely NOTHING to hide set damage. it's the exact opposite. digital takes in more information per pixel than film. that's where the hi-res crispness comes from. i can walk over to a wall and cover a ding in the paint with a magic marker in the same color if we're shooting in 35mm. if i do that in hd you'll see a giant magic marker scribble on the wall. even in the indie world, if i'm doing an art dept budget projection for a director, if they're shooting in digital my budget is going to go up automatically by at least 20 percent because i can't cheat anything.

[Nessus]

So when eating dinner, do you prefer the taste of blander foods? Do you roll your eyes at people who go to expensive restaurants and dine of world class meals, thinking to yourself that nothing beats an unseasoned steamed piece of chicken etc? When picking out clothes, do you ever go beyond the color gray? Do you forgo vacations to exotic locations and instead take tours of your local post office in your time off?

I mean, I'm kind of joking around here. But I do think this is kind of novel. I've never met a standard definition snob before. lol

And why'd you buy a "very expensive, very large screen" if HD does "nothing for you"? Out of curiosity, what's the model number on that tv?

[00Robin]

I mean, I'm kind of joking around here. But I do think this is kind of novel. I've never met a standard definition snob before.

Oh my GOD! This has to be the funniest response ever!hahahahahahahaha,and aptly put,I say.

[CaptMonkey]

So when eating dinner, do you prefer the taste of blander foods? Do you role your eyes at people who go to expensive restaurants and dine of world class meals, thinking to yourself that nothing beats an unseasoned steamed piece of chicken etc? When picking out clothes, do you ever go beyond the color gray? Do you forgo vacations to exotic locations and instead take tours of your local post office in your time off?

I mean, I'm kind of joking around here. But I do think this is kind of novel. I've never met a standard definition snob before. lol

And why'd you buy a "very expensive, very large screen" if HD does "nothing for you"? Out of curiosity, what's the model number on that tv?

I have to agree. While I could understand HD being a preference as far as cost of an HD set vs. what HD gives you, if you have an HD set, then HD is in no way a preference. It's like if I offered you a dial-up internet connection or a hi-speed fiber-to-home connection for the same price. There is no preference involved, one of the options is clearly better.

Film or anything with a resolution higher than standard def will always look better in HD, period, end of discussion. There aren't exceptions unless you count some botched transfer on the part of technician.

Back to the original point of this post, considering that they were shot in 35mm, I hope that by some amazing stroke of luck, HD conversions become very cheap in the near future and we get to see a Farscape HD release. I'd have no problem buying the series (again...) if I could see it in HD.

[waltersgirl]

So when eating dinner, do you prefer the taste of blander foods? Do you roll your eyes at people who go to expensive restaurants and dine of world class meals, thinking to yourself that nothing beats an unseasoned steamed piece of chicken etc? When picking out clothes, do you ever go beyond the color gray? Do you forgo vacations to exotic locations and instead take tours of your local post office in your time off?

I mean, I'm kind of joking around here. But I do think this is kind of novel. I've never met a standard definition snob before. lol

And why'd you buy a "very expensive, very large screen" if HD does "nothing for you"? Out of curiosity, what's the model number on that tv?

first, i'm not really sure where you get off extrapolating out what kind of person i am. you don't see me calling you an asshole or questioning your ability to make rational decisions because you think hd is rockin'.

second, i do not own that tv, and never said i did.

third, way to make all kinds of assumptions about someone you don't know over something as unbelievably stupid as technology preferences.

[Nessus]

Way to take yourself waaaay too seriously.

[waltersgirl]

pot meet kettle.

[Nessus]

Ha! Right. I think the only person not laughing in this thread is you...

[stlscape]

Nessus, everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. Obviously you think HD is really great; obviously, wg does not. When wg gave her opinion of HD, she started her post with "speaking only for myself". That doesn't mean that YOU are mistaken in YOUR preference for HD. It ONLY means that SHE does NOT prefer to watch HD HERSELF.

There is no right or wrong preference, and obviously neither of you are going to change the other's mind. Can the issue not simply be left at agreeing that y'all have different preferences?

[Nessus]

Well of course. But it's novel to prefer standard definition over high definition. It's no different then preferring near sightedness over 20/20 vision. A novel opinion like that is naturally going to elicit some extra scrutiny. Though if you'd read through the last page of posts, you'd see that I wasn't the one that kept bringing waltersgirl back into the conversation.

[stlscape]

Though if you'd read through the last page of posts, you'd see that I wasn't the one that kept bringing waltersgirl back into the conversation.

I not only looked through the last page of posts, I looked through the entire thread before I posted. My post was specifically addressing the issue between you and wg in all three pages. The two of you disagree. Fine.

Some people prefer to watch IMAX presentations. I can't stand it. Their preference. My preference. I don't need to keep saying to them "How odd that you like viewing things that way." Some people prefer to write manuscripts longhand; other prefer using a word processor of some sort. Some prefer Windows; others, Mac. Neither is wrong; it's just a personal preference.

Continuing to point out that people who prefer one version and not another are strange appears, IMO, to serve absolutely no purpose other than to stir up trouble. I certainly hope that I'm mis-reading the situation - my apologies if I am.

[tedbragg1]

Everybody thinks I'm weird for sticking with cassette tapes when they're all on iPods.

I also prefer 8bit NES and Atari 2600 over the latest consoles...
(not kidding -- I can't make sense of the controllers these days...)

Am I weird?:eek:

[waltersgirl]

Everybody thinks I'm weird for sticking with cassette tapes when they're all on iPods.

I also prefer 8bit NES and Atari 2600 over the latest consoles...
(not kidding -- I can't make sense of the controllers these days...)

Am I weird?:eek:


does it work for you?