Dante's peak now channel 178

robfosters · 8 May 2015 at 23:26

Please, can anyone tell me if it's just me, but this watching this film close up is almost giving mw motion sickness. I don't know how it's filmed, but it looks almost 3D. There's ridiculous amount of depth to it.

Is it just me? Have I had one too many?

robfosters · 8 May 2015 at 23:35

My brother just confirmed it looks 3D to him too.

stulid · 8 May 2015 at 23:38

Have you been doing those blue M+M's?

robfosters · 8 May 2015 at 23:39

Seriously Stulid. I'm about 2-3 feet away from a 48 inch TV and thing looks like 3D, but without the glasses. Never seen a broadcast like it. The scene where they are flying over the rocks is crazy.

arknor · 8 May 2015 at 23:40

might just be because it's an old film shot on 35mm, a lot of the sets are actually miniature models and not special effects.

modern films are all colour edited which makes them look weird and unnatural

although if it's the bluray version they probably colour corrected it anyway

robfosters · 8 May 2015 at 23:42

Maybe, it's just really weird. I've watched the film on blu and it doesn't look like it. It seems like it speeds up momentarily as well.

arknor · 8 May 2015 at 23:45

robfosters said:
Maybe, it's just really weird. I've watched the film on blu and it doesn't look like it. It seems like it speeds up momentarily as well.

gotta fit those time slots

robfosters · 8 May 2015 at 23:46

I'm stumped. I've never witnessed a broadcast like it.

arknor · 8 May 2015 at 23:48

take a photo and see if it looks weird.

Maybe they did something funky with the aspect ratio.

or is it more like the frames are blending together?

You could always compare it to the clips on youtube

robfosters · 8 May 2015 at 23:52

arknor said:
take a photo and see if it looks weird.

Maybe they did something funky with the aspect ratio.

or is it more like the frames are blending together?

Yes, I can see what you mean with the frames blending.

I cant capture it camera. You need to see a moving image to appreciate it.

arknor · 8 May 2015 at 23:54

maybe it's just sped up and that's why.

it's supposed to be 1h 49mins long which is kind a weird length to fit into a time slot.

is the slot it has actually 1h 30mins?

credits are probably sped up to hell, intro probably too and then the rest of the film sped up a little more subtle

TV stations love speeding up old programmes
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...ions-speeding-shows-fit-ads-article-1.2122471

robfosters · 8 May 2015 at 23:55

The slot is actually around 2 hours.

arknor · 8 May 2015 at 23:57

178 = itv hd? 2 hours counting advert slots?

robfosters · 8 May 2015 at 23:59

arknor said:
178 = itv hd? 2 hours counting advert slots?

Yeah, so prob 1 1/2 hours

Nitefly · 9 May 2015 at 00:01

Well I don't wanna say its aliens....

Nitefly · 9 May 2015 at 00:02

Well I don't wanna say its aliens....

robfosters · 9 May 2015 at 00:04

Not even twice?

Nitefly · 9 May 2015 at 00:14

K twice.

Voicon · 9 May 2015 at 00:26

Looks fine to me

robgmun · 9 May 2015 at 10:59

I think it could be the TV

When switched to Blu-ray your player is pushing out the correct speed and the correct number of frames to the screen and you probably configured the TV to accept the source as is and push it to the screen without post-processing.

But you're watching it on TV, and you probably have the TV on default settings which include post-process and i bet good money that one of them is the TV's refresh rate of 200Mhz or above. This means the TV is creating frames inbetween the real ones to make it look smooth, in other words your TV is making it look like a high-frame rate movie (Like how the Hobbit movies were shot) but it's fake, so it looks weird and like it was a TV soap, giving it extra motion.

This is why i hate this sort of post-processing on TV's and always turn it off, it makes films look like TV soaps