Coast - awful filmic effect

I know, I know, we have enough threads about the filmic effect, but...

I got around to watching the first episode of the new series of Coast
last night (recorded it the other week).

During the last minute or so, on two brief segments (when blokey
commented "and at the end of this leg of our journey, we finally some
sand!" and then "if you'd like to interact ...") we briefly had good
old smoothly moving interlaced video. The quality wasn't fantastic
(more like a good DV camcorder than a good DVD), but hey - it was so
nice to have some smooth movement.

When the filmic effect returned (briefly, between the two "video"
segments), my wife commented "that really looks awful" - and it does!

It doesn't look convincingly like film - just stuttery video - and some
of the shots include panning or movement that's far too fast for 25fps,
and so it just strobes horribly.


Seeing the interlaced part made me wonder at what stage the filmic
effect is applied (i.e. how had that bit got through unscathed?), and
more importantly whether the various bits of video shot for the
programme are of such average or varying quality that they feel they
have to add a stupid effect on top to hide this! Maybe the bad filmic
effect is hiding some fairly amateurish "filming"!

I'd still like to see the smooth video - the content of the first
programme was very interesting, but some of the shots are difficult to
enjoy because they strobe/stutter so much.

Cheers,
David.
P.S. but don't get me started on Torchwood!

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know, I know, we have enough threads about the filmic effect, but...

I got around to watching the first episode of the new series of Coast
last night (recorded it the other week).

During the last minute or so, on two brief segments (when blokey
commented "and at the end of this leg of our journey, we finally some
sand!" and then "if you'd like to interact ...") we briefly had good
old smoothly moving interlaced video. The quality wasn't fantastic
(more like a good DV camcorder than a good DVD), but hey - it was so
nice to have some smooth movement.

When the filmic effect returned (briefly, between the two "video"
segments), my wife commented "that really looks awful" - and it does!

It doesn't look convincingly like film - just stuttery video - and some
of the shots include panning or movement that's far too fast for 25fps,
and so it just strobes horribly.


Seeing the interlaced part made me wonder at what stage the filmic
effect is applied (i.e. how had that bit got through unscathed?), and
more importantly whether the various bits of video shot for the
programme are of such average or varying quality that they feel they
have to add a stupid effect on top to hide this! Maybe the bad filmic
effect is hiding some fairly amateurish "filming"!

I'd still like to see the smooth video - the content of the first
programme was very interesting, but some of the shots are difficult to
enjoy because they strobe/stutter so much.

Cheers,
David.
P.S. but don't get me started on Torchwood!

Too many programs go for the "live" photo documentary style. Why waste time
with trolleys, or even steady cams, when they can get away with Christmas
Party quality stability for most shot's. I swear the camera man must have a
can of larger in one hand and a handycam in the other!

John Russell wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I know, I know, we have enough threads about the filmic effect, but...

I got around to watching the first episode of the new series of Coast
last night (recorded it the other week).

During the last minute or so, on two brief segments (when blokey
commented "and at the end of this leg of our journey, we finally some
sand!" and then "if you'd like to interact ...") we briefly had good
old smoothly moving interlaced video. The quality wasn't fantastic
(more like a good DV camcorder than a good DVD), but hey - it was so
nice to have some smooth movement.

When the filmic effect returned (briefly, between the two "video"
segments), my wife commented "that really looks awful" - and it does!

It doesn't look convincingly like film - just stuttery video - and some
of the shots include panning or movement that's far too fast for 25fps,
and so it just strobes horribly.


Seeing the interlaced part made me wonder at what stage the filmic
effect is applied (i.e. how had that bit got through unscathed?), and
more importantly whether the various bits of video shot for the
programme are of such average or varying quality that they feel they
have to add a stupid effect on top to hide this! Maybe the bad filmic
effect is hiding some fairly amateurish "filming"!

I'd still like to see the smooth video - the content of the first
programme was very interesting, but some of the shots are difficult to
enjoy because they strobe/stutter so much.

Cheers,
David.
P.S. but don't get me started on Torchwood!

Too many programs go for the "live" photo documentary style. Why waste time
with trolleys, or even steady cams, when they can get away with Christmas
Party quality stability for most shot's. I swear the camera man must have a
can of larger in one hand and a handycam in the other!


There are too many arty-farty types in luvvieland, it seems. Filmised
programmes range from Hollyoaks and Doctors to Coast.

If pure, unadulterated video is good enough for Casuality and The Bill
it should be ok for everything else.

"JPG" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip

If pure, unadulterated video is good enough for Casuality and The
Bill
it should be ok for everything else.


But are either good enough for video tape these days?...

Jerry wrote:
If pure, unadulterated video is good enough for Casuality and The
Bill it should be ok for everything else.

But are either good enough for video tape these days?...

No. They are both examples of genres which the US do so much better. What we
get are just crappy soap operas dwelling on the tedious and implausible
inter-personal relationships of the main characters.

I do sometimes record casualty, but only so I can fast forward to the
amusing accidents. It can take up to 10 minutes to watch a good episode.
There was a time when it was worth watching the whole thing, but that was
many years ago. I can't recall whether The Bill was ever worth watching.

John Russell said the following on 07/11/06 15:13:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I know, I know, we have enough threads about the filmic effect, but...

I got around to watching the first episode of the new series of Coast
last night (recorded it the other week).

During the last minute or so, on two brief segments (when blokey
commented "and at the end of this leg of our journey, we finally some
sand!" and then "if you'd like to interact ...") we briefly had good
old smoothly moving interlaced video. The quality wasn't fantastic
(more like a good DV camcorder than a good DVD), but hey - it was so
nice to have some smooth movement.

When the filmic effect returned (briefly, between the two "video"
segments), my wife commented "that really looks awful" - and it does!

It doesn't look convincingly like film - just stuttery video - and some
of the shots include panning or movement that's far too fast for 25fps,
and so it just strobes horribly.


Seeing the interlaced part made me wonder at what stage the filmic
effect is applied (i.e. how had that bit got through unscathed?), and
more importantly whether the various bits of video shot for the
programme are of such average or varying quality that they feel they
have to add a stupid effect on top to hide this! Maybe the bad filmic
effect is hiding some fairly amateurish "filming"!

I'd still like to see the smooth video - the content of the first
programme was very interesting, but some of the shots are difficult to
enjoy because they strobe/stutter so much.

Cheers,
David.
P.S. but don't get me started on Torchwood!

Too many programs go for the "live" photo documentary style. Why waste time
with trolleys, or even steady cams, when they can get away with Christmas
Party quality stability for most shot's. I swear the camera man must have a
can of larger in one hand and a handycam in the other!

You sure he's holding a can of lager ? ;-)




Richard.

--
Quote from Futurama's Bender
"I'm so embarrased I wish everybody else was dead!"

Pyriform wrote:
Jerry wrote:
If pure, unadulterated video is good enough for Casuality and The
Bill it should be ok for everything else.
But are either good enough for video tape these days?...

No. They are both examples of genres which the US do so much better. What we
get are just crappy soap operas dwelling on the tedious and implausible
inter-personal relationships of the main characters.

This seems like a excellent time for my rant about the quality of the
sets on Holby City. Most of the time you can believe that it's actually
recorded in and around a real hospital. Then they show the pathology
lab, which is implausibly microscopic and generally looks like it was
rejected from Dr Who for being too clean and futuristic...

I can only assume the producer/set designer/work experience kid/whoever
has no idea what a lab would actually look like and couldn't be bothered
with all that pointless research rubbish. Either that or they reckoned
the public needed more moody lighting and blinkenlights to be convinced.

Gah!

As for the plotlines, I'm hoping for a spinoff radio series where the
long-suffering anaesthetists sit around bitching about the other
characters' insanity and astounding lack of professionalism.


Kim.

"kimble" wrote in message news:[email protected]
Pyriform wrote:
Jerry wrote:
If pure, unadulterated video is good enough for Casuality and The
Bill it should be ok for everything else.
But are either good enough for video tape these days?...

No. They are both examples of genres which the US do so much better. What
we get are just crappy soap operas dwelling on the tedious and
implausible inter-personal relationships of the main characters.

This seems like a excellent time for my rant about the quality of the sets
on Holby City. Most of the time you can believe that it's actually
recorded in and around a real hospital. Then they show the pathology lab,
which is implausibly microscopic and generally looks like it was rejected
from Dr Who for being too clean and futuristic...

I can only assume the producer/set designer/work experience kid/whoever
has no idea what a lab would actually look like and couldn't be bothered
with all that pointless research rubbish. Either that or they reckoned
the public needed more moody lighting and blinkenlights to be convinced.


What about ER, must be the darkest hospital in the world!
Even when operating all the lights are off save for a single spotlight above
the patient.

Z

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Pyriform typed this :
I can't recall whether The Bill was ever worth watching.

I watched it in the early days before they serialised it. Much better.
--
Roger Hunt

"Roger Hunt" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Pyriform typed this :
I can't recall whether The Bill was ever worth watching.

I watched it in the early days before they serialised it. Much
better.

I watched it up to the point were the writers started to be more
interested in the personal lives of the characters than the crimes
they investigated - which was probably why Morse, Frost and 'Foyles
War' etc are such successes, although we all know that the Inspectors
have a private life it is always secondary to the plot. The Bill is
now just another Soap...