Wheres Holby, is it a real place?
Why Does Holby City 'Look' Different?
-
Page
of 2 First / Last -
-
/Predicts it's because they'll be filming ih HD now, if they weren't already -
James-Caldari 2,103 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 10 years agoI know what you mean. Same thing happened in Red Dwarf - around the time they started using canned laughter. Not sure what series. Anyway, was it related to using more 'soft focus' lenses? -
Ah no, its not.
I so wish we had a county called 'wyvern' though.
I'd love to live in somewhere named after what is in effect a dragon. -
d0bbo 688 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 10 years agoYeah it's all about the lenses. I remember something on Charlie Brooker's Screen Wipe that explained it all and generally took the piss out of it, as is Charlie's style. -
James-Caldari 2,103 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 10 years agod0bbo wrote:
You mean I was right?!
Yeah it's all about the lenses. I remember something on Charlie Brooker's Screen Wipe that explained it all and generally took the piss out of it, as is Charlie's style.
/faints.
...
/wakes up
mmmm.... soft focuuusssss -
uiruki 3,072 posts
Seen 57 minutes ago
Registered 10 years agoDunno about Holby, but Red Dwarf used the technique of 'filmising' - combining the 50 video frames into a 25fps signal, reducing the framerate and making it look more like a film. -
Tricky 4,038 posts
Seen 13 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agod0bbo wrote:
I thought it was more the quality of film stock used. Anyway, it looks like they're spending more money to get rid that 'studio feel' that it's always had.
Yeah it's all about the lenses. I remember something on Charlie Brooker's Screen Wipe that explained it all and generally took the piss out of it, as is Charlie's style.
Holby Blue was broadcast in HD (and looked pretty good too) so I guess they're probably not far behind with doing the same thing for Holby City and Casualty.
-
speedofthepuma 12,892 posts
Seen 14 minutes ago
Registered 7 years agoJames Caldari wrote:
I remeber that. IIRC it was when the scripting turned to shit also.
I know what you mean. Same thing happened in Red Dwarf - around the time they started using canned laughter. Not sure what series. Anyway, was it related to using more 'soft focus' lenses?I've turned off all the avatars and crap, so don't expect me to be impressed by yours.
-
James-Caldari 2,103 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 10 years agoI was never a huge fan of Red Dwarf, but once that happned, I stopped watching. I think one of the two original writes left (the 'funny' one), leaving behind the 'scientific' writer. Or was it the other way round? -
Tricky 4,038 posts
Seen 13 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoThey were both funny writers, but they were better as a team than they were separate entities.
/shrugs
/still mostly enjoyed all of Red Dwarf, even as the quality dipped later on -
uiruki 3,072 posts
Seen 57 minutes ago
Registered 10 years agoJames Caldari wrote:
Well, since all the good jokes seemed to bugger off at around the same time, I think it's reasonably safe to say the funny guy left
I was never a huge fan of Red Dwarf, but once that happned, I stopped watching. I think one of the two original writes left (the 'funny' one), leaving behind the 'scientific' writer. Or was it the other way round?
-
speedofthepuma 12,892 posts
Seen 14 minutes ago
Registered 7 years agouiruki wrote:
It wasn't just bad writing - it was lazy. The repetition was awful and the actors all just started hamming it up.James Caldari wrote:
Well, since all the good jokes seemed to bugger off at around the same time, I think it's reasonably safe to say the funny guy left
I was never a huge fan of Red Dwarf, but once that happned, I stopped watching. I think one of the two original writes left (the 'funny' one), leaving behind the 'scientific' writer. Or was it the other way round?I've turned off all the avatars and crap, so don't expect me to be impressed by yours.
-
They're filming in Hi Def now, and by the looks of things, have got a better director. -
craigy wrote:
/w1ns
They're filming in Hi Def now -
Inquisitor wrote:
Bristol.
Wheres Holby, is it a real place?
It's not a real place, though. -
Fixxxer 1,131 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 11 years agoDoes filming in high def make a difference on non HD teles?
/didn't watch Holby City -
None.
Same as most telly does NOT look better on HD-ready TVs. -
Hughes. 2,808 posts
Seen 9 months ago
Registered 8 years agoTo me it looks filmed on actual film, as opposed to ye olde video. It could be a digital processing effect on an HD source though. -
DFective 2,013 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 7 years agoIs the fit ginger bird still in it? -
wopr-lower-case 2,198 posts
Seen 4 years ago
Registered 7 years agoIt's probably a post processing technique they add afterwards. Years ago they did it to Casualty and the audience hated it so much they changed it back after a few weeks. It just looks plain odd. -
reflux 1,801 posts
Seen 9 months ago
Registered 11 years agoI have no idea what you're talking about but it's probably a combination of going HD when filming and with 25 progressive frames instead of 50i, a more agressive tone curve and optics that give a more shallow depth of field.
That would make a huge difference.
-
HD has nothing to do with it.
You can make crappy old DV tapes look filmic by plopping an adaptor and a 35mm lens on the front - even SLR lenses will do the trick. It creates the depth of field (foreground sharp, background soft, or vice versa) that is practically impossible to do with digital media otherwise. Then digitise it into an edit suite and apply all manner of filters to further create that 'film' effect by crushing the blacks, adding grain, whatever.
HD just means the digital format they shot on contains more detail, which is completely zapped out of the image when it's broadcast on the 640x480 standard def format most people are still watching telly on.
And those that have HD tellys that are tuning into Freeview or analogue aren't seeing any more detail - apart from maybe they're seeing the true width of the picture as opposed to 4:3 or 14:9. They're actually seeing a worse picture, as the 640x480 signal is upscaled to fit their higher pixelled screens. Better off watching on an SD telly, in fact.
Of course when all channels eventually broadcast in HD instead of just filming in it, then things will change. -
DFective 2,013 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 7 years agoYou have all overlooked the most important questionDFective wrote:
Is the fit ginger bird still in it? -
ANYTHING with "Holby" in the title is instant 'turn off' TV for me, so I wouldn't know.
In fact almost anything whatsoever on any British terrestrial channel is instant 'turn off' TV for me. Ironically. -
dgb 650 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 7 years agoOwen-B wrote:
Bristol is a real place.Inquisitor wrote:
Bristol.
Wheres Holby, is it a real place?
It's not a real place, though.
I've been there.
I think? -
reflux 1,801 posts
Seen 9 months ago
Registered 11 years agoToast wrote:
No, but usually when someone says "it somehow looks different" it means that they've changed to 25fps which means a more film like look since the will be more motion blur.
...and you have no idea what I'm talking about!.gif)
-
reflux wrote:
Yeah, that's a big factor.Toast wrote:
No, but usually when someone says "it somehow looks different" it means that they've changed to 25fps which means a more film like look since the will be more motion blur.
...and you have no idea what I'm talking about! -
reflux 1,801 posts
Seen 9 months ago
Registered 11 years agoOwen-B wrote:
Not in itself but cameras such at the newer Panasonics have out of the box 24/25 fps progressive and user configurable tone curves -> close to no PP needed to get the "film look". Still need the adapter of course to get the shallow depth unless you buy the big chip beasts.
HD has nothing to do with it.
Which is neat.
Gawd. I want one
((
-
Loads of DV cams have out the box adjustable frame rate, and have done for years.
It depends how much you want to spend. -
Page
of 2 First / Last
