my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » The Incredibles (2004) (Page 3)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: The Incredibles (2004) Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-08-2004 09:45 PM                     The method PIXAR uses to record pictures to film has not changed. They are still using their PixarVision recorder. The visual defects may have to do with the compresion (if any) they used on the image/video file. Or we could just blame technicolor. 3 out of my 4 prints have a bizare video effect that occurs in reel one at exactly the part Joe described. 9 of the 24 reels had some kind of lab defect. About PixarVision  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-08-2004 11:07 PM                     Shenanigans! It's a future-marketing conspiracy from Disney! Sounds like a stretch, but think about it. They botch the 35mm prints that will only be in circulation for 8 weeks or less. Then they deliver some pristene looking DVDs and then a year or so later issue HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, Death Ray or whatever HD medium is en vogue at the time, thus proclaiming "the best presentation of the film anyone has ever seen anywhere!" Okay. Maybe I'm just smoking too much of that I-44 stuff.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-08-2004 11:37 PM                        Sorry Mike, I'm still convinced that they rendered it at a lower resolution than normal. They did use Intel processors after all. They may have recorded it onto the film the same way, but that doesn't mean that high resolution is guaranteed. Aliasing cannot be introduced into the picture unless it is digitized again, and these were very real aliasing artifacts. Worse than I see on DVD. The systems that The Incredibles was rendered on was not even as powerful as a Sega Dreamcast! For shame!  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-09-2004 02:47 AM                     Perhaps I'm the one smoking that I-44 stuff. I've seen it a few times aftter you mentioned the aliasing earlier, and I'll be damned if I can find any. It looks extremely crisp and sharp on my 40 ft screen.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-09-2004 03:06 AM                        Maybe, but then again maybe you need that really cool Lasik surgery, as there is no missing the giant bricks (pixels) I see. I really wish I could remember the scene, but it's towards the end when they are in the enemie's factory and something with what appears like a grill on the front of a truck (that's what it looks like, I don't think it is a truck grill) approches the screen slowly. Jag-city! I think they were approaching the rocket or something.  |  IP: Logged Richard Greco Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1180 From: Plant City, FL Registered: Nov 2003 posted 11-09-2004 11:13 AM                     Ok, to get this REVIEW TOPIC back on track, here's what I thought about The Incredibles. The sound mix on this was awesome!!! I loved it in Dolby Digital at the theatre I went to. I like the plot to a point, it did drag in spots. I laughed alot in this. The detail of the animation was superb. You could see every little hair in Mr Incredible's eyebrow. Very cool sound: 5/5 movie 3.1459 / 5  |  IP: Logged Dave Williams Wet nipple scene Posts: 1836 From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-09-2004 02:32 PM                        OFF of the review topic.. i still say it was rendering for time constraints. According to pixars web site, it takes from six to ninety hours to render each frame. Now if they were to take the resolution that they normally render in down a tad to cut time down, then they can produce the movies much faster, get them in the theater, then render them in the proper resolution for dvd release while the movie is playing in theaters.. just a guess ciao dave  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 11-09-2004 03:16 PM                        60 to 90 hours PER FRAME would be understandable for, say, the original Toy Story. But even though the graphics in Pixar movies have indeed gotten a bit better, the amazing increase in the processors that do the rendering and the bandwidth since then is just staggering. At 4k resolution, I'd imagine it should take less than 6 hours per frame.... unless they only have one CPU working on one frame at any given time.  |  IP: Logged Bobby Henderson "Ask me about Trajan." Posts: 10973 From: Lawton, OK, USA Registered: Apr 2001 posted 11-09-2004 05:17 PM                     Yeah, the 6 to 60-90 hours per frame thing seems to be a bit extreme, even for a crushing floating-point intensive radiosity rendering. I'd like to know specifically what types of Intel processors were used in the rendering farm. I suspect dual Pentium IV or Xeon processors in each server blade or CPU case. Maya, SoftImageXSI and Renderman all have native code for those CPUs. It would be surprising if Intel Itanium or Itanium2 64-bit CPUs were used. I don't think there's any cost advantage between those processors and the Sun SPARC-based systems Pixar used in the past for final render. I'd also like to know the pixel size of each rendered frame. Standard "2K" resolution is 2048 X 1536. But with a 2.39:1 frame there are two ways you can render for it. You can go the high rez route, render at 3672 X 1536 and then apply a 2:1 anamorphic style squeeze to it to get the best possible quality out of 2K. Or you could do the lower quality method, which I suspect. You simply crop into the "Y" value of those 1536 pixels until you wind up with a frame of 2048 X 856 pixels and a 2.39:1 aspect ratio.  |  IP: Logged Mike Olpin Chop Chop! Posts: 1852 From: Dallas, TX Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-09-2004 08:18 PM                     quote: Joe Redifer maybe you need that really cool Lasik surgery No joking - That's very possible. I think my perscription may be out of date. Lasik scares me, although I've heard on the radio that the See Clearly Method is supposed to be really good. I'll watch it AGAIN, this time sitting really close. Just for you.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 11-11-2004 02:15 PM                        Enjoyed the presentation on Screen 13 at Loews E-walk on 42nd Street in NYC on Monday evening, November 8. Excellent sound mix, that never drew attention to itself, yet really added to the storyline. Good, bright, clean film image on what appeared to be about a 60 x 25 foot screen in a wide stadium-style auditorium. Enjoyed the story and animation, but was surprised at the "body count" for this PG film. Rates ****  |  IP: Logged Bill Gabel Film God Posts: 3873 From: Technicolor / Postworks NY, USA Registered: Jan 2002 posted 11-11-2004 03:00 PM                     Enjoyed the film on Screen 10 at Loews E-walk on 42nd Street in NYC on Sunday afternoon Nov. 7th.. I found the film a fun afternoon at the movies. It had a good mix and a good picture image on the screen. It was on a middle sized stadium auditorium. But this print had a few dirt marks on it around the reel changes. I'm suprised no one has said anything about the directors last film to this one. Brad Bird directed "The Iron Giant" back in 1999. Rates ****  |  IP: Logged Michael Gonzalez Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 790 From: Grand Island , NE USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 11-11-2004 06:17 PM                     I was happy when John Ratzenberger finally made his appearance. I was waiting for him to show up the entire movie. He HAS to have a part in every Pixar movie. Anyway, really good movie. I find it interesting that this movie seemed more geared towards adults with a kiddie moment thrown in every once and a while. Where as the Toy Story movies where kiddie oriented with an adult moment thrown in here and there. Pixar managed to top themselves again though I thought the sheep thing at the biginning was pretty weak.  |  IP: Logged Brian Michael Weidemann Expert cat molester Posts: 944 From: Costa Mesa, CA United States Registered: Feb 2004 posted 11-11-2004 07:57 PM                        quote: John Pytlak Enjoyed the story and animation, but was surprised at the "body count" for this PG film. I noticed that, too. There are many scenes with building destruction and cars veering off roads, just like any there would be in any live action R-rated flick. It wasn't really a disregard for depicted human life, but it was more than one would expect out of this kind of movie. But that, on a greater scale, is kind of what made this movie really good. It in no way tried to be what anyone would just expect of it. Rather, it took a good premise and medium and went with it where it just worked. At this point I've seen most of it (I rarely see movies in their entirety, beginning to end) and I'm still not bored with any scene I've already seen several times. The movie has character and style. Like people have mentioned, it had a good soundtrack; effective use of surrounds, although a lot of the time it just sounded weird. A character walks off screen and the voice travels with it. If an auditorium's speakers aren't amazingly fine tuned and EQ'd, it's not as smooth an effect as it could be. (Or, maybe, one shouldn't expect a good balance standing in a far corner.) Anyway, it definitely blows away Polar Express (since there have been comparisons anyway) in terms of viewability. I could watch Incredibles another few times and still enjoy it immensely.  |  IP: Logged Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 11-11-2004 08:22 PM                     Sorry posted twice.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.