The look of the SG1 movies...

[nobycane]

Hello to all..... I really could not find any direct topic on this - considering there is mountains of topics on here, so if this is a repeat I apologize in advance.

What I wanted to discuss was the visual look of the new SG1 (DTV) movies. After watching the series for 10 years, and the saddened news of the series not getting renewed, I am wondering about how the movies will look. While I have been trying to keep up with all the talk on the movies, which there is not too much right now, I have not heard a lot about the visuals of these two movies.

I am curious to know if the movies will be similar to the style and look of the series? While I have no real issues with the series visually, I would think that this is an oppertunity to make the movies seem film-like (if you know what I mean). I think there is a better chance that these will do real well if the style does not resemble the series visually...and make it look like real films.

What do you all think?

[Wraith_Boy]

It'll probably turn out something like 'Lost City' I'd imagine.

[knowles2]

Well I herd they have a pretty big budget for the movie, one report saying six million dollars.

That pretty big to play with when you consider most of the sets are probably constructed and costumes and most of the cgi models already built.

And their the awsome submarine shots, which I am sure will probably turn out to be some of the most expensive shooting they have ever done.

I think both films will probably be better than even the lost city episode, after all I think their are scenes in Atlantis, the attack on asuras being one of them look better than any visual in lost city did.

[monkey_man132]

The movies are gonna be B%$#&-in!

[Wraith_Boy]

Well I herd they have a pretty big budget for the movie, one report saying six million dollars.

That pretty big to play with when you consider most of the sets are probably constructed and costumes and most of the cgi models already built.

And their the awsome submarine shots, which I am sure will probably turn out to be some of the most expensive shooting they have ever done.

I think both films will probably be better than even the lost city episode, after all I think their are scenes in Atlantis, the attack on asuras being one of them look better than any visual in lost city did.

I think you misunderstood by what I was meaning.

I wasn't talking about the VFX, it was referring to the 'look' of how it will end up on screen.

Not to mention 'Lost City' was in 2004, while 'First Strike' was in 2007. Over the space of 3 years, technology has gotten better but mainly the sfx people have gotten more experienced in how they do the stuff these days. So obviously the effects that they do will be much better compared to 3 years previously.

What the OP was meaning is how it will look on the DVD's. Will they try & give it a hollywood movie look, or will they shoot it more along the lines of what they did in the episodes.

That's why I suggested 'LC', because that was originally supposed to be a movie, but that idea was canned after it got renewed for another season & shown as the season finale instead.

I'm sure they know what they are doing though, although the 1st film seems far more appealing than the 2nd!

[the fifth man]

The movies are gonna be B%$#&-in!

I will definitely second that.:)

I'm sure they'll have the same feel as the series, maybe just on a bit of a grander stage.

[AvatarIII]

i think they will try and make it a little more hollywood, but not comprimise on the style we are used to, as you say LC was written as a movie, but they still shot it more like a normal episode, they probably knew by then it was just going to be a 2 parter, but with these movies they always were and always will be considered as movies, not to mention the fact that the budget is so much higher than a normal ep because they are only making 2 movies in the place of 22 45 minute shows.

[xtremixt]

This is like asking whether a baby will look more like the mum or the dad, before it is even born. Wait and see, its useless to speculate.

[AvatarIII]

it maybe useless to speculate but there's no harm in it

[Heaven]

I still don't understand what you mean by "look"
are you talking about vfx? sets? camera work? staging?

[jenks]

He's on about when they touch up the filming afterwards, it's hard to explain. I used to think it was the types of cameras they use but I don't actually think that's the case. Just look a film and then look at Stargate, the picture just seems 'richer' when made for big films... bah, well I know what I mean anyway :S

[Krisz]

On the lines of the 'X Files' movies? Or even the original Stargate movie. They have a less 'cramped' feel, sort of visually 'spread' out...:beckettanime14: hmm, it is difficult to explain but this is how I understand what you are saying.

Or I'm just odd and missed the point completely!!!

[Londo Molari]

Yeah, the filters used on the television footage is different from the ones used on theatrical films. Then there are other some other standard practices used in television that are different from movies, such as camera work, soundtracks, although they have slowly been converging as TV networks have been trying to "sell" the 'home theater' concept.

Just watch the original Stargate movie and compare it to the SG-1 Pilot movie. You can see the differences there. Both movies owned, but the style of presentation is different.

Frankly I don't think it will matter much what 'style' the new SG-1 movies use. As long as the story and acting is good, and the graphics don't suck.

[Heaven]

so you're talking about post processing

I think ever since they moved to HD it's been terrible
there is too much contrast and reflections in the image and the color filters really suck :(
I think they should try dim the lighting on the sets

I doubt they're gonna shoot it on film though as it's a direct-to-dvd movie.

[PG15]

I'm hoping it would NOT be the same look, but grander.

Like Sateda, but only BIGGER.

[Arga]

Aahh.. I like the quality of good old 35 mm film. I don't know how to explain the difference between this kind of cinematographic film, (that had photographic quality), and video camera. The 35mm gives a sort of "grandeur" to the picture. It brings us to a higher plane of imagination than the more realistic look of the video camera, that looks like a news report..

http://www.futura-sciences.com/uploads/tx_oxcsfutura/img/bobine_film.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/Arricamst.jpg/180px-Arricamst.jpg

http://ednys.free.fr/stargate/filmstrip_ra.jpg

But recent movies are made with digital technology.
I don't know how they do it to make it look like a 35mm film on the big screen...


In Stargate, according to the IMDB (http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0118480/technical), the technique used evolved with time:

Printed film format
16 mm (Seasons 1, 2 and 3)
35 mm (Seasons 4, 5, 6 and 7)
HD (Seasons 8, 9 and 10)


There are high chances in my opinion that it will be framed using the same material as season 8 to 10. But with certainly more budget for post-processing...
I hope it will feel like watching a theater movie!

[PG15]

The DVD movies are being made using film:


We watched some dailies and I have to say, shooting those movies on film is going to make them look incredibly cool.

http://blog.scifi.com/stargate/

[Erik Pasternak]

As they are movies, I would expect them to "feel bigger," if that makes sense. They're probably gonna be structured differently than a typical episode--not like a teaser, followed by act one, act two, etc... I'd expect maybe a slower few opening minutes for the credits to roll over and such, and then BAM BAM BAM BAM BAM, so to speak.

[Ugly Pig]

The DVD movies are being made using film:

http://blog.scifi.com/stargate/

Interesting. Wasn't expecting that at all.

[Heaven]

The DVD movies are being made using film:



http://blog.scifi.com/stargate/

good news :)

[Avatar28]

Not necessarily good news that they're using film.

A) Film costs more to shoot with. That means less money in the budget for goodies like effects, actor salaries, etc.

B) Film degrades over time, digital doesn't. They still have to convert it to digital format for editing anyways, why not keep it digital all the way through.

C) While 35mm film theoretically has a resolution equal to several megapixels, it generally gives, IMHO, a softer, less-sharp image. Also when films are digitized they are typically done at 2K resolutions anyways which negates any resolution benefit they may have (2K is also the resolution of most common digital cinematography equipment). Quality HD cameras also generally have a greater color depth as compared to film. Video also has greater depth of field (due to needing less light and thus using a smaller aperture as well as a generally smaller sensor size) and a shorter exposure time for each frame (24 frames/sec for film vs 30 or 60 for HD video depending on the format), although it should be noted that many professional HD cameras also shoot at 24fps and use tricks to decrease depth of field to better mimic the look of film if that is what is preferred. The result is that images on film tend to have a slight bit more motion blur due to the longer exposure time. This can give the illusion that the motion that is smoother because there is likely to be less movement between frames. It is this, I think, that a lot of people prefer about film over video. Also the fact that we have been using film for so long that it is what everyone is used to so we don't really notice the flaws as much.

Really, it is similar to how some people prefer the sound of records to even the best CD recordings. The CD is, by all accounts, technically superior to vinyl. But some people are still adamant that vinyl gives a far superior sound. Of course, these are the same people that think spending several hundred dollars or more a foot for speaker cable or spending $500 on a wooden volume control knob really improves the quality of sound from their systems, double-blind A/B tests be damned.

Anyways, the following pages should provide a little more reading for those interested.
http://www.knightimepictures.com/hdfilms.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography

[Anthony]

Using Film or not, I'm sure the crew know what they are doing.

[Beckmen]

I agree with Avatar28 on his first point. The cost of film is really a hinderance. That money should be going to other departments to make sure the movies don't feel cheap. I want to see these movies not hold anything back in the visual effects department. The show rules, but there are a lot of times when I can spot VFX re-uses, or parts where the VFX feel sparse, etc. Like Moebius, where the best parts (the uprising) were left totally off-screen.

As far as the hot 'film vs HD' debate in regards to how they look, I think both sides have merit. Right now, I kind of prefer film because it feels more organic, but digital HD cameras are evolving, as is the DI process to make it look better and better. Film is a dying breed, but I certainly don't mind it being used.

[Adria]

i hope there in black & white with a hint of blue

[s09119]

I just thought I'd say, since people are on about CGI:

Am I the only one who thought the attack on Asuras in "First Strike" was terrible? I thought the effects in "Lost City" were WAY better. The nukes just looked fake and cartoony to me, whereas the battle of Antarctica looked incredible. Maybe I'm just odd lol.

As for the movie, I'd prefer HD, but film has proven to be good if done right.

[Ganthet Jr.]

To me, film looks WAY better than HD. Yeah, the picture is a little softer, but the framerate on HD makes it look like the action is right in front of you. Some what say that's a good thing, but I don't like it. It doesn't look cinematic, it looks like you're on-set, and it kind of takes away from the detachment necessary for filling in the gaps with your imagination (to me, at least).

Plus film just looks great.

[Ugly Pig]

To me, film looks WAY better than HD. Yeah, the picture is a little softer, but the framerate on HD makes it look like the action is right in front of you.

Err... the framerate? AFAIK, Stargate shot on film has exactly the same framerate as Stargate shot HD - that is, 24 fps.

[Beckmen]

Well, video is typically 29.97 fps, isn't it?

[Daniel Jackson]

Stargate: The Ark of Truth and Stargate: Continuum ought to have the feel of a movie you missed at the movie theater and are thus seeing on DVD. Not as big a budget, of coarse, but they'll deffinately feel like movies and not long episodes like "Lost City" for example.

[Xicer]

Wasn't "Lost City" originally supposed to be a movie but when the show got renewed for an eighth season, they turned it into a two-parter?

Well anyway, yea I'd like the movies to have the feel of a feature film.

[Daniel Jackson]

"Lost City" began as a feature film script, but when Season 8 was ordered along with Atlantis, it had to be reworked as the Season 7 finale to bridge SG-1 and Atlantis. The episode was filmed as a 84-minute episode, but SciFi decided to break it up into a two-parter. The Season 7 DVD set preserves the original 84-minute form of "Lost City." :jack:

[smurf]

Not necessarily good news that they're using film.

A) Film costs more to shoot with. That means less money in the budget for goodies like effects, actor salaries, etc.

B) Film degrades over time, digital doesn't. They still have to convert it to digital format for editing anyways, why not keep it digital all the way through.

C) While 35mm film theoretically has a resolution equal to several megapixels, it generally gives, IMHO, a softer, less-sharp image. Also when films are digitized they are typically done at 2K resolutions anyways which negates any resolution benefit they may have (2K is also the resolution of most common digital cinematography equipment). Quality HD cameras also generally have a greater color depth as compared to film. Video also has greater depth of field (due to needing less light and thus using a smaller aperture as well as a generally smaller sensor size) and a shorter exposure time for each frame (24 frames/sec for film vs 30 or 60 for HD video depending on the format), although it should be noted that many professional HD cameras also shoot at 24fps and use tricks to decrease depth of field to better mimic the look of film if that is what is preferred. The result is that images on film tend to have a slight bit more motion blur due to the longer exposure time. This can give the illusion that the motion that is smoother because there is likely to be less movement between frames. It is this, I think, that a lot of people prefer about film over video. Also the fact that we have been using film for so long that it is what everyone is used to so we don't really notice the flaws as much.

Really, it is similar to how some people prefer the sound of records to even the best CD recordings. The CD is, by all accounts, technically superior to vinyl. But some people are still adamant that vinyl gives a far superior sound. Of course, these are the same people that think spending several hundred dollars or more a foot for speaker cable or spending $500 on a wooden volume control knob really improves the quality of sound from their systems, double-blind A/B tests be damned.

Anyways, the following pages should provide a little more reading for those interested.
http://www.knightimepictures.com/hdfilms.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinematography
A) I've noticed, if they do have the money, they either have a tendency to shoot more footage, or waste money in post trying to recreate the "film look", rather than spend on the extras.
Mind you, as yet not many people will shoot HD if they have the money not to, unless they intend for it to be very effects heavy - where the benefits of film will probably be lost.
ETA: Or a documentary.

B) Only when badly stored - see; any moving footage shot at the end of the 19th century ;).
Also, one of the big problems with the digital/video format at the moment is archiving recorded material. As each format gets superceeded by the bigger, shinier version, there become fewer machines (and fewer people able to work/repair the machines) which are capable of showing that format.

C) Film, currently to the best of my knowledge, has greater color depth and luminance than any video format. Video is limited by mathematical calculation, film is not. When grading video, you will reach it's limits far sooner than you would do with film.
HD is catching up, but some newer versions require extra hardware, software, and very specific camera setups in order to replicate film's grading options.
Depth of field is an artistic choice so I'll say zip on that.
To the best of my knowledge, US TV dramas still shoot 24fps, film or not.

Well, video is typically 29.97 fps, isn't it?
Video standard in the US, Japan, and a few other countries I can't name off the top of my head, is 29.97fps. Most other countries it is 25fps.
Most US dramas still shoot 24fps on HD mostly for convenience - being able to mix between film and HD, preset standards conversions for international copies, and the like.

[Beckmen]

Who else here thinks the movies should be in 2.35:1?

[Daniel Jackson]

Aren't they going to be? :confused:

[Beckmen]

I don't think there has been any chatter about the aspect ratio, other than that they won't have to be shooting "4x3 safe" like they did for the series (which IMO doesn't even really show...some shows like King of Queens totally show the 4x3 safe frame, but the Stargate 16x9 framing has always been composed very naturally IMO)

[Daniel Jackson]

Isn't 4x3 inaccurate considering the series has been filmed in widescreen ever since the first episode?

[smurf]

Who else here thinks the movies should be in 2.35:1?
That would be interesting, but I don't think there will be enough wide open spaces to justify it. It would be good for Continuum if the Antartic section is quite long, but I expect it will be the usual 1.85/1.77:1 ratio.

Isn't 4x3 inaccurate considering the series has been filmed in widescreen ever since the first episode?
No. Not all networks broardcast in the widescreen medium, so if the show is filmed protected for 4:3 then you won't get the happy occurance of shots where all you see is the background and the actors noses on the edge of frame.

[Arga]

To me, film looks WAY better than HD. Yeah, the picture is a little softer, but the framerate on HD makes it look like the action is right in front of you. Some what say that's a good thing, but I don't like it. It doesn't look cinematic, it looks like you're on-set, and it kind of takes away from the detachment necessary for filling in the gaps with your imagination (to me, at least).

Plus film just looks great.

I like how you say it! :)

If HD Video is as realistic as the kind of video used when they tape the "making of" documentaries, I'd prefer to see a 35mm film's quality.

Digital video is sure faithful and shows what the eye sees, but in a movie I need to see something different, not an exact look that seems to come from CNN. I want the sort of quality obtained by analog film so that I enjoy the movie. Otherwise it looks too fake because it looks too real! does it makes any sense?
However if the processing imitates in a way the cinematic effect, then I don't mind what technology is used.

To illustrate, compare this:

http://ednys.free.fr/stargate/StargateSceneVideo.jpg

and the result:

http://ednys.free.fr/stargate/StargateSceneFilm.jpg

(I could have found a more effective exemple, but it was hard to match "making-of" scenes with actual movie scenes...)
I'm sure you all know what I mean..

[Daniel Jackson]

SG-1 is filmed in widescreen and then cropped into fullscreen for some TV networks. I've seen movies shot in the same aspect ratio as SG-1.

[smurf]

SG-1 is filmed in widescreen and then cropped into fullscreen for some TV networks. I've seen movies shot in the same aspect ratio as SG-1.
Indeed. So I can't see what the accurancy of the term 4x3 has to do with it - although 4x3 is actually inaccurate, since, as it is a ratio, it should be written as 4:3.

4:3 safe is completely accurate, and used because it saves on the process of "pan and scan" - selecting the best area of the picture for the 4:3 version. Instead, quite simply, the center of the screen is used.
Of course, it isn't as much fun for the filmmaker.

ETA: Do you mean cropped top and bottom? (which isn't cropping anything, obviously)
If so, there are many networks which still like to fill the whole, square-ish, television screen. Whatever the show was originally shot in.


I like how you say it! :)

If HD Video is as realistic as the kind of video used when they tape the "making of" documentaries, I'd prefer to see a 35mm film's quality.

Digital video is sure faithful and shows what the eye sees, but in a movie I need to see something different, not an exact look that seems to come from CNN. I want the sort of quality obtained by analog film so that I enjoy the movie. Otherwise it looks too fake because it looks too real! does it makes any sense?
However if the processing imitates in a way the cinematic effect, then I don't mind what technology is used.

I think one of the biggest problems with video is it's depth of field. It just naturally shows you so much of what is around the action, that you get distracted from the story - especially during character moments.
When your eyes look at something close in real-life, everything behind it goes a little out of focus, or you don't really notice it. So being able to see everything feels wrong. :S

[Beckmen]

You can't compare old video formats to HD-video. VHS's resolution is something like 320x486, S-VHS is like 566x486, whereas the HD cameras that Stargate uses are 1920×1080. Just compare those numbers, it's like night and day. It's like comparing the old 8mm film cameras that were used to record home movies to 35mm film used to film feature films.

[smurf]

You can't compare old video formats to HD-video. VHS's resolution is something like 320x486, S-VHS is like 566x486, whereas the HD cameras that Stargate uses are 1920×1080. Just compare those numbers, it's like night and day. It's like comparing the old 8mm film cameras that were used to record home movies to 35mm film used to film feature films.
There wasn't a comparison to VHS. The "making of" cameras being used would most likely be a DVCam format - 720x480 (NTSC). Which would be like comparing 16mm to 35mm.

I think we shouldn't forget that the people who shoot the "making of" footage are not professional camera operators. More often than not it's either the writer, producer, or director who is working on the episode.


BTW all film camera bodies are essentially the same - light in, wind to next frame. It's the extras which take it from home to proffessional.