Abigail Brady (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
abigailbrady) wrote2011-10-30 01:00 am
abigailbrady) wrote2011-10-30 01:00 am
(no subject)
Went to see Ghostbusters at the newly-opened Hackney Picturehouse with ![[personal profile]](https://s.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
khalinche and timeplease. I had forgotten how good a comedy the film is: 10/10.
The cinema just opened on Friday, in what was the old Ocean. I joined as a founder member, and consequently my name is on some artwork in the ceiling in the booking area. I went along last Sunday for the open day, and it seems pretty good. Screen 1 is epically big, and I look forward to seeing the big popcorn films there. Ghostbusters tonight was in screen 2, which is a rather smaller scale but still a very big screen for the size of the auditorium. Screens 3 and 4 I recall being rather smaller. I'm sure I will become more familiar with these in time. And, best of all, it's five minutes' walk from the Pembury. It'll be so nice to be able to meet there in advance of the movie, or adjourn there after the film for a drink and a chat about the cinematography.
It was a digital print of Ghostbusters, which is being re-released, apparently. I'm no revisionist, but am slightly disappointed that more work was not done. Most of the effects were fine (if dated), but the new clean copy meant three particularly dodgy composites became really obvious. And more's the pity, they could have been done with the material at hand, by me, even. Two of these were bleed throughs, and in another, the side of a building was flickering between perspectives oddly. I think it's a shame to tout something as "digitally remastered" and to make howlers like that more visible.
This entry was originally posted at http://morwen.dreamwidth.org/373844.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
khalinche and timeplease. I had forgotten how good a comedy the film is: 10/10.The cinema just opened on Friday, in what was the old Ocean. I joined as a founder member, and consequently my name is on some artwork in the ceiling in the booking area. I went along last Sunday for the open day, and it seems pretty good. Screen 1 is epically big, and I look forward to seeing the big popcorn films there. Ghostbusters tonight was in screen 2, which is a rather smaller scale but still a very big screen for the size of the auditorium. Screens 3 and 4 I recall being rather smaller. I'm sure I will become more familiar with these in time. And, best of all, it's five minutes' walk from the Pembury. It'll be so nice to be able to meet there in advance of the movie, or adjourn there after the film for a drink and a chat about the cinematography.
It was a digital print of Ghostbusters, which is being re-released, apparently. I'm no revisionist, but am slightly disappointed that more work was not done. Most of the effects were fine (if dated), but the new clean copy meant three particularly dodgy composites became really obvious. And more's the pity, they could have been done with the material at hand, by me, even. Two of these were bleed throughs, and in another, the side of a building was flickering between perspectives oddly. I think it's a shame to tout something as "digitally remastered" and to make howlers like that more visible.
This entry was originally posted at http://morwen.dreamwidth.org/373844.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
no subject
question is was it obvious to others? You may know be suffering from the terrible side-effect of working in the effects industry: you can see the effects taking place. If you spend your life trying to make compositing software better, can you help noticing bad composites?
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject