Neverwhere News

[Adrian Bamforth]

Just checked the electric interweb and found that Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere TV series is soon to be released on DVD:

Unlikely, but it would be ideal if they included a 'filmised' version - that is, put through a digital filter that makes the cheap video look like film quality, something they meant to do before broadcast but changed their minds for budget purposes leaving it looking visually like 1980s Doctor Who.

(Also the comic adaptation drawn by Glen Fabry is out as a book by DC.)

I'm usually not impressed with Neil Gaiman but I do love the concept of Neverwhere, using the tube as a mythical labyrinth which most people don't see - in the same way that homeless people are 'invisible' to them.

ADE

Link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Neverwhere-Complete-Gary-Bakewell/dp/B000MGB100/ref=pd_ka_1/026-6151340-3694031?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1174152231&sr=8-1" target="_blank">DVD

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000MGB100.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V43341504_.jpg">

[Dark Jimbo]

Yeah, Neverwhere (the book) remains the only Gaimain stuff that hasn't bored me to tears or thoroughly confused me. I'm probably being unfair though, given I haven't read a particularly wide selection.

[Buddy]

Yeah, interesting idea that never really did it for me.

I remember at the time the publicity was quite good:- 'Who are the Black Friars' etc...

Kept expecting a Morninton Crescent gag to pop up.

It didn't.

Perhaps another viewing is needed, watching it all in one sitting rather than a serial might help.

[JOE SOAP]

***Unlikely, but it would be ideal if they included a 'filmised' version - that is, put through a digital filter that makes the cheap video look like film quality, something they meant to do before broadcast but changed their minds for budget purposes leaving it looking visually like 1980s Doctor Who.***


If you have your own home editing software: Avid/Final cut pro, you could do that yourself. It's called "fluid film progressive" and improves any flat video look by basically combining both "video fields" into one "full frame" of picture information. 1 image frame for every 25th of a second, similar to actual film frames, and resembles the movement of action on film.



Has the fat guy on that DVD cover got a big metal cock with a little spout?

[Wils]

Has the fat guy on that DVD cover got a big metal cock with a little spout?

I think that happened to him in an episode of Shelley in about 1983.

[DavidXBrunt]

Ah, I loved Neverwhere at the time and still do, after finally getting around to reading the novelisation. Looking muchly forwards to the D.V.D.

[JOE SOAP]

Fuck, I never realised it was James Shelley.

[Huey2]

That's a terrible cover, though.

The video release had a lovely Dave McKean image from the title sequence. Why can't this?

In fact, why can't any of the beeb DVDs get decent covers. They're all Photoshop montages knocked up in 5 minutes ( Unless it's the Doctor Who covers in which case they add an extra minute to tint the whole thing purple).

Cover aside though, the actual programme's not bad.

-Huey

[Goosegash]

If you have your own home editing software: Avid/Final cut pro, you could do that yourself. It's called "fluid film progressive" and improves any flat video look by basically combining both "video fields" into one "full frame" of picture information. 1 image frame for every 25th of a second, similar to actual film frames, and resembles the movement of action on film.

This is true, but just because you can do it doesn't mean you should!

There was a time a few years ago when seemingly every program shot on video had this effect applied to it - they even tried using it on old shows like Morcambe and Wise. And it usually looked terrible.

Since then, I believe "film effect" techniques have become slightly more advanced, as on the new Doctor Who for example, and the technique described above has become mostly obsolete. Not that I'm an expert or anything.

Personally, I reckon video's an underrated medium, and I'm not quite sure of the virtue of making everything "look like film". That said, second series of Neverwhere shot on film(which is what Gaiman wanted, but the BBC rejected) would've been very nice indeed.

[JTurner]

I bought Neverwhere on video years ago and have always meant to try and transfer it to DVD - I guess now I dont.

I thought it was deliberately supposed to be like 80s Dr Who? I thought that was the whole point of the synthtastic soundtrack. I agree though that the image quality is more like kids TV than it needs to be.

(on the subject of Gaiman soundtracks, does anyone else agree that Mirrormasks was just too cheesy?)

[JOE SOAP]

***Since then, I believe "film effect" techniques have become slightly more advanced, as on the new Doctor Who for example, and the technique described above has become mostly obsolete. Not that I'm an expert or anything. ***  



I'm not talking about the old effect which is called "field stripping" and has been around for donkey's years.

"Fluid film progressive" is relatively new and is not the old way of trying to mimic the "film look" by stripping out one entire video field and leaving the other on display. It's more akin to shooting HiDef progressive.

The old way of field stripping gives video a strobe type look and looks terrible as soon as anybody moves horizontally across the screen. It also makes credits looked blurred and hard to read. There was basically less video info on screen.


Fluid film progressive is the exact opposite, it increases the amount of video info on the screen for every frame by combining the pixels of the 2 video fields together and displaying the 2 fields as one full frame of video info 25 times a second. This improves the look of the image by retaining the sharpness of video but also adding the motion of film frames, and no strobing.

With field stripping you are taking away video info and mimicking film motion.

With Progressive you keep all the video info & achieve the film look at the same time.



It's far from obsolete and it's the future of video in HiDef cinema & TV. This is how David Fincher shot Zodiac.

[Goosegash]

You're quite right, I was thinking of field-removal, which is an entirely different thing. Sorry...

[JOE SOAP]

No probs, it's nice to blab about something I work at. Of course most Joe Soaps barely recognise when picture changes at all.

[Adrian Bamforth]

Someone's tried to do a filmic version on Youtube though with it beain streamed it's pretty much impossible to tell the difference and I don't know which side of the screen is new.

ADE

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tg7_74PlEU" target="_blank">You Tube

[ThryllSeekyr]

I can see why guy got to be Paul McCartney in 'BackBeat'.