Talk:Vidocq (2001 film)

Digital movie
The FIRST digital film publically shown was Driven Together http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2000/0816/Front_Page/18.html. Correct the article.


 * First you could always correct it yourself. Second there is nothing wrong with the formulation in the article. I don't know what genre "Driven Together" is but it is definitly not a "major" movie. So even if your movie is "science fiction" too, the sentence in "Vidocq" is still correct. -- CecilK 09:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * CecilK - While you remark is quite correct, I cannot see what Vidocq has to do with science fiction! 85.22.26.213 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Citing the 2nd paragraph on the definition of Science fiction: In organizational or marketing contexts, science fiction can be synonymous with the broader definition of speculative fiction, encompassing creative works incorporating imaginative elements not found in contemporary reality; this includes fantasy, horror, and related genres. Vidocq ist definitly not a sciene fiction movie in the style of Alien or Star Trek, but it is a speculative fiction, which is part of this genre too. Even if the story is not set in the future the fiction is easyly regocnizable. For the time period it was set in some of the happenings would be futuristic. -- CecilK 13:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dark fantasy
This is a dark fantasy film set in the early 19th century, not steampunk as it doesn't deal with what would have been futuristic technology at the time, and certainly not science fiction. Science fiction is but a sub-genre of speculative fiction, which differs from the horror and fantasy sub-genres of speculative fiction by dealing with futuristic technology, which Vidocq definitely doesn't. It's not even science fantasy. All the violations of consensus reality in this film are due to alchemist magic, not technology. With CecilK's definition above, you could even call high fantasy such as The Lord of the Rings "science fiction". --79.193.27.76 (talk) 02:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"First digital cinematography film release"
The film was obviously shot in 25i and in regards to image quality of the live-action sequences looks very much like what any 3CCD miniDV camcorder could've produced in the mid-90s. So the question is, where do we draw the line as to what constitutes "digital cinematography"? In other words, if Vidocq is "digital cinematography", then so are Festen and Inland Empire. --2003:EF:170E:A458:C8FE:5DCE:7513:975C (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The film was NOT shot in 25i, it is a first precisely because it is 1080p24. Obviously all 24 fps movies, being electronic or argentic, will be converted to 25 i for "PAL" releases. There is no provision for 24p on standard DVD. Since the capture was 24p, motion is film-like except for some shorts scenes shot on DV cameras for artistic effect, which are 576i25, and indeed would need deinterlacing/scaling for correct blending with 1080p24 material. True, if it had been interlaced you would get the 50 Hz-like fluid quality of video, (i mean the difference  would be visible on DVD also) but i saw it in the theater in 2001 and had no  such impression. The only video feel could be conveyed by a different color quality and the absence of film grain. But the only thing that clearly appeared video-like to me were the DV scenes. I am not blind to these kind of things, on "The Hobbit" the different quality of motion was obvious (and i liked the superior rendition). Metazoaire (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)