IMDB says otherwise (35 mm (Kodak Vision 200T 5274, Vision 500T 5279)), but I'll be damned if this wasn't shot on video.
I actually found it a bit distracting; any time I watch any movie shot on video it automatically sends the message "low budget."
Whatever the reason, the image quality was off-putting; anyone else know what I'm talking about?
No, it was shot on those film stocks, with a Panavision camera and anamorphic lenses.
I only saw parts of this on DVD and that was a long time ago, but if it looks soft throughout, it's probably because the whole movie was shot with the Arri Varicon (variable contrast) in front of the lens. It "flashes" the film and reduces contrast. Panavision's Panaflasher is basically the same thing.
The cinematographer, Freddie Francis, used the Varicon on a lot of his movies.
CINNAMON THUNDERshare
No, you just saw one of the poor-quality dvd releases.
Get the Disney dvd or Japanese BluRay for better image quality.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/Reviews/Straight%20Story.htm#ss
The trailer looked like cheap shot on video to me. But I rented it on DVD and can confirm it was shot on 35mm film.
I'm from Paris... TEXAS
The reason you probably got the low budget feel is because film is often lower in quality than modern digital cameras.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
No, film is not lower quality than digital. It is actually far superior.
shareIncorrect. In both resolution and clarity digital performs better provided you can afford it. Film was superior when digital was new, but it is not so anymore.
---------------------------------------------
Applied Science? All science is applied. Eventually.
This may be true (when talking about very high-end cameras like the kind Fincher used on Gone Girl), but it has no relevance to the question. Film has never looked like video, hence the difference in terminology.
Anyway, having watched the Japanese Blu Ray release, I thought the same - especially with the scenes at the very end as Alvin goes up the long driveway. I thought they may have used some kind of consumer video tape for that, although evidently not. Film grain was very evident early on, though.
both formats have advantages and disadvantages but digital isn't superior in terms of resolution and latitude. Film tends to be asthetically more pleasing but can be more expensive and requires developing which is never 100% guaranteed to come out as expected.
You can see what you're shooting with digital there and then. Some cameras with high resolutions make it easier to reframe the shot or punch in for closer during post but if not properly handled even decent digital cinema cameras can look more like "video".
Film is the best medium for long term storage.
Anyway, the Straight Story was shot on 35mm - most directors in my experience would shoot on film if they could... Many prefer digital due to ease of use and a lot of audiences don't know the difference.
Also TVs with TrueMotion and the like make films look like cheap video to as they add extra fields/frames which is exactly what most filmmakers are trying to avoid... Might be worth checking your TVs settings if this film looks like video or maybe it's a Bad transfer on your DVD.
Shooting theatrical release films on video was pretty much unheard of in 1999.
DVD released of The Straight Story over the years have been notoriously bad, however, and may account for the look.
Never defend crap with 'It's just a movie'
http://www.youtube.com/user/BigGreenProds