abysmal, utterly.
the reaction to questions like an eager child, to formulate some answer, any answer, quickly and regardless of relevance or value results in such dross.
and the portion of my musings that could be addressed by some buccaneering, website adventure style learning, is only a small part of the total number that need pondering.
some require logical thought, others independent opinion forming.
these are difficult, but not impossible, to find wiki pages to link to.
it is in HD, so the camera cant be original spec. it was supposedly fitted to give better imaging ability(HD), surely it would not be situated in such a way that large obstructions surround much of its field of view?
of course, this spinning, while falling, while flying, while orbiting is not without its tumbling and turning so who knows what which way up or around things will be on the next lap of the ongoing 17k km/h (170k, km/s, ?) super-massive prat-fall.
thing is, it seems the odds or the gods are against them, and some pesky obstruction gets in the way and is probably responsible for the optical focusing/contrast levels/black level issues that omit stars, all other satellites, human origin functional and defunct. no giant telescopes or anything. no stars. no stars.
did they have stars in the film, gravity? its good to remember that the identifying factors of real, really real space film are an absence of detail and uniform inclusion of context-less, yet relentlessly context setting, small part of the contraption that is supporting the camera/space-man with camera;
but of course faking weightlessness is not possible, so bullock and clooney must have been on location, in space, on a space ship. if not for all the need-to-know secrecy such a humanity defining heroic undertaking of pioneer-ism and daring bravery deserves and needs, they could have arranged to share the better camera.