Are Films and Shows Lit Too Well Now?

[Eric Lange]

I don't think 'perfect' is the right word. When the image is perfect, you don't notice it, because it carries you along in the story.

There is however a strong argument to be made that films are lit too softly these days - you see beautiful soft, wrapping key (and back, and edge) lights constantly (even in situations where it's completely incongruous for the light to be soft). It has an uncanny valley effect - That's the problem IMO.

I think the other thing that folks on this thread have touched on is what I would call "Visual - Bandwidth"... So for example on the first Star Wars remake (Episode 1) the battle scenes at the end were so visually complex it was like watching twelve videos games being played all at once, and one would have to slow down the action frame by frame to visually take in what was going on... (At least for me). Same with Guardians of the Galaxy II (love those movies/concept) but again it was visual overload / exceeds mental/ visual bandwidth and to do that for two hours straight my visual cortex just gets worn out...

So Sometimes it is nice to visually shift emphasis to the human story... With STAR WARS in particular the sets and the effects are two additional stars/actors in the movie, that's always been the case. These amazing and imagined environments from the ever fertile imagination of George Lucas.

 

[Steven Shea]

I can understand what the OP is saying. It seems like alot of content is really polished and softly lit nowadays. It's flattering, it's safe and generally looks good but yeah....dare I say it can be a little boring when that's all you see.

I agree with David. There's no right or wrong, only what's appropriate for the content. I do appreciate imperfections and grit. Sometimes pristine and clean is the way to go, but sometimes I really want to see harsh light and a rugged image.

Same with music. Though some music should sound well produced, I definitely appreciate when other stuff is a little rough around the edges. Nirvana went that way with In Utero after Nevermind sounded too polished. I think that was a great choice, creatively.

 

[Marc Wielage]

You know, I mentioned this to you at least a year ago, maybe more, but let me ask again: why don't they just do a film-out?

I can think of $100,000' worth of reasons why most of them don't do that. (Plus it takes about 48 hours per 20-minute reel, including recording, developing, and an answer print. Multiply that times 6 for a 2 hour film, and that's used up 12 days.)

Your answer, as I recall, was that doing film-outs was not in your vocabulary. Something like, it's the worst of both worlds, or something to that effect.

I have done at least a hundred film-outs in my life, but none in the past 7-8 years. Very few projects have the time and money to afford to do that anymore. Even for the big studios, film-outs have become kind of an afterthought... though there are major exceptions, like Chris Nolan's Dunkirk, where they did the film print first and then essentially timed the digital releases to match the film.

I think the other thing that folks on this thread have touched on is what I would call "Visual - Bandwidth"... So for example on the first Star Wars remake (Episode 1) the battle scenes at the end were so visually complex it was like watching twelve videos games being played all at once, and one would have to slow down the action frame by frame to visually take in what was going on... (At least for me). Same with Guardians of the Galaxy II (love those movies/concept) but again it was visual overload / exceeds mental/ visual bandwidth and to do that for two hours straight my visual cortex just gets worn out... So sometimes it is nice to visually shift emphasis to the human story... With STAR WARS in particular the sets and the effects are two additional stars/actors in the movie, that's always been the case. These amazing and imagined environments from the ever fertile imagination of George Lucas.

I think this is a very valid criticism. I can recall when Star Wars: Episode 3 - Revenge of the Sith came out, several critics said that some shots looked like there were 9 video games happening at once. There were aspects of the film I liked, and I think the lighting and color were very beautiful, but some of the battle scenes did feel like they had a "kitchen sink" kind of approach.

I think this happens when filmmakers feel the need to up the status quo and increase the action and the spectacle with every subsequent sequel. The danger is giving people visual overload.

In the recent Guardians of the Galaxy 2, I thought it was interesting that writer/director James Gunn deliberately cut away to 2-character conversations every so often to deliberately slow down the pace and get away from the "massive spaceship battle" or "universe is about to explode" kind of dilemma. I think a balance has to be made there, and it's one of those creative choices for which there's no easy answers.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I can understand what the OP is saying. It seems like alot of content is really polished and softly lit nowadays. It's flattering, it's safe and generally looks good but yeah....dare I say it can be a little boring when that's all you see.

Again, I think specifics are needed here. Whenever I do an initial color timing, I'll often tell the client, "in the next pass, let's try some looks that push the boundaries and go a little more bold and extreme." And that inevitably involves bringing down the background, going for more contrast, and popping out the characters from the background to give the scene more depth and more emphasis. It's the opposite of soft and flattering and safe. "More crunch" is a phrase that usually gets thrown around during this phase of the process.

I would point to a lot of very edgy TV shows that really hit this visual very, very hard. Check out the Marvel shows (color-corrected by Tony D'Amore and his team over at Encore/Hollywood), or Altered Carbon (color-corrected by Jill Bogdanowicz at eFilm), which are very intense, almost to the point of over-the-top. "Safe" is the last thing they want. Or look at something like Blade Runner 2049, lit by Roger Deakins and color-timed by Mitch Paulson over at eFilm. I think it's a very polished film but not flattering, not safe, and the opposite of boring. Absolutely one of the best films of the year -- and I hope Deakins finally wins his well-deserved Oscar for it.

 

[Ryan Williams]

Or look at something like Blade Runner 2049, lit by Roger Deakins and color-timed by Mitch Paulson over at eFilm. I think it's a very polished film but not flattering, not safe, and the opposite of boring. Absolutely one of the best films of the year -- and I hope Deakins finally wins his well-deserved Oscar for it.

100% on you with this one. I hope he does as well!

 

[Eric Lange]

I can think of $100,000' worth of reasons why most of them don't do that. (Plus it takes about 48 hours per 20-minute reel, including recording, developing, and an answer print. Multiply that times 6 for a 2 hour film, and that's used up 12 days.)


I have done at least a hundred film-outs in my life, but none in the past 7-8 years. Very few projects have the time and money to afford to do that anymore. Even for the big studios, film-outs have become kind of an afterthought... though there are major exceptions, like Chris Nolan's Dunkirk, where they did the film print first and then essentially timed the digital releases to match the film.


I think this is a very valid criticism. I can recall when Star Wars: Episode 3 - Revenge of the Sith came out, several critics said that some shots looked like there were 9 video games happening at once. There were aspects of the film I liked, and I think the lighting and color were very beautiful, but some of the battle scenes did feel like they had a "kitchen sink" kind of approach.

I think this happens when filmmakers feel the need to up the status quo and increase the action and the spectacle with every subsequent sequel. The danger is giving people visual overload.

In the recent Guardians of the Galaxy 2, I thought it was interesting that writer/director James Gunn deliberately cut away to 2-character conversations every so often to deliberately slow down the pace and get away from the "massive spaceship battle" or "universe is about to explode" kind of dilemma. I think a balance has to be made there, and it's one of those creative choices for which there's no easy answers.

The one thing I really appreciated about LAST JEDI was that I did NOT experience visual overload and a lot of the more complex and "Busy" sequences allowed one's eye to linger on some really excellent compositions that are IMO very memorable.

It's funny while watching (as I remember) LAST JEDI that some of the "Space sequences" and others reminded me of the BSG (Battle Star Galactica (reboot)... Which I loved) Especially some of the more memorable compositions from BSG... And seems that the plot of what comes next seems like it is pointing in a BSG type direction for sure . The writing on BSG was amazing and so many plot lines have been lifted from BSG that are still being turned into movies and TV series.

So I would expect a lot more grit and "Kitchen Sink" type lighting/ rendering/ shooting (as you say), for what's coming next.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Not being an asshole is very high on that list. Especially a professional forum where potential employers and co-workers are reading the words you write and will remember who you are. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if you ever get hired to work on one of Mr. Yedlin's future films.

Again, what bothers me is the sweeping generalization that the entire film was "too clean," which is just silly. How did you see it? In the theater? In Imax? In Dolby Vision? In 3D? On home video? If the latter, how was your monitor calibrated? Can you really trust what you see?

The thing about being a critic is you have to be well-informed enough to make valid critical judgements. The internet is filled with crackpots who are basically unemployed kids living in their mother's basements and spending 20 hours a day on forums slamming the many things they don't like. I think there's a way to criticize something respectfully that doesn't insult the artist and also provides real examples of what you're talking about.

I'll refer you to my original post, where I said:

I sincerely don't mean to offend anyone that shoots in a particular manner or style.

. . .

A lot of films and shows I've watched nowadays feel... well, visually boring. Everything is so perfectly lit that it kind of pulls me out of the scene. The most recent example I can think of was The Last Jedi

Barring comments on storyline and such, I felt the mysterious hole of roots + mirror scene Rey faced was lit in a way that just made me feel removed from any sort of feeling for the scene. It felt like all ages-friendly lighting where things were supposed to be mysterious and dark, but still "safe"

I pointed to specific scene that pulled me out of the moment. I'm not attacking Mr. Yedlin's hard work for stating that for me, I felt removed from the scene because of the lighting. Of course he and his team planned the scene meticulously, then lit and shot it with precision. I'm not saying that they didn't - I'm saying that I didn't fully feel lost in the scene in the way I did when, for example, Luke is training on Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back, then inquired if anyone is feeling the same way.

If you don't like how coffee tastes, would your comment offend the barista and the coffee shop and the cultivators that labored over crafting the "perfect" cup? Possibly, but at the end of the day, we're talking about personal preferences.

You never said you could make a better cup, you just have different tastes, and that's exactly what art is - it's a subjective experience.

I don't want to sit here and play keyboard warrior with you, Marc. You clearly feel very strongly about what I stated, so you can PM me your thoughts rather than posting rude comments on here that are peppered with stereotypes and ageist bullet points that derail the topic.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

I see a big difference between lighting a scene when having a digital feed to a monitor or just an optical view finder on a old film camera.

Before DP´s closed one eye and looked into the the set, today they stand around monitors and trying to make everything perfect on the screen which normally seams to make them take a bit more precautions than necessary. Also today "everyone is a DP" the Director, the producer, the client and who ever else that is in power to have an opinion. Back in the days it was different, very few on set could envision how the result would actually look so far less comments where dropped when there was a shitty video tap at best to comment about.

Yeah, I've read a few things about this - how everyone gathers around, and now wants to watch and re-watch what they did and try and make change after change to what they're doing, be it the actor, director, cinematographer, etc. I think they also mentioned this in the Side by Side doc that Keanu Reeves made!

I think the image should be judged by whether it is appropriate or inappropriate, not by how perfect or imperfect it is -- it's all about context.

But beyond that, I will say that digital technology has allowed a greater level of technical flawlessness than ever before, which is fine if that's what one desires, but I personally don't mind a feeling that flawed human beings made the image, the Japanese notion of wabi-sabi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi

And I actually think that "Last Jedi" has some wabi-sabi to it, it's not flawless -- there are some rough spots, some grit at times, which I like. Despite being a big-budget movie, it feels like a personal expression of the filmmakers in many scenes, not an impersonal play-it-safe corporate creation (some of the criticism by Star Wars fans only proves that it wasn't trying to please everyone.)

I think with the low-noise of digital, with its increasing levels of dynamic range and resolution, it is getting harder to make an image rough, textured, gritty, and happy accidents happen less often or they are more self-conscious.

That's a much better way of putting it, David - what I was trying to say with lighting being "too perfect" is it that sometimes it feels like they place too much attention to every little detail that the lighting feels inappropriate for the scene, if that makes sense.

Do you believe films have less happy accidents because there is much more attention to detail, needs for VFX, or something else in addition to the growing capabilities of digital?

 

[Eric Lange]

I'll refer you to my original post, where I said:



I pointed to specific scene that pulled me out of the moment. I'm not attacking Mr. Yedlin's hard work for stating that for me, I felt removed from the scene because of the lighting. Of course he and his team planned the scene meticulously, then lit and shot it with precision. I'm not saying that they didn't - I'm saying that I didn't fully feel lost in the scene in the way I did when, for example, Luke is training on Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back, then inquired if anyone is feeling the same way.

If you don't like how coffee tastes, would your comment offend the barista and the coffee shop and the cultivators that labored over crafting the "perfect" cup? Possibly, but at the end of the day, we're talking about personal preferences.

You never said you could make a better cup, you just have different tastes, and that's exactly what art is - it's a subjective experience.

I don't want to sit here and play keyboard warrior with you, Marc. You clearly feel very strongly about what I stated, so you can PM me your thoughts rather than posting rude comments on here that are peppered with stereotypes and ageist bullet points that derail the topic.

@Brendan L FWIW I certainly didn't interpret what you said in a negative light (In the first instance), at all... , And I'm sure a lot of other interweb folks that "tuned in" didn't either..?

The one guy that's really interesting in terms of promoting the idea of breaking form and exploring new ways of visual and cinematic communication is Martin Scorsese... He really encourages all and sundry (including film students of one sort or another) to do that! That's very different form making the 10th StarWars movie... (or is it the tenth??? , I have lost count lol).

I'll have to re-read Marcs posts again and maybe he has framed you into a more typical scenario (rightly or wrongly), (that might ordinarily bug the shizzle out of him, so you just inadvertently get sucked into that minor "Vortex" lol. ) and just uses you as a bit of a blanc canvas to project some of his own "stuff/issues/sh*t" onto you... Does happen... "Fatherly" advise from Marc, shall we say ? That's not for me to say perhaps.

However the one valid takeaway with what Marc W is saying that professionally it's realy really important to stay on message IF for example you are wanting to perhaps get work from certain quarters... That's 100% true and is a golden (unwritten) rule of film making. That perhaps does not jive with the modern "Interwebs"... But never the less needs to be maintained. I think in some sense that is perhaps what Marc W is pushing back on in a more general sense (and that's not trying to "re-frame" what he has specifically written, without getting inappropriately tangled up in this. (Too late) . ).

I feel @ BRendon you don't need to defend yourself in anyway here... As whatever Marc is saying does not diminish your standing at least within this context... And I Mean that in the most respectful way all round.

"Keyboard Warrior" ... He, he, I like that.

We are all "Grown ups" (almost) and are responsible for what we do... No worries

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also on a side note: The passing of Carrie Fisher was a really tragic thing especially to those part of the "Star Wars Family"... and of course for many millions of people and folks that have followed her personal story, so I have to admit I was very moved by certain sequences in LAST JEDI (that conveyed a certain sentiment), and in some sense because of that I don't feel so inclined to beat LAST JEDI like its some kind of Galactic Piñata for a notionally "Dis-imagined" STAR WARS universe... Overall they did a tremendous job given everything they had to deal with. I'm not saying @ Brendon you are doing that nor is LAST JEDI a "Sacred cow" either... I think it was one of the most exciting STAR WARS movies I have ever seen... So I feel the franchise is in very good hands at least technically and thematically.

 

[H Dewey]

I'll refer you to my original post, where I said:



I pointed to specific scene that pulled me out of the moment. I'm not attacking Mr. Yedlin's hard work for stating that for me, I felt removed from the scene because of the lighting. Of course he and his team planned the scene meticulously, then lit and shot it with precision. I'm not saying that they didn't - I'm saying that I didn't fully feel lost in the scene in the way I did when, for example, Luke is training on Dagobah in The Empire Strikes Back, then inquired if anyone is feeling the same way.

If you don't like how coffee tastes, would your comment offend the barista and the coffee shop and the cultivators that labored over crafting the "perfect" cup? Possibly, but at the end of the day, we're talking about personal preferences.

You never said you could make a better cup, you just have different tastes, and that's exactly what art is - it's a subjective experience.

I don't want to sit here and play keyboard warrior with you, Marc. You clearly feel very strongly about what I stated, so you can PM me your thoughts rather than posting rude comments on here that are peppered with stereotypes and ageist bullet points that derail the topic.

Brendan, Marc isn't someone who will apoligize or even change his mind. I think your best response would have been a simple "fuck you!"

 

[Les Hillis]

I remember watching the movie 'The Omen' once, on a computer screen, largely to examine some 1970's film-making. It looked really nicely lit and evenly exposed in some parts, and wasn't really scary at all, which wasn't how I remembered it. Then I realized, due to technical issues I hadn't been aware of, I'd watched the whole thing with a raised black level (in just the video signal, not the whole monitor). So I made some adjustments and went back and had a look at the movie like it was intended to be seen, and the difference was stark. With increased contrast and darkened shadows, the whole thing looked ominous and scary again.

It was a nice reminder of how powerful an effect the chosen 'look' of a movie, or even sequence or scene, can have on the viewers perception of the content.

With that in mind (and echoing something that was previously mentioned), I'd be surprised if the makers of any movie didn't make a deliberate decision as to how far they were willing to go in regards to evoking certain responses in the viewer, let alone the makers a Disney movie.

For example I remember reading about how George Lucas chose, from the range of options he had available, a less scary-looking version of the Darth Maul character for one of the earlier Star Wars movies than he could have, to avoid actually disturbing the younger viewers of the franchise.

I haven't seen the latest Star Wars movie myself, but I do remember after seeing the previous one, thinking that it too had a certain look to it that is similar to what the OP was referring to.


In terms of how modern shows and movies look in general, I think digital acquisition has had an effect, but only at least as much as digital post-processing has.

Others have mentioned how there are examples that don't look over-lit or flat, or 'perfect', but I suspect the goalposts have shifted in regards to what is now common or normal. The thing is, I think it's a progression from what people were trying to achieve as an ideal back in the film-only days. There are looks now that can be achieved relatively easily and inexpensively that would have been out of reach or even impossible to attain when film was the dominant medium, and not for a lack of trying. In some ways that's a 'be careful what you wish for' kind of thing, but the way see it, as the image-capture and manipulation 'palette' is opened up, it's just as much about how you choose to make use of the currently available technology as it's ever been. The goalposts might have changed, but the goals themselves haven't.

 

[Marc Wielage]

I don't want to sit here and play keyboard warrior with you, Marc. You clearly feel very strongly about what I stated, so you can PM me your thoughts rather than posting rude comments on here that are peppered with stereotypes and ageist bullet points that derail the topic.

You haven't yet convinced me that you know what you're talking about. There's a point beyond taste where you either have a handle on how things work in the real world, what good pictures are, what good lighting is, and how to express opinions in a public forum, or you don't. I haven't seen that yet from you.

I just hate it when people exhibit troll-like behavior, drop a lit-fuse comment just to incite dissent and argument, and then they scuttle away like cockroaches going back under the floorboards once the message explodes. I gave you very specific examples of shows that are not safe and bland. I've seen Star Wars: The Last Jedi twice, and there wasn't a minute that I thought, "wow, this is a boringly-lit shot." Quite the contrary. In fact, I think there's more sheer camera movement in this film than any Star Wars film ever made. I color-timed the original Star Wars and Jedi for Lucas at ILM back in 2004, and I'm intimately familiar with every frame and every pixel of those films. Those are downright staid and lethargic compared to modern films, both in terms of contrast, color, and composition. And those are actually very well-made films... for the 1970s. The latest Marvel movies are consistently entertaining to me, and I think they've managed to vary the color pallet and styles in each to the point where they're different, and yet I can buy they're all happening in the same universe. (I thought Black Panther was terrific from start to finish, beautiful color from Maxine Gervais at Technicolor, not a bad frame in the entire film.)

However the one valid takeaway with what Marc W is saying that professionally it's realy really important to stay on message IF for example you are wanting to perhaps get work from certain quarters... That's 100% true and is a golden (unwritten) rule of film making. That perhaps does not jive with the modern "Interwebs"... But never the less needs to be maintained. I think in some sense that is perhaps what Marc W is pushing back on in a more general sense (and that's not trying to "re-frame" what he has specifically written, without getting inappropriately tangled up in this. (Too late) . ).

I think this is very true, particularly for somebody starting out who has 11 shorts on their IMDB resume. The last thing I would do on an industry forum is slam the work of a major A-list Hollywood DP, particularly a member of the ASC. I casually know a couple of members of the Last Jedi post team, and believe me, they bent over backwards working on the thing. I bristle at the tone of criticism implying that the work was "too perfect," when I know a lot of time was spent making it real, making it exciting, and giving the final release a lot of texture and nuance. And that goes for the DP, the gaffers, the operators, and the assistants, as well as the colorists, the conform people, and everybody else who toiled tirelessly on the look of the film.

Again, it's very easy to tear down somebody else's work. Not so easy to actually do good work yourself and present it to the world.

I can give you a Star Wars specific that I didn't like: the CG-Peter Cushing and CG-Young Carrie Fisher in Rogue One were awful and took me right out of the movie. Carrie Fisher's face in particular just looked like a rubber mask to me. I don't doubt that the VFX team worked for months and months on it, but to me it just illustrates how very difficult it is to recreate a human being's face from scratch. The robots and alien creatures all looked fine, the cinematography was fine, I loved the mix, I thought the level of acting was good, and I enjoyed a lot of the movie overall. But man, CG humans aren't happening for me. (Ditto with Henry Cavill's upper lip in Justice League -- same kind of thing.)

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Brendan, Marc isn't someone who will apoligize or even change his mind. I think your best response would have been a simple "fuck you!"

Hah - I didn't know that. Well, now I know to pay him no mind :troll:

@Brendan L FWIW I certainly didn't interpret what you said in a negative light (In the first instance), at all... , And I'm sure a lot of other interweb folks that "tuned in" didn't either..?

The one guy that's really interesting in terms of promoting the idea of breaking form and exploring new ways of visual and cinematic communication is Martin Scorsese... He really encourages all and sundry (including film students of one sort or another) to do that! That's very different form making the 10th StarWars movie... (or is it the tenth??? , I have lost count lol).

I'll have to re-read Marcs posts again and maybe he has framed you into a more typical scenario (rightly or wrongly), (that might ordinarily bug the shizzle out of him, so you just inadvertently get sucked into that minor "Vortex" lol. ) and just uses you as a bit of a blanc canvas to project some of his own "stuff/issues/sh*t" onto you... Does happen... "Fatherly" advise from Marc, shall we say ? That's not for me to say perhaps.

However the one valid takeaway with what Marc W is saying that professionally it's realy really important to stay on message IF for example you are wanting to perhaps get work from certain quarters... That's 100% true and is a golden (unwritten) rule of film making. That perhaps does not jive with the modern "Interwebs"... But never the less needs to be maintained. I think in some sense that is perhaps what Marc W is pushing back on in a more general sense (and that's not trying to "re-frame" what he has specifically written, without getting inappropriately tangled up in this. (Too late) . ).

I feel @ BRendon you don't need to defend yourself in anyway here... As whatever Marc is saying does not diminish your standing at least within this context... And I Mean that in the most respectful way all round.

"Keyboard Warrior" ... He, he, I like that.

We are all "Grown ups" (almost) and are responsible for what we do... No worries

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Also on a side note: The passing of Carrie Fisher was a really tragic thing especially to those part of the "Star Wars Family"... and of course for many millions of people and folks that have followed her personal story, so I have to admit I was very moved by certain sequences in LAST JEDI (that conveyed a certain sentiment), and in some sense because of that I don't feel so inclined to beat LAST JEDI like its some kind of Galactic Piñata for a notionally "Dis-imagined" STAR WARS universe... Overall they did a tremendous job given everything they had to deal with. I'm not saying @ Brendon you are doing that nor is LAST JEDI a "Sacred cow" either... I think it was one of the most exciting STAR WARS movies I have ever seen... So I feel the franchise is in very good hands at least technically and thematically.

All very valid points - I just take issue with Marc's hypocritical stance that I'm acting unprofessional and should watch what I say on a camera forum given that he's posting berating asides. Everyone else has simply posted their own thoughts in an engaging way to offer up why I (and others) are noticing a certain aesthetic, which is greatly appreciated.

Back to topic! It's the 8th in the series, technically 9th made if you toss in the Rogue One film! Overall, The Last Jedi did some interesting things that we'll see play out.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Hah - I didn't know that. Well, now I know to pay him no mind :troll:

Welcome to the club, Brendan. LOL

 

[Marc Wielage]

And BTW: I thank the people who have sent me private messages and email on this topic. I said what I felt I had to say since there was nobody here to defend DP Steve Yedlin from what I think is a vague ad hominem kind of attack. I think his work speaks for itself and the film is not "lit too well" in that regard. I think the lighting and camerawork supports the story very well and nothing stuck out to me (either in Dolby Vision or at a standard theater) as being worthy of criticism.

What I will concede -- from my colorist chair -- is that there is a tendency from some DPs today on small indie films to let a lot of lighting issues go and then blindly assume they're going to have the time and budget to fix all that stuff in post. The two mistakes I see made most frequently are a) gross exposure problems, and b) lighting the set but not the actors in it. In the case of the latter, we wind up having hand-roto'd tracking windows on every character in the shot (what I call the Revenant method), just trying to throw some fill light on them that wasn't done on set. This is great when you have a month to work on finishing a film; not so much if you need to wrap it in a week. Expecting perfection at this level is unrealistic.

So this is the opposite case of what the o.p. is talking about: films and shows that are lit badly, and the neophyte cinematographers either aren't aware of the mistake they made (until it's too late), or they have unrealistic expectations as to what can be fixed in post. I would always rather we start with a well-lit picture to begin with and then find ways to degrade it, add contrast, throw in some flags, and otherwise had some style and drama to the image. But if we start with a grungy, ugly picture where the actors are poorly exposed, have no eyelights, and not even a vestige of backlight... it's rough to salvage it.

The 4K Blu-ray and HD Blu-ray of Last Jedi will be out March 27th, and then I would expect to see some fairly detailed reviews on the net from the many opinionated fans out there. I think there are isolated aspects of the film that are less than perfect -- even a $300 million film like this has got some bumpy composites here and there -- but I think most of it was really well done on a technical level. If nothing else, there's said to be 14 deleted scenes included on the disk, and it'll be interesting to judge those in context of the entire film.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I think with the low-noise of digital, with its increasing levels of dynamic range and resolution, it is getting harder to make an image rough, textured, gritty, and happy accidents happen less often or they are more self-conscious.

Which ironically is something that was the aim for film throughout film history. New stocks were made to be more sensitive, with less grain, more colors and so on and when digital now has surpassed in those regards, some people dislike it because it's not like film hahahahaha :tongue_smilie:

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Which ironically is something that was the aim for film throughout film history. New stocks were made to be more sensitive, with less grain, more colors and so on and when digital now has surpassed in those regards, some people dislike it because it's not like film hahahahaha :tongue_smilie:

Not me! :rofl:

 

[Marc Wielage]

Which ironically is something that was the aim for film throughout film history. New stocks were made to be more sensitive, with less grain, more colors and so on and when digital now has surpassed in those regards, some people dislike it because it's not like film hahahahaha

Yeah, I was talking to a director/DP over the weekend about whether he wanted to add film grain to our current project. He was pretty offended by the idea, but I assured him that quite a few current shows and features do it to add some "texture" to the project. I totally concede that the decision to go for a completely clean digital look is just another creative choice. He's been around long enough to well remember the struggle everybody used to have in trying to remove grain from film in the 1980s and 1990s, and now we're adding grain to digital today...

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I never heard anyone complain about the quality of 65mm. FWIW. Mind you, I never heard anyone complain about the quality of 16mm either.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Yeah, I was talking to a director/DP over the weekend about whether he wanted to add film grain to our current project. He was pretty offended by the idea, but I assured him that quite a few current shows and features do it to add some "texture" to the project. I totally concede that the decision to go for a completely clean digital look is just another creative choice. He's been around long enough to well remember the struggle everybody used to have in trying to remove grain from film in the 1980s and 1990s, and now we're adding grain to digital today...

Yup. I can absolutely agree that many including me want to replicate the color handling of film, but I really don't understand the grain. It just feels like a sign of many being out of their comfort zone (grain). I can understand why you would add grain in some projects, I do it to. Like when trying to mix together CGI with shot elements or if you want to replicate a certain historical era pushing the grain to gain a feel of authenticity. But when I watch a show about modern times on Netflix, I really want it super clean. It's harmony for the eyes to watch a well-exposed, high resolution clean image. You pay attention to the atmosphere and environments more than the feeling of watching a moving photograph.

But the amount of hipster cinematographers today who push to have grain added, super distorted anamorphics and compressed exposure makes me believe that the reasons aren't really following the material they're working on, but instead their own nostalgic preference. When older cinematographers who worked from the 60s and 70s up until today have been trying to push for less grain, cleaner images, better and more sensitive stocks and more accurate lenses, it's easy to see that the love for "older looks" has more to do with nostalgia and for younger cinematographers, a need to replicate their inspirational sources, than it has to do with following the source material they are working on. Back when everyone shot on film, people cared more about the aesthetics of the image rather than how it could replicate another film stock or look like something else.

Maybe this is why cinematographers and directors today seem to be less knowledgable in composition, framing and staging scenes cinematically? Everyone focuses on the physical look of the image plane, not how to tell something with camera angles, focal lengths, camera movements and editing. There are more new directors and cinematographers today who knows a lot about lighting, technical aspects of the camera and grading than how to actually tell a story cinematically.