Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Contagion shot on Epic - Poor Quality

Status
Not open for further replies.
I took the liberty of editing your former reply. I was just curious of the outcome.

Stephen Pruitt said:
Here's our trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjNqoU2z6kU
Click to expand...

Stephen Pruitt said:
Just ask yourself this: Would Jim Jannard ever have put footage out looking like that?
Click to expand...

...I think the truth is - Jim and the RED-team are just completely stoked and happy that someone is using the camera that they created - mostly out of raw passion for motion pictures - to help filmmakers, like yourself, to realize their vision in whatever form they choose. RED are not interested in controlling ART! That would be a fatal mistake. :)

Filmmakers are not supposed to make their films to help sell cameras for RED (or other companies for that matter). I mean the pure true awesomeness of these cameras make them pretty much sell themselves! :D
 
Sorry guys, but i have to say i like it.....looks like the WB was tinted to more blue in many scenes and they went for a film-style look....not as popping with color and contrast...but looks like a definite artistic choice that i find pleasing....as for the quality of the trailer---yeah, not so great.
 
Did you guys see the "informant!"

Did you see "the Girlfriend Experience"

One thing I really like about Soderbergh films is that he is making films that _he_ wants to make how he wants to make them.

I'm glad he's doing it, and not pandering to watered down, mass appeal bullshit.

But he can do that too, and it's really really good - look at the Oceans series for example.

He's definitely in the top five of contemporary auteur directors.

But that's just like, my opinion man.
 
Dan Kanes said:
But that's just like, my opinion man.
Click to expand...

Well since you brought the Cohen brothers into this!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be7Og9Gc_KY&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I suppose we could argue over the look of "Oh brother where art thou" or "the big lebowski"

Fargo. Was so, like, white looking.

Seriously. I was so happy that SS picked up RED for Che the oceans films have exactly the style they should and the smaller personal films carry an experimental style. I like that he tries things.

I liked the informant. It had almost a Napoleon Dynamite kind of look.

David


blessings
David
 
@ Stephen P ... isn't it kinda unkosher to bash another director or DP like that on forums? I could be wrong, but I can't imagine David Mullen doing that.

@ Everyone:

In terms of the Contagion look -- initially I didn't like it either but then as I pondered how it could be (duh!) an artistic choice ....

I realized ... it's this sad, painful, ugly fight for survival, trying to stay clean/sterile ... hence the low saturation (low mood/bleak) and also extra sharp look (probably Arri/Zeiss MP's coupled with super clean MX sensor) that allows us to see every detail of their face and condition (ugh, I'm very impressed Gwyneth allowed her face to be show in such an unflattering way with all those red blotches, but it makes sense given what she is experiencing in the film).

Also, sometimes that extra sharp slightly video-ish look gives footage a more "realistic" or gritty feel and can bring the audience into the sense that it's actually unfolding before their very eyes.

In terms of the shallow DOF shots where the corners are slightly blurry -- again, I think it could easily be an artistic decision here -- almost like how it's difficult to see/focus when someone is sick. Think about how vision can be blurry when you're drunk or nauseous.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I have a lot of respect for SS and his team and am going to reserve final judgement until I see it on the big screen.

LOL, as if my judgment really matters anyway :)
 
Last edited:
@ Stephen Pruitt: He did much worse with "The Informant!" That was, by far, the ugliest, most incompetently-shot film I've seen. Ever. It made "Plan 9" look like "There Will Be Blood." Personally, I think he doesn't know how to use an on-camera light meter. Big name aside, he's a terrible advertisement for RED, that's for sure.

Stephen

This is coming from someone who thinks this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dFT-2bNV2U

Looks even halfway decent?

Oookay...

Maybe I just don't like the TV movie crime-drama look... making red footage look like an AF100 isn't exactly inspired.
 
I was so caught up in the story in the trailer that I um forgot the question?

Movie looks amazing and what a cast!!
 
Hey! John Hawkes is in there!

Pretty sure he used Tilt/Shift lenses in a bunch of the scenes in the trailer. Watch it in HD on the apple site.

everyone does things differently - if you didn't like it, then don't watch the film?
 
Kacey Baker said:
Hi Everyone

After a few views of the new Contagion trailer, I found myself shocked at the poor quality of footage.

All trailers and movies to date shot on the Epic and even One have looked flawless, however this trailer leans itself towards DSLR quality. Does anyone share my same 'opinion'?

Possibly the DOP on 'Contagion' has presented a discredit to the Epic , a camera otherwise used in the right hands shoots beautiful cinematic footage?

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3924270105/

Kacey
Click to expand...

A gritty look is more than fitting for a movie about getting/trying not to get sick! It makes the threat present, puts it everywhere, reminds you of the constant danger making you curl back in your seat for fear the stuff will come onto your living-room.

28 Days Later was a great film and had a look far 'gritter' than Contagion. I Am Legend is more of an epic, following the hero trying to set things right.

Contagion has a cinematic look: A look that serves the content of the film!
 
I just want to make sure everyone is on the same page of who the DoP is. It is Soderbergh going under a fake name Peter Andrews. Like the Coen Brothers do with their fake name for editing.

I feel like some people might be blaming the DoP for this movie and saying it's not Soderberghs fault (which I don't see a problem with the movie) when in all reality, it is his fault if there is anything wrong.
 
Hey, Dan, I appreciate the compliment.

:-)

I'll take my "AF-100 look" over any single shot in "The Informant!" any day, any time. And, like I said, unlike SS's finished film, this scene was just shot this past weekend, the rough cut was put together literally yesterday just to see if we got what we needed, and it has not been graded. At all. Anyone attempting to compare a finished multi-millon-dollar film against one scene pulled out of context from an unfinished, ungraded, down-rezzed, super compressed (H.264 for AppleTV and then compressed again by YouTube), unsweetened rough cut is. . . well. . . words simply fail.

I watched "The Informant" the way it was intended to be seen. Did you?

Stephen
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
A gritty look is more than fitting for a movie about getting/trying not to get sick! It makes the threat present, puts it everywhere, reminds you of the constant danger making you curl back in your seat for fear the stuff will come onto your living-room.

...

Contagion has a cinematic look: A look that serves the content of the film!
Click to expand...

Roberto, as you often do, you've gotten to the heart of the thing.

You guys who are throwing around words like "incompetent" need to take a step back. Most really great art makes us uncomfortable. At least at first. When the Museum of Modern Art in NY bought it's frost Rothko, two board members resigned in protest. Today he is one of the most respected painters of the 20th Century, and MoMA just did a retrospective, showing several galleries of Rothkos.

If you look at the body of SS's work, his competence is unquestionable. Clearly, he is making artistic choices. Do I think they are all successful? No. But by God, I admire him for having the balls to carry a visual idea through. I thought The Girlfriend Experience was really interesting in this regard. A whole movie done with only available light. Who else could have gotten that done? Who else would even have tried? (well, the entire Dogma school, but that's another story) Ultimately, I don't think it was successful because of the authenticity compromises that had to be made to serve the available light idea (too many odd lights left on that would never have been left on in the situation) but it didn't miss by much, and perhaps it was no less authentic than the more familiar Hollywood treatment.

Now of course none of us has seen the film, but looking at the Contagion trailer, I think the look, as Roberto says, really serves the story. The changing light colors and unflattering lighting have a dramatic purpose. Those of you who are calling it "incompetent" - tell us how you would do it. (this is a forum for film makers, after all) to me, it looks like SS took everything he learned from Girlfriend and put it to good use in Contagion in a way that enhances the film.

And whether you like the look or not, there is definitely something to be learned from it.
 
If putting lights where none could possibly be is dramatic and authentic, then heaven help us all. That shot of the guy walking into the room with the light blasting straight up from the floor off the ceiling was clearly an artistic choice, but. . .

. . . he's the one working with the big stars and the big budgets. I'm just schlepping in grungy, dank basements, losing $1000 a day.

What do I know?

Stephen
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
If putting lights where none could possibly be is dramatic and authentic, then heaven help us all. That shot of the guy walking into the room with the light blasting straight up from the floor off the ceiling was clearly an artistic choice, but. . .

. . . he's the one working with the big stars and the big budgets. I'm just schlepping in grungy, dank basements, losing $1000 a day.

What do I know?

Stephen
Click to expand...

Hollywood does that all the time. Only it's "pretty." Authentic and dramatic are not necessarily the same thing. These days authentic is becoming more important to me, and that's why some of SS's work is of interest to me. But the parameters that define authenticity seem to me to change with the story and the intent. Things can be authentic within an artificially-constructed world that the film plays out in, or things can be authentic in the context of the world we (American, 21st century people) live in. But if you change the parameters to Japanese, 20th century, the definition of authentic changes.

Clearly you know a great deal, Stephen, but that's not really the point. What I'm saying is that there is not a "right way" in film making. If there were, every movie would look like Citizen Kane. There are a dozen looks and a dozen ways to tell the story, and we reject them without learning from them, we put our own growth in jeopardy.
 
Well said, Mr. Fuller. . .

. . . except, of course, about the part that I "clearly know a great deal," but I'll forgive you for that one.

:-)

I certainly do like your working definition of the word "authentic" and am totally into that definition. It turns out that I really do enjoy a great many aesthetic views (we've been very serious art collectors for over 20 years now and very serious film buffs for 30), but I honestly can't find room in any of my world views for the look of "The Informant!" or for lights coming out of nowhere hitting the ceiling in a room on the wrong side of a door. Then again, I am 54 years old and didn't start playing in the film and photography worlds until I turned 50. It is possible that the openness of my vision has been obscured by the ravages of time (which seem to afflict me more and more every day!). But I do know what I like, and if I had wanted to put a light in that spot on the ceiling for emphasis, I would have told the production designer (one of my daughters on "Terminal") to run to Target for a tall reading light, put it in the corner, and plugged it in. Problem solved.

:-)

Stephen
 
Love the look. It fits the circumstances perfectly. Loose, raw, off kilter, one reality giving way to an other. A terrible beauty. This is not a test.
 
Stephen, I understand you not liking the look of "The Informant" or "The Girlfriend Experience", but posting your trailer and comparing your work to Mr. Soderbergh's is just silly at best. And I'm not just referring to the directing.

Here is all the proof you need that SS knows how to make "pretty" images when he wants to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4sJA-E51bQ
 
Bill Anderson said:
Love the look. It fits the circumstances perfectly. Loose, raw, off kilter, one reality giving way to an other. A terrible beauty. This is not a test.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly. Soderbergh really knows how to push the visuals in a specific direction. This look has no doubt an intended purpose :)

I must admit, I've been watching the trailer several times now (got it down on my desktop) and I'm getting more and more anxious to experience this in the theater :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top