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.
Julio Quintana said:
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
Click to expand...

I love Soderbergh's SOLARIS! Just the visuals - scary beautiful! :)

...But you know the guy in the trailer, in silhouette, talking to Clooney...I bet Stephen would have put a tall reading lamp right beside him ;D
 
Hey there, Julio. . .

I'm not trying to compare anything here. . . I'm just saying that, in my opinion, the look of "The Informant" was, to my eyes and many others' eyes, really bad. I actually walked out of the theater apologizing to people for RED!

The look of the new "Contagion" trailer is also, my opinion, poor. Hopefully, things will improve before it is finally released to theaters.

All I'm saying is that people are constantly making excuses for the look of "The Informant!" based upon his use of available light, the use of an early camera, shooting under hot, difficult circumstances, etc. My posting was to simply say "it certainly wasn't that." Nothing more.

Stephen

P.S. Nuka, I haven't seen "Solaris." But I'll bet I would have liked that reading light anyway. :-)
 
D Fuller said:
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.
Click to expand...

Amen, very similar to what I said :)
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
Hey there, Julio. . .

I'm not trying to compare anything here. . . I'm just saying that, in my opinion, the look of "The Informant" was, to my eyes and many others' eyes, really bad. I actually walked out of the theater apologizing to people for RED!

The look of the new "Contagion" trailer is also, my opinion, poor. Hopefully, things will improve before it is finally released to theaters.

All I'm saying is that people are constantly making excuses for the look of "The Informant!" based upon his use of available light, the use of an early camera, shooting under hot, difficult circumstances, etc. My posting was to simply say "it certainly wasn't that." Nothing more.

Stephen

P.S. Nuka, I haven't seen "Solaris." But I'll bet I would have liked that reading light anyway. :-)
Click to expand...

Stephen: Come on! I don't think people are making "excuses" on behalf of Soderbergh - there simply isn't anything to excuse! And if anyone needs to do any excusing - it'd be the man himself! Every look he decides to go with on his films are fully intended. If you don't like them, fine - but please don't try to cement the idea that what he did was a mishaps.

As for CONTAGION, things will most likely NOT "improve" according to your tastes. Like the look he chose for THE INFORMANT, this most likely is very close to what was intended.

And please don't apologize on behalf of RED just because of how feel about the way Soderbergh works with the camera. You've just admitted that you've worked only 4 years in the field, and you come off as some kind of KING OF CINEMATOGRAPHERS - I mean, who do you think you are, man?!!

Anyways, you should definitely see SOLARIS. You might change your mind about the "novice" filmmaker called Steven Soderbergh...
 
Nuka. . . I NEVER claimed Mr. Soderbergh was a novice. The man is obviously a major force in contemporary cinema!

And I certainly never claimed to EVEN BE a cinematographer or anything else. I'm not. I do not even like running the camera or even being on set, for that matter.

I just happen to like my lights to be motivated and on the correct side of the door.

:-)

And not blown out and ugly and yellow, too.

:-)

But "Solaris" will likely not be on my menu. Not my style. But what do I know? My wife and I just saw "Children of Men" and thought, aside from the truly spell-binding production design and breathtaking cinematography (which were worth the price of admission by themselves!), and we didn't much like it at all. We actually thought the basic premise was ridiculous. But, like I said. . . what do I know?

Obviously, nothing.

Stephen
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
My wife and I just saw "Children of Men" and thought, aside from the truly spell-binding production design and breathtaking cinematography (which were worth the price of admission by themselves!), and we didn't much like it at all. We actually thought the basic premise was ridiculous.
Click to expand...

OK, we've strayed off topic a bit, but you've got my interest. What was it about the basic premise that was ridiculous?
 
It's a dangerous game to say , I don't like it, ergo its bad. Biased opinions sometimes get wide acceptance and cut down the interesting new directions artists go in. If films all had to have believable premises and motivated lights it would be a very dull world. In fact the real world as far as I can tell seems full of unbelievable events and odd lighting.
 
Just saw the Contagion trailer in 720p and i have to stay that some shots look bad only because they are graded badly. Not all of it looked bad though.

I am RED to the bone but i have to admit that although Graeme has done amazing things with the colour science, the ALEXA smokes as colour-wise any time. The weakness becomes more apparent when you oversaturate RED footage as it becomes Contagion-looking immediately.

Someone has to be VERY careful and knowledgeable to make RED footage shine and that is RED's Achilles' heel at the moment.

I hope RED will not stop developing the RED colour science because there is a lot of stuff that can be achieved yet in that area.
 
Hey there, David. . .

We loved the shooting and sets of COM, but the premise was just inane. How on earth did every human become sterile all at once? And no other animals were affected? And NO baby had been born in over 18 years? Not by artificial insemination? Not by accident? Not by anything? Where were all the scientists? The doctors? That was way too much for us to deal with in 2009. (Remember, the film was made in 2006.) I could believe a slow, almost imperceptible, reduction in fertility over time, but never a sudden total elimination of fertility. We just both said, "huh?" And then, out of nowhere, a new child is born.

Now, I understand the symbolism of all this. (We are symbolic types here in the Pruitt home.) But we just couldn't buy it. Had it not been for the stupendous shooting, we'd have shut the film off and turned on something else. The sets and shooting kept us at it. But just barely.

We primarily just watch foreign films around here. For example, last night, we showed our best friends "The Man Without a Past." It's a fine little film with a wonderful message. But it certainly was poorly lit, although, given the monster motif running throughout the film, I think that was probably intentional.

Stephen
 
Stephen Pruitt said:
Nuka. . . I NEVER claimed Mr. Soderbergh was a novice. The man is obviously a major force in contemporary cinema!

And I certainly never claimed to EVEN BE a cinematographer or anything else. I'm not. I do not even like running the camera or even being on set, for that matter.

I just happen to like my lights to be motivated and on the correct side of the door.

:-)

And not blown out and ugly and yellow, too.

:-)

But "Solaris" will likely not be on my menu. Not my style. But what do I know? My wife and I just saw "Children of Men" and thought, aside from the truly spell-binding production design and breathtaking cinematography (which were worth the price of admission by themselves!), and we didn't much like it at all. We actually thought the basic premise was ridiculous. But, like I said. . . what do I know?

Obviously, nothing.

Stephen
Click to expand...

Okay! Since you want to nit pick every word, here goes:

"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."

If that doesn't put him down as a incompetent novice, then I honestly don't know anything!

"As far as working with available light and getting a good look under really hot and trying conditions, he should have been on our set for "Works in Progress," which was an all RED feature we shot in 2008."

If you're not a cinematographer, what could he then learn about lighting from you that he wouldn't already know? Don't you think that your comment seems just a tiny bit arrogant...?

"I just happen to like my lights to be motivated and on the correct side of the door."

Intended dramatic lighting technique doesn't make one incompetent just because YOU like motivated lighting and source light. You didn't light the picture.

"It is possible that the openness of my vision has been obscured by the ravages of time"

Possibly...or maybe your just backing up from your former comments...

" what do I know?

Obviously, nothing."

Well, you seemed to know exactly how he should have done it, didn't you?
 
Miltos: I'm surprised that you think it is an oversaturation problem (and I'm not a colorist, so you could be right), as I think some of that "Contagion" footage looks really flat and washed out to me. And really strangely tinted toward odd blues and greens. But almost pastel colors rather than "action film blue" (as I like to call it). And never consistent from scene to scene. But I digress.

But I must say. . . it looks like it could be a great story. And what a cast!

Stephen
 
I think I'll just let that one lie, Nuka. Have a nice life.

Stephen
 
Stephen, very few people weren't blown away by Children of Men as an overall film -- mostly for the "breathtaking cinematography" as you put it.

However, if we started judging movies in Hollywood by how "believable" the premise ... there would be very little to talk about.

It's called "willing suspension of disbelief" for a reason :)
 
Though off topic, I have to agree with Stephen on COM. I'm sorry but I just could not suspend my disbelief enough to make the movie work, and the whole weed scene kind of bothered me. Not sure the movie just had an overall feel to it I did not like. But to each their own.

On topic, as a straight up viewer I actually enjoyed the trailer and felt the coloring was appropriate, but to be fair I don't like to judge a piece until I have seen it's entirety as things can be very different when arranged in the proper way.

lets play nice here people and respect others opinions, and just because one person may be borderline rude doesn't make it right for you to be (though it does feel good I'll admit) an eye for an eye and we all end up blind, or some stupid quote like that

Peace!
 
Very true, Anthony, but neither my wife nor I could quite get that far. . . that close to our present day, at least.

I have a much easier time swallowing science fiction stories when they harken forward to a time far enough into the future that I can at least make myself believe that it could be possible. Or far enough into the past ("The Lord of the Rings"). But three years out wasn't far enough out for me to swallow.

"The Bourne Identity" series films are much easier for to believe, for us at least, since we know several Navy Seals quite well. It almost seems as if Jason Bourne was just a super Seal gone bonkers. And given some of the issues with the Seals we know, that doesn't seem so far fetched.

:-)

Stephen
 
At least one Stephen. . . Stephen Matthews. . . has spoke some truth here today. Peace, indeed, brother.

Stephen
 
@S. Matthews - Don't worry. My work here is done. ...Are you a mod? I'm kidding!! Hahaha! ;D

@S. Pruitt - Sorry for bustin' your balls, but I tried to play nice you know - you just kept on insisting though, hahahaha ;D

Have a nice night (or day?) guys :) I'm off for today...
 
Miltos Pilalitos said:
I am RED to the bone but i have to admit that although Graeme has done amazing things with the colour science, the ALEXA smokes as colour-wise any time.
Click to expand...

Then I'm guessing you haven't seen the Hugo trailer yet. To me it looks an awful lot like Superman Returns with its artificial, ugly and muddy looking skin tones. I just think it's a very, very ugly looking trailer...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top