Contagion shot on Epic - Poor Quality

[Kacey Baker]

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

 

[Tom Gleeson]

Kacey,

Be wary of making any judgements from the trailer. I have been amazed at some the technical shortcuts either producers or distributors have occasionly taken with trailers. I have seen trailer producers supplied only with low quality editorial rushes and then the editor applying their own grade out of their NLE. Not a happy ending. Grades can also be hijacked and a DOPs work butchered. Without the full story I personnaly would not make any assumption.

 

[Nuka Wølk]

Wauw, that's funny...when I first saw the trailer (in HD at Apple) I was AMAZED by the visuals! I was like "I WANT A RED CAMERA...NOW!!!".

If you are referring to the "blown-out" or "burned-out" areas in the images, also the shallow DOF is kinda 5D'ish, then that would most likely be an artistic choice by the director/dp Steven Soderbergh (credited as DP: Peter Andrews), and I recognize his style. I happen to like it very much in the visual style presented in the trailer

I have no doubt in my mind that this film will look amazing in the theater!

 

[Mark Toia]

I would be pointing the finger at the DP, thats for sure, as a raw file is a raw file.. it's who ever dictated the look of the final grade is at fault.
Could be Warners, the directer, the Colourist... a research group.

But I tend to agree, It does look very video like in the colouring... yellow skin, street lights bright yellow, over saturated, crushed blacks, bright hi lights...
But be rest assured, The camera would not have done this, The final grade is something miles down the line of post production.
It's just a look the makers of the film were after I'd say. Some people like that video look.

 

[Kacey Baker]

You all have valid points.

I do hope I communicated clearly I don't for one minute lay blame to the camera, when you consider the (excuse the pun) Epic Blockbusters that have been shot using this, ultimately the look and feel as Mark Toia put could be a creative decision.

Tom Gleeson, I sure hope you are right, call me weird, viewing new trailers is a hobby, so when something in my own opinion dosen't hold up, it stands out to me. I share your sentiment.

Nuka Wølk, Spot on. I own a 7D which is why I finally felt comfortable contributing a post to this forum, I am familiar with shooting DSLR footage, and as you put perfectly, many of these shots look 5Dish. Some of these shots look like my footage, which is positive for me, but I would I imagine a negative for Hollywood.

 

[Nuka Wølk]

Nuka Wølk, Spot on. I own a 7D which is why I finally felt comfortable contributing a post to this forum, I am familiar with shooting DSLR footage, and as you put perfectly, many of these shots look 5Dish. Some of these shots look like my footage, which is positive for me, but I would I imagine a negative for Hollywood.

I honestly don't think that the majority of people that will go to see this film will go "Ugh! This look's like cheap video to me! Let's bail outta here and go watch a REAL movie!" I know that's not what you meant, but I just want to make a general point here...

I LOVE when I see a specific "look" in a film - all from the subtle to the obvious. That shows that the director and dp (in this case the same person) really want to try to communicate something extra to the audience, to create a space for them - to put their own "filter" on to the world that they want the audience to engage and emerse themselves into. I love Janusz Kaminski because he loves to experiment with film - and to give a very specific look, sometimes in very aggressive ways.

Filmmakers don't have a responsibility to present their equipment - in this case, the camera - in the best possible way (and that also can be VERY subjective and individual) - the camera manufactures can do that, RED already does a VERY good job! Filmmakers have a responsibility to the vision of the story - how the story should be told in a specific way.

I've had many discussions with DP's about this, and some fall into their own vanity-trap and everything suddenly HAS to be perfect and "right". But in my humble opinion - films are not about that! Fine if everything is state of the art glossy, perfectly pristine and twinkly-sparkly - but only if it's a way to tell to story according to the vision

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Epic is a TOOL, can people just stop thinking that a tool is what makes good cinematography, it's beginning to get ridiculous. And I also liked the cinematography, not everything is about commercial looking footage, I like the gritty look. And I have seen many shots made by the red one which looks worse then what I did ten years ago with a DVX100, so good tools are good, good tools in the hands of amateurs always looks bad... this though is looking good in my opinion, some highlights are clipped, but it looks good.

films are not about that!

I agree, films are NOT about that. I think it's both cinematographers who get too much caught up in their own occupation and filmmakers who need to copy others more then making their own unique films who has the opinion that bad looking films are automatically bad because of it. I do not talk down on the craft, I'm just convinced that film is more then pretty images, I'm not sure it's even an opinion. Try making a movie with just pretty images, it's not a movie, it's just visual art.

 

[David Battistella]

Looks like they went for an eye popping look for the various scenes. All that combined in a trailer might "feel" wrong. But it might work well in the context of a movie theater, depending on the effect the DP and colorist want to have on an audince in a large room.

I'd have to take a look at the trailer for TRAFFIC to see if there is a similar problem. One look "should" work for all mediums but does not always.

Interesting.

David

 

[Brandon J.F.]

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'?

Wasn't Contagion almost entirely shot with a Red One MX?

 

[Nuka Wølk]

Wasn't Contagion almost entirely shot with a Red One MX?

Someone wrote somewhere that the majority of shooting was done on the MX - some in the states and everything overseas. But some of the footage that was shot in the states was also done with the EPIC

 

[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

 

[Nuka Wølk]

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

I'm almost certain that RED doesn't share your sentiment Soderbergh has been a HUGE supporter of RED since the beginning and he's a great cinematographer in my (and most certainly many others) opinion

 

[Brice Ansel]

Big name aside, he's a terrible advertisement for RED, that's for sure.Stephen

Better Steven.S focus on his art, telling stories, than on advertisement. :smile5:
Regards

 

[David Battistella]

He makes personal, intimate films often with a low budget and loves the use of available light. He's a very involved director, DP and film maker and he trusted RED and shot the first major featured on original RED cameras.

He was really one of the first name filmmaker to embrace RED. They shot in horrible conditions of heat and humidity and all of that risk by him went directly into the R&D of your RED One camera.

If people like Steven did not step up then RED might not be quite as far along as they are.

I don't have to love every shot or every film, but I certainly respect his huge contribution to this community and film making. We can express an opinion about his choices, like you did with The Informant, but what I saw was a film maker trying something, going for something that matched the strangeness of the story and the main character and using a very deliberate style to enhance that.

But a statement like the one you made suggesting red sort if diastance itself from Steven or his films is really out if context to the important contribution he has made. He gives all small Indy filmmakers hope.

David

 

[Francesco Bonomo]

Big name aside, he's a terrible advertisement for RED, that's for sure.

I'm not a HUGE fan of his, but the anamorphic chapter of CHE, shot on one of the very first RED, was not bad at all. But I guess that's a matter of personal taste.
Where I disagree with you is on the "advertisement" part of it: there are a gazillion ugly-looking movies out there, but no one blames Kodak. You can give the same film stock or digital camera to thousands of people, but it's what they do with it and how they do it that matters in the end. You could have masterpieces shot on mini-DV and amazing crap shot on 65mm.

 

[Nuka Wølk]

He makes personal, intimate films often with a low budget and loves the use of available light. He's a very involved director, DP and film maker and he trusted RED and shot the first major featured on original RED cameras.

He was really one of the first name filmmaker to embrace RED. They shot in horrible conditions of heat and humidity and all of that risk by him went directly into the R&D of your RED One camera.

If people like Steven did not step up then RED might not be quite as far along as they are.

I don't have to love every shot or every film, but I certainly respect his huge contribution to this community and film making. We can express an opinion about his choices, like you did with The Informant, but what I saw was a film maker trying something, going for something that matched the strangeness of the story and the main character and using a very deliberate style to enhance that.

But a statement like the one you made suggesting red sort if diastance itself from Steven or his films is really out if context to the important contribution he has made. He gives all small Indy filmmakers hope.

David

+1

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Well, like I said, I hate the look of his low-budget films, which was the point of the original poster. I think they look terrible, and a quick visit to the various DP forums will reinforce that that opinion is almost universally held. Frankly, I think that RED footage has never looked so bad as it does in his low-budget hands. Just ask yourself this: Would Jim Jannard ever have put footage out looking like that? No way! He wouldn't have sold a single camera. Except to SS, of course.

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. (It's coming out on DVD this fall on Vanguard Cinema.) It was over 90 degrees every single day (sometimes over 100), we had no air conditioning at all on the majority of our sets, and we had to pack our cameras in ice to keep them from overheating! And there was not a comfort trailer anywhere to be found!

Here's our trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjNqoU2z6kU And we did this film with a ten-person crew (only one of whom had ever been on a film set before, including me—the producer/director) and with a light kit that, quite literally, fit in the back of our car—along with two REDs, the day's provisions, all of our audio gear, and two people. Total budget? $350,000. And that included buying all of the equipment (including two complete RED kits, an O'Connor tripod, the audio gear, all our lights and grip gear, and an editing suite!).

SS obviously knows what he's doing as a director. But, man, his low-budget films look terrible! I would be horrified if I got results like his on my budgets, let alone his.

Stephen

 

[J Davis]

Blame Peter Andrews. But cinematography is not why I pay to see Soderbergh movies.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

I like that! Let's blame Peter Andrews!



Stephen

 

[AndrewThomas]

Stephen...you not liking how the film looks does not equal SS being incompetent. I'm quite certain The Informant looks pretty much exactly like he envisioned. You really need to stop saying it as it makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about. And I should note, I really didn't like the look of The Informant either!