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 :)

Michael Bay’s 6 Underground, RED Bayhem Camera, and The Komodo Bayhem

I think it looks great. Its a stylised, genre film from a director that likes a stylised look. Its like saying the Matrix doesn't look realistic, or Gladiator, or Phrometeus. ITs a grading choice. As for certain shots not matching, does it take one away from the film? Not at all. Might be the actual cinematography settings, shutter speeds, handheld style, aperture, a certain operator freedom to get the mood of the shot ratter than a perfect photographic/ cinema frame.
 
comment on youtube:

"Let’s see:

Military. Explosions. Pretty Trophy lady. American Flag. Explosions. Close Up Shots. Explosions. Quips during action scenes. Explosions. Slo-Mo shots. Explosions.

Yup. This is a Michael Bay movie, alright."
 
Sergio Perez said:
I think it looks great. Its a stylised, genre film from a director that likes a stylised look. Its like saying the Matrix doesn't look realistic, or Gladiator, or Phrometeus. ITs a grading choice. As for certain shots not matching, does it take one away from the film? Not at all. Might be the actual cinematography settings, shutter speeds, handheld style, aperture, a certain operator freedom to get the mood of the shot ratter than a perfect photographic/ cinema frame.
Click to expand...

I don't think the criticism is about the style, it's about the consistency of a look and style. Maybe that's the choice of style, but for me, that's an odd choice of style. But even outside of that, Bay has had a consistent style throughout the years and this one looks uneven compared to those. Can't nail what it is, but not as strong as earlier works.
 
Karim,


Its Like it used a Lower Shutter Angle than 180 degrees . But I looked at another HDR Movie trailer for "JUMANJI 3" it has a similiar feel but maybe its just the HDR.


 
Yes, looks like a hdr / dolby vision conversion thingy. But I dont really understand the choice why people choose to make hdr like that.
 
Bjorn,


Maybe we will just have to Re-train our Eyes to what we consider "Filmic". The trailers for both look really good, However, I miss that "One step from reality" look I grew up with.
 
Aaron,


That was why I thought it used a lower shutter angle than 180 degrees which is 1/48th of second shutter speed, which would impact the amount of Motion Blur. It looked like maybe a 144 degree shutter angle(1/60th of second shutter speed) or Hell maybe even a 90 degree shutter angle(1/96th of second shutter speed), which would make the overall image appear sharper due to less Motion Blur between frames.
 
It's not a shutter thing, and no - we won't have to re-train our eyes.

Only a shot on the running on the roof of the church has a shutter issue, looks like GoPro or some other similar crap camera.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
It's not a shutter thing, and no - we won't have to re-train our eyes.

Only a shot on the running on the roof of the church has a shutter issue, looks like GoPro or some other similar crap camera.
Click to expand...

I doubt its a crap camera or a fault, guessing that scene involves quite a bit of retouch and a lot of camera move then normally a narrow shutter is used to get less motion blur to preserve detail for the VFX work, and then normally motion blur is added later / post comp in post. But Michael Bay is quite famous for keeping it tack sharp even when things get chaotic so I guess he liked it as is, or the CG guys would have crank it up a bit. Could also be a trailer thing... the trailers are usually pushed out in quite a rush, especially the VFX bits.
 
Björn Benckert said:
I doubt its a crap camera or a fault, guessing that scene involves quite a bit of retouch and a lot of camera move then normally a narrow shutter is used to get less motion blur to preserve detail for the VFX work, and then normally motion blur is added later / post comp in post. But Michael Bay is quite famous for keeping it tack sharp even when things get chaotic so I guess he liked it as is, or the CG guys would have crank it up a bit. Could also be a trailer thing... the trailers are usually pushed out in quite a rush, especially the VFX bits.
Click to expand...


The shot on the church roof running down behind the actor's back has shutter, texture, sharpness and compression artefacts like it's shot with a crap 8 bit h.264 action camera and further mollested in post so I'm sticking to the statement.
As for "tack sharp"...he missed some tack sharp CU's in a trailer of a bazzillion dollar project.
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
The shot on the roof from the actor's back has shutter, texture, sharpness and compression artefacts like it's shot with a crap h.264 action camera and further mollested in post so I'm sticking to the statement.
Click to expand...

I noticed that shot right away. Assumed it was GoPro or something.

Too bad Michael Bay didn't have his Komodo yet :)
 
looks like GoPro or some other similar crap camera.
Click to expand...


Hrvoje,

I just thought it was me just not being familiar with the look of the Sony Venice Camera's motion rendering aesthetics, which was used also along side the a Red Helium for this film. It would be kinda funny to know that some scenes did use something like a GoPro or similar camera with this film being considered one of Netflix's most expensive productions at about 150 million.


"And while $90 million is a frightful amount of money to spend on a movie that is never destined for the box office, that money will pale in comparison to what Netflix is reportedly willing to spend on Michael Bay’s new film Six Underground. /Film reports that the upcoming Bay movie, which is set to star Ryan Reynolds and is based off a script by Deadpool writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, has a production budget in the region of $150 million. That could easily make it the most expensive non-cinematic release in history."

https://www.criticalhit.net/enterta...nderground-netflixs-expensive-production-yet/
 
Björn Benckert said:
I doubt its a crap camera or a fault, guessing that scene involves quite a bit of retouch and a lot of camera move then normally a narrow shutter is used to get less motion blur to preserve detail for the VFX work, and then normally motion blur is added later / post comp in post. But Michael Bay is quite famous for keeping it tack sharp even when things get chaotic so I guess he liked it as is, or the CG guys would have crank it up a bit. Could also be a trailer thing... the trailers are usually pushed out in quite a rush, especially the VFX bits.
Click to expand...


Bjorn,


I never knew that VFX work affected motion blur. I learned something new today, thanks!
 
I think my original comment stands best. It just looks digital, clean, sharp, lit. Not a fan of the aesthetic personally.
 
rand thompson said:
Hrvoje,

I just thought it was me just not being familiar with the look of the Sony Venice Camera's motion rendering aesthetics, which was used also along side the a Red Helium for this film. It would be kinda funny to know that some scenes did use something like a GoPro or similar camera with this film being considered one of Netflix's most expensive productions at about 150 million.
Click to expand...

It is not uncommon for crap cameras to get sneaked in some specific shots, regardless of budget. And they mostly pass unnoticed because of edit, context and attention to action.

They could have made a judgement call to keep budget and timing for other priorities. Minutes of fiddling on sets of these proportions and types of locations are expensive and second chances unlikely so time for rigging and testing alternative routes may be non-existent. Technically it may be flawed but production legitimate choice still. You either get it that way or not at all or mess up the shooting schedule attempting to force one shot.
 
Oh, porn colors?
7Mn8Vp4.jpg


Luv'em...:rofl:
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
It is not uncommon for crap cameras to get sneaked in some specific shots, regardless of budget. And they mostly pass unnoticed because of edit, context and attention to action.

They could have made a judgement call to keep budget and timing for other priorities. Minutes of fiddling on sets of these proportions and types of locations are expensive and second chances unlikely so time for rigging and testing alternative routes may be non-existent. Technically it may be flawed but production legitimate choice still. You either get it that way or not at all or mess up the shooting schedule attempting to force one shot.
Click to expand...

Also, possibly they where never on that roof... and the VFX guys got a couple of days to hatch out something for the trailer. Rendered the CG with low sample motion blur...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top