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

[Aaron Lochert]

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...

Would VFX guys purposefully add rolling shutter, over sharpening, and clipped highlights for just one shot? A crash cam handed to a stunt guy for that single shot seems much more believable to me. Especially considering the angle. The other four shots in the sequence look good.

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

I feel like the look is not necessarily to my taste, but I wouldn't say it's bad. It was graded by Stefan Sonnenfeld who's work I absolutely love:

https://www.instagram.com/p/B3Hk2_jJ-dF/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link

Like it or hate it, this just might be the next phase of a "look" for action films in the future! I personally liked it, and it clearly was a very intentional and deliberate look, except they couldn't maintain it in certain close ups as skin tones took over. But definitely an evolution for the action film look.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

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...

It would make sense considering that Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral is not something you typically get to parade on for the show, but Aaron makes a good point and with all the factors we already mentioned, there is also a screaming tiny sensor look.

If that's the case, no permission for special gear on top of a 500-700 y.o. basilica, a cultural landmark of the Renaissance and a UNESCO World Heritage Site might be the reason.

Like it or hate it, this just might be the next phase of a "look" for action films in the future! I personally liked it, and it clearly was a very intentional and deliberate look, except they couldn't maintain it in certain close ups as skin tones took over. But definitely an evolution for the action film look.

Apart from the overall aesthetic targeting teenage audience and folks visiting Tomorrowland, there are image properties which people intuitively find unappealing, which are not intentional.
And could have been avoided.

 

[Nikhil Kamkolkar]

Apart from the overall aesthetic targeting teenage audience and folks visiting Tomorrowland, there are image properties which people intuitively find unappealing, which are not intentional.
And could have been avoided.

Still developing my eye to spot those image properties... y'all are way more experienced, no doubt. In the flow of narrative, and in the sense that users eventually get used to such visual quirks and even consider it part of a "genre" sometimes (I mean, some people still like to add grain to the image) -- I think some of these quirks being spotted by experienced users may infact become trademark qualities of a specific look. That said, would LOVE to understand which image properties people find intuitively unappealing beyond these -- rolling shutter, over sharpening, and clipped highlights. There's stuff to be learnt in that statement! Following this thread for that. Thanks.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Still developing my eye to spot those image properties... y'all are way more experienced, no doubt. In the flow of narrative, and in the sense that users eventually get used to such visual quirks and even consider it part of a "genre" sometimes (I mean, some people still like to add grain to the image) -- I think some of these quirks being spotted by experienced users may infact become trademark qualities of a specific look. That said, would LOVE to understand which image properties people find intuitively unappealing beyond these -- rolling shutter, over sharpening, and clipped highlights. There's stuff to be learnt in that statement! Following this thread for that. Thanks.

The unappealing part is not a part of the genre, it is the outcome of specific approach and process which worked with film and doesn't with digital and introduces..."issues".

So the same stuff which, according to visual style, worked on films such as The Island and Bad Boys 2 for example, cannot work when new technical variables are introduced. As much as some would really really really like it to, so force some to dial in "more cowbell" function to "hyper".

Can't say more, it would appear to undervalue the work of many.

Btw...upping the rez won't help those explosions not turning white...

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Btw...upping the rez won't help those explosions not turning white...

I couldn't help but notice that. ;-)

 

[Remington Chase]

A friend who runs the digital projections for Netflix invited me out to Phoenix about a month ago to see it and all I can say is "absolutely terrible movie", although Ryan has some witty DeadPool like lines the look is radioactive and I don't think that can be blamed on the Venice or Red cameras. Although the night shots looked good. The action was so over the top it seemed like a Marvel show cranked up on meth.

 

[Marc Wielage]

So the same stuff which, according to visual style, worked on films such as The Island and Bad Boys 2 for example, cannot work when new technical variables are introduced. As much as some would really really really like it to, so force some to dial in "more cowbell" function to "hyper".

Note that The Island and Bad Boys II were both shot on film, so the aesthetic is quite a bit different than Michael Bay's digital productions. Stefan Sonnenfeld did digitally color-time both films, but that was the early days of D.I. and a lot has gone on since then. Bay is very technically-aware and very precise in terms of what he wants visually, so I'd say everything you see is what he specifically wanted in terms of color, exposure, enhancement, everything.

I actually enjoyed the trailer, but I agree it is a tad intense.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Note that The Island and Bad Boys II were both shot on film, so the aesthetic is quite a bit different than Michael Bay's digital productions. Stefan Sonnenfeld did digitally color-time both films,

Which is exactly why I have put those two films in context.

Bay is very technically-aware

Let's not generalize.
Architect is very technically aware. My car mechanic is very technically aware. Very skilled guy.

And then there is colour science with multiple aspects of unappealing imperfections of digital and then there are fundamental flaws of pipelines and then there are data-centric fantasias, and then there is the issue with deaf ears. And then there is the effect of bonding with the closest match seen to imagined.

And then there are those who get to analyse, dissect, diagnose, document and improve things at various links of the chain, predict and solve issues with little to zero room for mistakes, so those who get more room for mistakes and credits for wow factors (and their clients) hit the planes happy, many times clueless that their superstar asses got saved in the shadows.

and very precise in terms of what he wants visually, so I'd say everything you see is what he specifically wanted in terms of color, exposure, enhancement, everything.

Okay, I understand your perspective. I'd say it isn't.

 

[Neal_Norton]

Michael Bay technically aware? Really?

I guess if a formula for making money is "technically aware" you have a point.

Neal Norton