Questions about The Amazing Spider-Man's cinematography

[EMMANUEL DELPECH]

Ok, I know there have been several threads on the movie, and I'm not gonna post on those since they're old as hell, but I'm currently prepping to direct a short movie, and am hoping to rent the Scarlet, and either Zeiss CP2 Superspeeds or if the rental rates aren't too important: the Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes. I've had the movie in my head, every image of it for months but I've been debating with myself the look of the movie several times. Lately, I've been checking all sorts of lenses, diffusion filters, etc, I decided first that I loved the slightly more filmic & smooth texture of the Cooke S4 lenses, and maybe some Black Pro Mist filters, and then I checked again the trailers for The Amazing Spider-Man (in good quality mind you), and it totally messed up my perception.

I remembered it looking incredible, but not that incredible. I kept dismissing lately the idea of having a movie where everything is ultra sharp and overly digital looking, since I want it to look very cinematic (within the constraints of a low budget obviously, but I have a good eye), and then TASM, I can't understand how it looks insanely razor sharp, and yet completely filmic, cinematic, you name it, absolutely gorgeous footage and definitely one of the, if not THE best looking Epic shot movie for me. Now, I know that John shot this on Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes, and they had a 250 M budget, and he's insanely good obviously, but.

I'm wondering what makes it this way, of it looking this sharp, and yet maintaining this incredible filmic texture to it. Now, it just made me completely go 180 on what my vision for the movie was, I always wanted it to be very contrasty & dense, but maybe slighly softer, but now I'm thinking that razor sharpness definitely can work in the right conditions, with the right lighting.


Any thoughts?

 

[Bob Gundu]

Before lenses and camera, consider lighting, framing, and set design. Acting and sound is a given. Concentrate on this and then camera and lenses are gravy.

 

[Andy White]

I agree with Bob here - don't focus on the camera or the lens. Focus on your story, the art direction, props, make up, costumes... and your talent... they will make the film work (or not).

As an example, here's an old short to look at - not by me, but it's a sample I often link to when explaining things (I do some lecturing when I have a bit of free time)...

Don't look at what it was shot on (until you've finished it)... just watch - and then decide if it's all about the camera and lenses

 

[Marc Wielage]

Ok, I know there have been several threads on the movie, and I'm not gonna post on those since they're old as hell, but I'm currently prepping to direct a short movie, and am hoping to rent the Scarlet, and either Zeiss CP2 Superspeeds or if the rental rates aren't too important: the Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes. I've had the movie in my head, every image of it for months but I've been debating with myself the look of the movie several times. Lately, I've been checking all sorts of lenses, diffusion filters, etc, I decided first that I loved the slightly more filmic & smooth texture of the Cooke S4 lenses, and maybe some Black Pro Mist filters, and then I checked again the trailers for The Amazing Spider-Man (in good quality mind you), and it totally messed up my perception.

I don't think the filters, lenses, or cameras made the first Amazing Spiderman what it was. It was the skill of John Schwartzman, along with colorists Steve Bownen and John Persichetti, that made the film look the way it did.

No question, the Zeiss Ultra Primes are fantastic lenses, but I think you have to consider the budget of the project, the amount of time available, the number of lights on hand, the nature of the locations and sets, the production design, the costume design, and all the other intangibles that go into the look.

I also wouldn't judge it just from the trailers, because the trailers often wind up having vastly different color correction than the final film, since the trailer is color-timed in context, not within the dramatic framework of the movie. In other words, it's color-timed like a commercial, not necessarily like a feature.

 

[John Schwartzman ASC]

Ok, I know there have been several threads on the movie, and I'm not gonna post on those since they're old as hell, but I'm currently prepping to direct a short movie, and am hoping to rent the Scarlet, and either Zeiss CP2 Superspeeds or if the rental rates aren't too important: the Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes. I've had the movie in my head, every image of it for months but I've been debating with myself the look of the movie several times. Lately, I've been checking all sorts of lenses, diffusion filters, etc, I decided first that I loved the slightly more filmic & smooth texture of the Cooke S4 lenses, and maybe some Black Pro Mist filters, and then I checked again the trailers for The Amazing Spider-Man (in good quality mind you), and it totally messed up my perception.

I remembered it looking incredible, but not that incredible. I kept dismissing lately the idea of having a movie where everything is ultra sharp and overly digital looking, since I want it to look very cinematic (within the constraints of a low budget obviously, but I have a good eye), and then TASM, I can't understand how it looks insanely razor sharp, and yet completely filmic, cinematic, you name it, absolutely gorgeous footage and definitely one of the, if not THE best looking Epic shot movie for me. Now, I know that John shot this on Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes, and they had a 250 M budget, and he's insanely good obviously, but.

I'm wondering what makes it this way, of it looking this sharp, and yet maintaining this incredible filmic texture to it. Now, it just made me completely go 180 on what my vision for the movie was, I always wanted it to be very contrasty & dense, but maybe slighly softer, but now I'm thinking that razor sharpness definitely can work in the right conditions, with the right lighting.


Any thoughts?

20 years of experience and Brook Willard!

 

[Ketch Rossi]

20 years of experience and Brook Willard!

...

 

[Matt Ryan]

20 years of experience and Brook Willard!

Great to have you here John! What was your preferred lighting ratio for the film? Loved the depth through lighting and contrast that was further accentuated by the 3D. I enjoyed it a lot.

 

[Peter Lyons Collister ASC]

John is simply one of the best.....

A great DP and a great friend

 

[David Battistella]

I think, for me, what made Spiderman was all of the lighting in the "non effects heavy scenes" like at the Peter's home. I remember seeing those scenes and particularly some closeups of Martin Sheen and Sally Field in those warm home scenes and thinking, "shit, the EPIC is frickin' gorgeous when it's lit properly".

I saw the film in 2D with a digital projection and the color palette was stunning and the mood, tone and style were inspiring.

Just about one year later I watched my own film projected in the same cinema. Surreal how my film was shot on the same camera and that is such a cool thing about RED.

Battistella

 

[EMMANUEL DELPECH]

20 years of experience and Brook Willard!

Holy crap, it's really you ! Ah ah ah, damn.

Thanks to all for the answers, I had no doubt that obviously, it's an ensemble of things, and not just the image aspect of it. About the trailers, yep, not necessarily always the right color timing, I have it on BR, but it was just as a quick reminder. I kept watching the shot where Peter is in the highschool hall, walking, as everyone around him is looking at him, and it's a shot that really sticks with me, so I watched the rest, and found that this was really a look that's gorgeous.

I know one of you spoke of framing, and I agree, I think it's really what can change the perception too, 95 % of my movie (20 min) will be composed of dolly shots, very symmetrical composition, I just love having a kind of fluidity & elegance, and it will fit the subject. I hope this will help making it look great.



@John Schwartzman: I looked over all that I could find about you talking about your approach on TASM, and could not find much beyond the British Cinematographer article that seemed the most extensive. What was your overall approach on the lighting? Did you have situations of natural lighting, or was it always lit by HMIs or mercury vapor as you spoke of it (which I can't really find on Google when I look for mercury vapor ), what about the interiors at night? And was there a point where the movie felt too sharp or did you always manage to keep making it look filmic as hell. Even in daylight, it never looks harsh, but perfectly defined.

I hope I'm not bothering you, since you seem to be around, it'd be awesome if you could give some info on your process



I find it incredible the whole movie was shot on beta versions of the Epic basically, constantly evolving, that's bold as hell. By the way, anybody knows if any diffusion filters were used on The Amazing Spidey? Aside from the usual ND I mean.

 

[EMMANUEL DELPECH]

I agree with Bob here - don't focus on the camera or the lens. Focus on your story, the art direction, props, make up, costumes... and your talent... they will make the film work (or not).

As an example, here's an old short to look at - not by me, but it's a sample I often link to when explaining things (I do some lecturing when I have a bit of free time)...

Don't look at what it was shot on (until you've finished it)... just watch - and then decide if it's all about the camera and lenses

OMG I can't believe this!

I've been looking for this short movie for an eternity, I saw it once, and couldn't remember where to find it. Shot on GH1 with great lenses, it does look amazing and I catch your drift, I'm just trying to put all chances on my side ^^

 

[Marc Wielage]

20 years of experience and Brook Willard!

Speaking of John Schwartzman...

 

[Phil Holland]

John's a great guy. Got to bump into him recently and ogle some camera tech and glass. He didn't know it, but we worked together years ago

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I'm out of my depth here, I know, but... I'm a bit disappointed in some of the replies. Emmanuel asked a relatively straighforward question, and you're all saying "no, no, you don't want that". Yet those responses were coming from people who live and breathe both aesthetics and technicalities. Is it not a bit pretentious to say that the cameras and lenses don't matter? Perhaps a better response would be "Your answers are X, Y and N, but maybe there are several ways to achieve what you want, and here is some evidence...".

I mean, if you don't know, you don't know. I haven't seen the film and I haven't read anything about it, so I know that I don't know.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Karim, I don't think that we're arguing that cameras and lenses don't matter. I merely commented that it's not the only element to make films feel cinematic. Sorry if it sounded pretentious. It wasn't my intention.

 

[EMMANUEL DELPECH]

No, I totally get it, I'm not one of those people who think they're going to achieve the look of named blockbuster just by getting the same camera or lenses, I'm not that naive. I'm just trying to get some good info & insight on how cinematographers achieve certain results in "big" movies, so I can better understand it.

I must say I'm changing my mind a lot lately, yesterday, I'm all like "yeah, a look resembling TASM, could definitely fit my movie", and then I watched Silver Linings Playbook for the I don't know how many times again, and it just strikes me that I just love the texture of 35 mm, and most of all, I love Masanobu Takayanagi's work with a lot of natural lighting, etc.

So yeah, I'm just thinking of going with my initial thought of trying to emulate as much as possible 35 mm with Filmconvert, maybe a diffusion filter to take the edge off. I think that no matter how much I love digital, I still hold film closer to my heart ^^

 

[Ben Scott]

My general response to that way of thinking is to recommend Rust and Bone, shot on Epic, and to ask whether or not it is beautiful and organic and cinematic and well, 'filmic'?

Even on the smaller scale things I do I've seen and learned enough about the tool to know that with proper consideration before ever pressing record, Red footage can be made to look any nunber of ways, from the hi tech clean and sharp of Prometheus, to the organic tactile nature of Rust and Bone, and with all shades in between.

Just plan the look before you turn over and apply the sensibility to everything from costune to set design to lighting and framing.

A great article I read recently about how best to have things appear certain tones or colours in your film, say blue and green - unsurprisingly it concluded the best way to achieve that was by filming blue and green things.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I'm personally one of "those" that thinks you can make RED look like anything...all depends on what you feed it. Out the box, it's very clean. Especially if you feed it clean lenses (Masterprimes, Ultraprimes, etc). But add some diffusion or vintage glass and...presto!...a whole different look. RED is good at ABSORBING whatever you feed it.

In terms of a "big budget look", that's a hard one. I will say there is a professional "language" that is imbued in almost all good "movies". The framing, the lighting, the lens and shot coverage...it all "interacts" and flows seamlessly. I find lots of low budget work betrays itself with inexperienced choices - the coverage doesn't cut well, the lens choices/angles were awkward, etc. Pro DPs/Directors/Crews have this "language" in their DNA at this point (that's why their pros), so whether on a million dollar or 250 million dollar budget, their work is still going to look great. Figuring out this LANGUAGE and what it is...I think...is the key.

Good luck.

 

[Marc Wielage]

In terms of a "big budget look", that's a hard one. I will say there is a professional "language" that is imbued in almost all good "movies". The framing, the lighting, the lens and shot coverage...it all "interacts" and flows seamlessly. I find lots of low budget work betrays itself with inexperienced choices - the coverage doesn't cut well, the lens choices/angles were awkward, etc. Pro DPs/Directors/Crews have this "language" in their DNA at this point (that's why their pros), so whether on a million dollar or 250 million dollar budget, their work is still going to look great.

Art direction, production design, costuming, makeup... all of that counts for a lot, too. A huge budget also allows you the ability to take all day to shoot only a couple of pages of script, so if you have a 60-day shooting schedule for a 120-page script, you can spend a lot of time really tweaking the lighting, camera coverage, perfecting the blocking, the camera move, and all the other minutiae that goes into the shot.

It also helps that films like Spiderman go through months of Previz so that they already know weeks before the start of physical production exactly what they're going to need to shoot, what works, what doesn't work, plus they've had lots of rehearsals with the actor so there are no surprises on the set (one assumes).

And don't underestimate the importance of getting a great colorist on board. But in fairness to Mr. Schwartzman and all great DPs, even a great colorist can't do anything if the material isn't already lit well.

 

[EMMANUEL DELPECH]

Ah ah I had abandoned the thread, thx for the answers. I kind of changed my stance on it since then like I said, I'll be aiming for a look mimicking 35 mm, more precisely: Warrior by Gavin O'Connor for those who saw it, I love the natural approach to lighting, along with use of practicals in the scenes, and sometimes harsh lighting. I just turned over some documents for the movie including set design (most of which will be the characters' rooms, otherwise it'll be mostly what's on site: highschool (think highschool in TASM), amusement park, city streets, forest, etc. I didn't really think about the set design & props when I wrote it, and then I wrote down all these ideas to make the rooms as vivid as possible, lived in. Like you all say, no doubt that great production & set design plays a huge part, along with the actors.

And yeah, schedule like you say, is obviously really important. In my mind, I'm in for a week of shooting, got 24 pages, but over 190 shots, which is a lot I'm guessing for a 20 min short movie., I'm really going for a natural lighting approach, a bit gritty at times, and using practicals indoors (about 50% indoor night scenes, with a few outdoor as well) as much as possible.