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 :)

The Amazing Spider Man - Trailer 3

Kacey Baker

Kacey Baker

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2011
Messages
321
Reaction score
3
Points
18
Location
Sydney Australia
Website
www.kaceybaker.com
Who has seen this and what do you think of the footage, cc + grading?

We've discussed before how trailers are not often the final grade, but interested to get people's thoughts. For starters looks like there is a tone of magenta throughout the skin tones, even in the shots where the SM costume doesn't appear. Lots of plasticy-ish looking highlights on rims etc

I know it's unfair to compare to another movie (for a thousand reasons, stylistic choice and desired look for starters) but in the same vein of Super Hero's, The Avengers seemed to have a more filmic quality and less plastic/rubbery dslr look to my eye.

:rolleyes:
 
You're judging it on what kind of monitor? How was it calibrated?

I just watched on a crap 24" Dell Ultra-Sharp computer monitor, and I thought it was a knock-out. Great cinematography, brilliant editing, dramatically surprising, incredible effects... Looked terrific to me.

Link here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/theamazingspiderman/

It is true that trailers often have pre-release versions of certain shots, but in the last 10 years -- particularly with A-list titles like this -- you can bet the director approved the color. In many cases, the DP signed off on it as well, depending on schedule and budget.

Interesting that you preferred The Avengers, which was shot mostly on Alexa with some film, while Amazing Spiderman was shot on Red Epic. Avengers is a much brighter movie (more day scenes), but I don't have a problem with the way either looks. Both have strong stylistic choices by the filmmakers; each works fine as a big summer blockbuster.
 
I thought it looked great. In my opinion it looked more natural.

Big Blockbusters like the Avengers tend to go for that Orange/Teal look over the past few years. It makes the actors tanner and more "Hollywood" looking.

The-Avengers7.jpg


It's just a color grading style. I was watching Iron Man on FX last night and it was blatantly obvious. Also in Transformers and I've even noticed it in a few Red Bull commercials.

But either way, the new Spiderman looks SO FUCKING AWESOME!
 
Loved the look. Skin tones looked great. One of the best looking Epic blockbusters so far, congratulations to the team! Also this trailer made me interested in watching the film, which I have to say I wasn't but for the fact it was shot on Epic.
 
Certainly a style choice. Notice how we only see those more reddish tones in the more dramatic scenes, and it seems to be exacerbated by the sappiness of the scene itself (gets worse in scenes with both Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone getting close). The action sequences do not have this same color correction for the skin tones. The reason is more than likely this: Humans by nature feel more connected to people that appear to be blushing or have a strong red hue in their skin. It tricks us into trusting the character more. We all know that the job of a cinematographer is to subconsciously provoke emotions from the audience and this is simply one of the many techniques that can usher in that sort of response.

Also as a quick side note, The "orange/teal" skin color correction does two things.

1) Helps hide the redness of blemishes and balances the skin tones
2) Women find men with a yellow tint in their skin to be more attractive.
 
Drew Baird said:
Also as a quick side note, The "orange/teal" skin color correction does two things.

1) Helps hide the redness of blemishes and balances the skin tones
2) Women find men with a yellow tint in their skin to be more attractive.
Click to expand...

Orange/teal are also complimentary colors that have been shown to be pleasing to our eyes. It seems that orange skin and teal backgrounds/shadows often are the basic color scheme to a lot of scenes in many movies.

I also just watched the new spiderman trailer and thought it looked great. Much better than the first trailer. Also I think it looks visually a lot better than the last three spiderman movies which I thought all looked too high key lighting wise.
 
Drew Baird said:
Certainly a style choice. Notice how we only see those more reddish tones in the more dramatic scenes, and it seems to be exacerbated by the sappiness of the scene itself (gets worse in scenes with both Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone getting close). The action sequences do not have this same color correction for the skin tones.
Click to expand...
Note that you're seeing scenes from wildly different parts of one movie cut together for purposes of a trailer. I have no doubt the images will flow and cut together much more naturally and seamlessly, especially in terms of color, when you see the final film.

Also as a quick side note, The "orange/teal" skin color correction does two things. 1) Helps hide the redness of blemishes and balances the skin tones ...2) Women find men with a yellow tint in their skin to be more attractive.
Click to expand...
I've never heard this before, and I've worked as a colorist in Hollywood for 30 years (many of those with Technicolor). I've always started in a given scene by zeroing out the overall look to make it flat and balanced (sometimes starting with a LUT), making the whites white, the blacks blacks, pull down the mids, adjusting the blacks, and then push everything where it needs to go. We're not adding orange or teal... the image drops in where it wants to go, and we push it further if the DP wants it that way.

My preference is to take cyan material and push it more blue, but there are DPs who specifically want it tilted more green, for stylistic reasons. Flesh tones are subjective and dependent on monitors, exposure, makeup, and a dozen other factors. There are people who have specific aversions to certain colors; I've worked with directors who were overly-sensitive to green, and others who saw magenta in everything. But I've never in my life had somebody say, "OK, let's go for the 'orange & teal' look."

This has been debated to death over on the Telecine Internet Group, a fairly active discussion list for colorists.
 
Except for the opening night shot, I personally don't care for what I saw. The interiors shots had a lot of fill ligthing, the sets looked fake w/ a lot of obvious CGI and the actors were playing stock characters. Think I'll pass.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I've never heard this before, and I've worked as a colorist in Hollywood for 30 years (many of those with Technicolor). I've always started in a given scene by zeroing out the overall look to make it flat and balanced (sometimes starting with a LUT), making the whites white, the blacks blacks, pull down the mids, adjusting the blacks, and then push everything where it needs to go. We're not adding orange or teal... the image drops in where it wants to go, and we push it further if the DP wants it that way.

My preference is to take cyan material and push it more blue, but there are DPs who specifically want it tilted more green, for stylistic reasons. Flesh tones are subjective and dependent on monitors, exposure, makeup, and a dozen other factors. There are people who have specific aversions to certain colors; I've worked with directors who were overly-sensitive to green, and others who saw magenta in everything. But I've never in my life had somebody say, "OK, let's go for the 'orange & teal' look."

This has been debated to death over on the Telecine Internet Group, a fairly active discussion list for colorists.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link! As for the psychology behind different skin tone CC, I wouldn't expect a lot of it to be intentional. I was studying psychology in college before I decided to switch over to film. It has been a passion of mine, but I couldn't stand the pre-med stuff on my way to be a psychiatrist. So naturally after learning about the psychology behind framing and coloring and use of colors within a scene I became a bit obsessed. The truth is, however that even though these methods for balancing skin tones are usually more of a stylistic decision, the people that want that style "Feel" like it should be that way, and there is a bit of psychology and training behind that feeling. I know for a fact that I am not the only DoP out there that brings this psychological obsession along with them, but I suppose it is rarely discussed. Also, I would say that it isn't required to shoot a great film, and in the end the majority of people out there will never have considered the work that goes into creating the look of a film, which is sad because the work of a colorist is an absolute art in my eyes and what you guys do is one of my favorite processes in the entirety of the filmmaking process.

Also, pulling back the skin tones to a slight orange/teal is a process that has been used in the still photography industry for decades. It really does help to hide the blemishes and is one of my favorite tricks. Again, I have never heard anybody say "lets shift the hue of the red in the skin tones to be a bit more yellow to hide the red spots in her face..." but it does indeed have that result. It makes for stronger looking skin in the end, and it looks pretty cool. Especially in action flicks.
 
I loved Avengers more than I can say.. I've seen it three times this weekend alone (Yes I am a geek). I was sad it was shot on an Alexia, especially knowing they did test the Epic and decided against it due to "camera wierdness". Not sure what that means, but oh well.

There's always the sequal! That said, I think the movie looked great. It did feel good to see Promethius and Amazing Spiderman trailers on the big screen. I think Promethius is amazing looking. I can see why Jim Cameron is such a fan of Scott's.

Jay
 
So far The Amazing Spider-Man has been receiving good reviews.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_amazing_spider_man/

I know it's early, but I loved 500 Days of Summer, and with Marc Webb at the helm, it looks like he may have another decent movie under his belt.

Personally, I think the movie is pure eye candy. John Schwartzman is doing an amazing job.

I don't know if the hype for the Amazing Spider-man will be as big as the Avengers or the Dark Knight, but I think it may head in that direction with future flicks of the Amazing Spider-man. We'll just have to wait and see.
 
I saw the trailer in the theatre and I thought it looked terrible. Very digital looking and video game look. (my personal view obviously)
 
At this point in time all the footage in the trailer should be from the final color corrected master feature that will be seen in theaters, unless the trailer contains shots from dailies or the shot was used in an earlier trailer. Those shots will be corrected by the colorist at the finishing house (most likely in house at Sony). The VFX are the final VFX from the movie (I mean it opens in a few weeks they better be done with all the FX). The director has signed off on the final trailer for sure, I doubt the DP gets to look at it.
 
Schwartzman is very hands-on -- I would be very surprised if he didn't get to participate in the timing of the theatrical trailers. I've worked on many projects where the DP even gets to approve the TV trailers. If I recall correctly, there were 60 different TV trailers for Spiderman 2, all done by Technicolor/Hollywood, and every shot in them was approved by Sam Raimi and the DP. I did all the TV and DI trailers for Vertical Limit (also for Sony), and DP David Tattersall definitely supervised and approved all of those.

BTW, the movie got a near-rave review in the UK Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/jun/19/the-amazing-spider-man-review

I'm very glad to hear the movie is good. Sony needs a hit, and the fans deserve a good film of a classic character like this.
 
I'm not that big of a Spiderman-fan (more of a Batman-one ;-)), but I thought 500 days of summer was a really great movie, so the director is my number one reason why I want to see this new Spiderman.

I visited New York for the first time last year, and even stumbled on the set by accident. Had to leave, though.
 
Reshooting a remake of a movie only shot 5 or 6 years ago... I still can't work it out?
There is alot of people banking on this, it will make money regardless of being great or shit. The marketing machine is huuuge!

Ill be giving it a miss as well ... Seen it a few summers ago. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top