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 Counselor

O

omar robles

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 16, 2008
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
Points
16
Having seen that film I am amazed that regardless of the camera, the film looks like a Ridley Scott film. I am curious if anyone knows how exactly its possible that someone could use a format way different then film and still have the same look as his previously shot films. From what i have read the grading wasnt too extreme.
 
It might sound pat, but a signature looks the same no matter the pen or the texture of paper. It's as simple (and as complex) as that. It's not just the camera that creates a look. It also helps that he has access to the best tools, methodology and personnel and also has the ability to interact with them to a technical degree.
 
Ridley Scott certainly has a certain shooting "style" that in the end...create's a "look" and "feel", regardless of what camera system he's using.

For example, he is known for shooting mostly telephoto: 50mm and up. He loves to shoot longer though. I remember on Prometheus I read in American Cinematographer he was at 70mm+ a lot of the time.

He's also known recently for shooting quite a bit of multi-cam, at least he used to (Robin Hood, etc). Not sure if he is as much anymore (Prometheus looked more restrained), but either way...many film-makers tend to "stick" to their style of shooting (Spielberg loves to shoot on a 21mm, and also likes portrait focal lenghts; whereas Haneke ONLY shoots on a 35mm, for example).

Camera's don't usually change people. People change people.
 
Last edited:
The cinematography was the only good thing about that movie. Unbelievably bad, at the Archlight Hollywood on Friday night people were laughing out loud at the horrible dialog.
 
"Prometheus", being shot in 3D, used somewhat shorter focal lengths than Scott normally does. Apparently the 3D cameras were often on the 28-76mm Optimo, whereas on regular movies, Scott is often using the 24-290mm Optimo. Anyway, "The Counselor" had a lot more telephoto shots in it than "Prometheus" but then, it had a lot more day exterior scenes so that makes sense, it's easier to back-up the cameras and shoot at the long end of the zooms.

The movie looked great. A few shots were a bit over-sharpened (Scott likes to selectively sharpen shots or objects in the frame to enhance them) and there were a couple of scenes where the contrast was so high that some clipping was unavoidable (and probably would have been burned out on film), like when Fassbender is in Amsterdam under the shadow of a bridge with hot morning sun on the water behind his head. Otherwise it looked wonderful, and very clean, maybe too clean sometimes...
 
David

In your opinion do you think old school directors such as Ridley Scott and now Martin Scorsesse is going to push film further away into the horizon? Martin Scorsese is pretty much a film historian. And his editor said he is converting strictly to digital. The wolf of wallstreet was shot with an Arri Alexa.
 
Aaron McLane said:
The cinematography was the only good thing about that movie. Unbelievably bad, at the Archlight Hollywood on Friday night people were laughing out loud at the horrible dialog.
Click to expand...

I taught the film overall had a very strong Cormac McCarthy signature.
 
Hello mister Mullen,

do you know if "The Counselor" was shot in spherical or anamorphic lenses? I think it was spherical, but I'm not sure. But it was released in 35mm scope?

Thanks in advanced.
 
Pablo Villegas S. said:
Hello mister Mullen,

do you know if "The Counselor" was shot in spherical or anamorphic lenses? I think it was spherical, but I'm not sure. But it was released in 35mm scope?

Thanks in advanced.
Click to expand...

Not David, but I'm online and have an answer. It was shot spherical with Panavision Primos and Angenieux Zooms.
 
I saw it on BR the other day on a big screen and was surprised to think the movie looked ugly, like really ugly, funky skin tones in quite a few occasions, although that's probably an aesthetic decision. Just too too sharp, too digital looking. Prometheus on the other hand, since it's also shot by Wolski, looked imo gorgeous.
 
EMMANUEL DELPECH said:
I saw it on BR the other day on a big screen and was surprised to think the movie looked ugly, like really ugly, funky skin tones in quite a few occasions, although that's probably an aesthetic decision. Just too too sharp, too digital looking. Prometheus on the other hand, since it's also shot by Wolski, looked imo gorgeous.
Click to expand...

I just saw it yesterday on iTunes, and it looks great, in my opinion. It does have the Red Epic look, and yes, sometimes the skin tones might be off, but like you, I think that's an aesthetic choice. I like the style and the use of sharpness, specially for the subject they're handling, I'm shooting a TV series with an Epic that deals with small scale drug dealing and violence, and I chose to add so sharpness as well, kind of like the Clarity slider in Lightroom.
 
The aesthetic look completely threw me off, the Epic looks as great as it should, I don't know, I thought that everything in the movie was ugly, whether it is set design, locations, but also that as the movie got better in the last half in the movie (although that's not saying much), the visuals got better too, but still not to my liking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top