Thread: Let Them All Talk

Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43
  1. #31  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Howard-Crow View Post
    Man, I'm really with you on a lot of your key philosophy.

    I just don't think that's what we have here. But again, I could be totally wrong. I'm sitting here analyzing someone elses art. So ��.

    My only point is, that I if the look was completely disregarded, for everything else, thats lazy. In a cinematography standpoint. Lazy might not even be the right word. Let's just call it low priority.

    But I mean, come one. You could have any halfway decent silly vlogger make a two week vlog on that same ship and it would look mikes better. We see stuff shot in uncontrolled environments all the time now and it looks from decent to fantastic.

    And I'm not saying this because it doesn't have a clean commercial look. One of the reasons I got a Komodo was because of the RF mount so I could easily shoot with my minolta lenses. I'm not a huge fan of a clinical image.

    I just dont think this film looks like it does because of anything other than putting everything else in front of making it look any particular way.

    I watch the preview and it annoys me how bad it looks, in every way.

    But I also had my wife watch it with me and after saying "are you having me watch this because it was shot on a RED" she said she thought it looked good lol.

    So I'm sure that 95% of the target audience will have zero issue with it.
    I'm also not a fan of this look in this movie. I much prefer the look of The Knick, which I feel is such an underrated piece of cinematography that has just gone over the heads of people. But I cannot judge without the context of how this movie was made. I can judge the choice of diffusion, which I have said I'm not a fan of, but I don't see the rest as being badly lit or composed as it's impossible to ignore that this was done under two weeks.

    The problem with the "vlogger" argument is that most of their time goes into looking good or creating a good looking image. This is why I criticize the modern mentality of content creation. It's all surface level. Content creators for youtube and vloggers can spend hours prepping for looking good in a way that feels effortless. Everyone knows that TV is fake, reality TV is fake, but it seems that the new age of "vlogger TV" has tricked all those who know reality TV is fake to think that vlogging and YouTubers is more "real". They're as fake as any other TV, putting hours into the look of effortless perfection. So this argument against the look of Soderbergh's movie falls a bit flat since we have to take into account that the time put into making that movie prioritized improvising and experimenting with the actors to reach scenes that work. You can't put a lot of time into good looking images if everything changes all the time and the whole point is to make room for the actors to be free.

    The only things that's not faked effortlessness on YouTube are cat videos and home video-stuff. The rest is carefully crafted illusions of effortlessness.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    I Think anyone saying this trailer looks bad is insane, but that's just my opinion though...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christoffer Glans View Post
    I'm also not a fan of this look in this movie. I much prefer the look of The Knick, which I feel is such an underrated piece of cinematography that has just gone over the heads of people. But I cannot judge without the context of how this movie was made. I can judge the choice of diffusion, which I have said I'm not a fan of, but I don't see the rest as being badly lit or composed as it's impossible to ignore that this was done under two weeks.

    The problem with the "vlogger" argument is that most of their time goes into looking good or creating a good looking image. This is why I criticize the modern mentality of content creation. It's all surface level. Content creators for youtube and vloggers can spend hours prepping for looking good in a way that feels effortless. Everyone knows that TV is fake, reality TV is fake, but it seems that the new age of "vlogger TV" has tricked all those who know reality TV is fake to think that vlogging and YouTubers is more "real". They're as fake as any other TV, putting hours into the look of effortless perfection. So this argument against the look of Soderbergh's movie falls a bit flat since we have to take into account that the time put into making that movie prioritized improvising and experimenting with the actors to reach scenes that work. You can't put a lot of time into good looking images if everything changes all the time and the whole point is to make room for the actors to be free.

    The only things that's not faked effortlessness on YouTube are cat videos and home video-stuff. The rest is carefully crafted illusions of effortlessness.
    I haven't seen The Knick but I'll check it out.

    And I agree on the vlogger thing. I think were closer to agreeing here than it would seem. The main point there was about how clear it is that he wasn't concerned with how it looked. Unless he wanted this look of course.

    My point is that it appears like, as you are saying as well, that not much time or effort was put into the look.

    I'm sure that overall it was a pretty impressive feat to shoot this film like he did, in the time he did. I'm just saying I think it's clear he prioritized most things over achieving a certain look.

    I'm not here saying in the grand scheme of the film it was a mistake to do it how he did. Hes a famous director and I'm just a guy on a forum critiquing a trailer of a film I haven't even seen lol.

    I was and still am just surprised by how it looks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Anthony Howard-Crow View Post
    I haven't seen The Knick but I'll check it out.

    And I agree on the vlogger thing. I think were closer to agreeing here than it would seem. The main point there was about how clear it is that he wasn't concerned with how it looked. Unless he wanted this look of course.

    My point is that it appears like, as you are saying as well, that not much time or effort was put into the look.

    I'm sure that overall it was a pretty impressive feat to shoot this film like he did, in the time he did. I'm just saying I think it's clear he prioritized most things over achieving a certain look.

    I'm not here saying in the grand scheme of the film it was a mistake to do it how he did. Hes a famous director and I'm just a guy on a forum critiquing a trailer of a film I haven't even seen lol.

    I was and still am just surprised by how it looks.
    Really recommend The Knick. It's one of those series that seem to disappear in the noise, but it's a masterpiece and the cinematography is so filled with energy that is then heightened by the perfect Cliff Martinez score.

    As for Let Them All Talk, what I feel is important here is the statement he makes with this movie. That you can actually just go out and shoot your movie and it won't look like Dogma95 anymore, it will look good enough to get the "cinema" stamp. Many others before this who used cheaper cameras and tested out low-budget solutions, still did so with a pretty big team and put in hours into lighting and locations etc. This is essentially Soderbergh with his camera, makeup, costume and props, some camera crew support and a boom operator. Pretty much the least amount of people needed for a production of this caliber.

    This means that if a movie takes place in a setting that's even less in need of background control; if you have makeup and costume rolled up in one additional crew, have someone handling props and set/location and a boom operator. That's a team of four people plus actors.

    Four people.

    If those four people are talented and good, if the director is talented in both directing and cinematography, it's still not going to look like shit based on the equipment, it's probably gonna look like plenty of high budget features with large budgets.
    Of course, we need to take into account things like unions, having an administrative team for planning etc. but that all depends on what type of production it is.

    The point being, it all comes down to the talent of the people now, more than ever. The democratization of cinema is pretty much completed now. Especially when adding things like how powerful free tools like Resolve and Blender makes post.
    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    214
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodrigo Prata View Post
    I Think anyone saying this trailer looks bad is insane, but that's just my opinion though...
    +100%
    It's all crafted, I don't see any shoot not to be made. Maybe it's not a choice for everybody.
    Last edited by Alex Stolpakov; 11-18-2020 at 09:48 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member Christoffer Glans's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    4,782
    Quote Originally Posted by Rodrigo Prata View Post
    I Think anyone saying this trailer looks bad is insane, but that's just my opinion though...
    Exactly! And after all the trash talk from so many, I checked the trailer again and... what are people talking about? If we ignore the locations where lighting seems to be pretty hard to control, no one can say that this looks bad. All the criticism about it looking like pure crap is just bullshit. What kind of hacks would say that this is bad? Even ignoring subjectivity and going by a technical point of view. This is good and very good considering the shooting schedule.






    "Using any digital cinema camera today is like sending your 35mm rolls to a standard lab. -Using a Red is like owning a dark room."
    Red Weapon 6K #00600 Red Komodo #002397
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Magnificent thread. I actually agree on all things stated. From this trailer being shit, to looking good, from The Knick to Cliff Martinez, from Dogma to big budget perfection. 100% to all of it. Because it is, as always, a very subjective thing.

    Soderbergh's choices are brave and not lazy. Some of those choices can result in lazy looking images as well as gorgeous ones. Obviously. How much of them are good or bad is again, subjective.
    Objectively, considering his choice of production, the results are mind-blowing. And I don't know any vlogger that could produce this in two weeks, while also DIRECTING, not just vlogging.

    I find his approach nothing less than inspiring and I can't wait to get my hands on my first RED camera to use it for what it's been made for - a tool for your own choices.
    I completely agree with the philosophy that the visuals of a visual medium should, but don't necessarily have to be centered on image quality or framing. For all that I know, film works through images combined. The Edit. That's what makes it unique as an art form. And here we go again: even a vlogger could make a "better" movie than Soderbergh if he has a better story and editing ideas to work with. Our emotions are indeed driven by the appeal and visual quality of images. But no single most beautiful image in the world, will ever tell a better story than two ugly images combined a certain way. Beautiful images combined are better of course, but achieving them in such a short time? Unlikely to at least difficult. Better make some imperfect ones than none at all, as long as they transport the story.

    Of course it makes sense to discuss the image quality of a camera in a camera forum, however it's an interesting thought wether film has to look a certain way while the main point is story and not image quality/lighting/framing. Curious about other opinions. Especially when it comes to making movies with what you have/achieving your goals, rather than focus on perfection and risk ending up with nothing at all.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    I have mixed feelings towards it, most of the things are good though the camera work could have been more precise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    340
    I mentioned this to Christoffer earlier, but felt I'd post it here, comparing the image quality of the Komodo to the Red One from Soderbergh's "Contagion", I can see some improvements.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sYSyuuLk5g
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    This thread also made me watch the movie, which I enjoyed more than I thought I would, and also looked better than I thought it would after reading this. It did have wildly blown highlights at first, and that diffusion, but seeing as things were more in control later in the harsh mixed lighting, I'm not sure if it was stylistic/on purpose or not. Same with Songbird actually...watched that for similar reasons, looked pretty good overall, some really blown highlights that might have been on purpose with the subject matter and something dreamy in front of the lens sometimes, but overall, solid.

    Curious to see more features with Komodo, as I suspect we'll get as many looks as we had directors and dops. Certainly if it allows Soderbergh to stay light and do what he does with better quality than an iPhone, I'm in. High Flying Bird was one of the best pictures in recent memory, it looked damn good for an iPhone, but I bet it would have been even better on the Komodo.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts