Jump to content


Photo

The Painted Veil


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11938 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 March 2007 - 07:30 PM

I think this is particularly beautiful

http://www.apple.com...eil/medium.html

All I've seen of it is the trailer, but it's the sort of thing that I look at and have two thoughts:

- It's difficult to make something like that really visually rich, and they have;

and

- I have no idea how to do that.

Phil
  • 0

#2 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 29 March 2007 - 07:39 PM

First question is, what have you done with the real Phil? You claim to be Phil but you are saying some thing positive, is that really you? :D

Second, yes, looks like a nice piece of work.

R,
  • 0

#3 Michael Nash

Michael Nash
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3330 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Pasadena, CA

Posted 30 March 2007 - 12:34 AM

- I have no idea how to do that.


I learned a long time ago that what you put in front of the camera is almost more important than how you shoot it! Just go to South China and turn on the camera. ;) Of course Dryburgh is no slouch!

Seriously, what in particular impresses you the most? It is indeed beautiful and well-crafted stuff, but I'm curious what about it makes you take such notice?
  • 0

#4 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11938 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 March 2007 - 11:48 AM

Because it's "normal" without being bland. I can only make stuff look in any way nice if it's really stylised and odd-looking; the kind of thing that makes conservative viewers go "Hang on, it's all blue/green/orange and the contrast is really high."

What I can't do is make it look like that - stylish, classy, attractive, but in some objective way normal - a picture of a happenstance which just happens, without any obvious artifice, to look nice.

Phil
  • 0

#5 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 928 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 30 March 2007 - 12:12 PM

I can only make stuff look in any way nice if it's really stylised and odd-looking; the kind of thing that makes conservative viewers go "Hang on, it's all blue/green/orange and the contrast is really high."


Do you feel that you're covering for bad (or no) production design?

Lighting can be icing on the cake to good production design.
  • 0

#6 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11938 posts
  • Other

Posted 30 March 2007 - 02:57 PM

Oh, probably.

P
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 30 March 2007 - 06:14 PM

Since natural source lighting is so attractive in general, and period settings so color-controlled, it seems easier to make a period film look more photographically attractive.

Anyway, I think rich, subtle but natural-looking lighting that tells the story but doesn't need heavy manipulation is something that a lot of us hope we can accomplish someday.
  • 0

#8 Rajavel Olhiveeran

Rajavel Olhiveeran
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • India

Posted 31 March 2007 - 01:50 AM

hi
that's ofcourse great looking. isn't it so much in the DI ....that such a kind of look is possible, though production design lays the basic foundation for it.
is it possible to get such a period look without DI.....? any such examples of period films! and how they manages it?
thanks cheers!
  • 0

#9 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 March 2007 - 05:42 AM

is it possible to get such a period look without DI.....? any such examples of period films! and how they manages it?

Try any period film before 1998.
  • 0

#10 NathanCoombs

NathanCoombs
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Producer
  • Bath, UK

Posted 31 March 2007 - 08:07 AM

Here's a film with no lighting and shot on miniDV, looks fantastic. Isn't it amazing how cinematographic a broken country can look.

http://www.apple.com...gments/trailer/
  • 0

#11 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11938 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 March 2007 - 10:13 AM

Hi,

> shot on miniDV

So why the hell have they put an HD trailer up?!

Phil
  • 0

#12 NathanCoombs

NathanCoombs
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Producer
  • Bath, UK

Posted 31 March 2007 - 10:19 AM

Hi,

> shot on miniDV

So why the hell have they put an HD trailer up?!

Phil


bah, you know what I mean: miniDV, HDV...whatever... ;)
  • 0

#13 Dan Salzmann

Dan Salzmann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1143 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Paris, France

Posted 31 March 2007 - 10:31 AM

Some period films (a very small list!) that I think look very good with no DI:

Aguirré: Wrath of God
Barry Lyndon
Bridge Over the River Kwai
The Duellists
Gandhi
Ran
Breaker Morant
Godfather II
Elephant Man
Once Upon A Time in America
Badlands

And apparently Iraq in Fragments was shot with a DVX100 SD camera.
  • 0

#14 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 March 2007 - 11:00 AM

And there are plenty of period movies that did use a D.I. that wouldn't look much different if they hadn't -- i.e. their look is not the product of the D.I. tools.

I don't know if "The Painted Veil" did or didn't use a D.I. and it probably doesn't matter. These days, the main use of a D.I. is to convert Super-35 to scope; the color-correction is pretty straight-forward. Even a movie like "Children of Men" that used a D.I. didn't particular need to use one to create its look. They had film dailies on that shoot with the ENR process; the D.I. was partially needed to get that look without paying for ENR for the release prints (which is too bad because silver-retention prints look gorgeous.) The other use was to convert Super-35 to standard 1.85.

"The Prestige" was a period movie that didn't use a D.I.

In other words, if a period movie looks beautiful, it's not because it used a D.I. but because it was beautifully shot in beautiful locations using beautiful actors...
  • 0

#15 Tony Brown

Tony Brown
  • Sustaining Members
  • 689 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London

Posted 31 March 2007 - 06:14 PM

Interesting accent Mr Norton......
  • 0

#16 Jason Reimer

Jason Reimer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 152 posts
  • Student
  • Rochester, NY

Posted 31 March 2007 - 06:31 PM

The Iraq in Fragments documentary was shot on a DVX, so the HD trailer is just MiniDV that's been scaled up to HD.
  • 0

#17 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11938 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 March 2007 - 07:41 PM

Actually the HD quicktimes I'm watching, which use h.264 compression and look much better than Blu-Ray (at under half the bitrate!) put the lie to the idea that it's all about beautiful actors.

I first watched the trailer on the tiny windowed quicktime on the movie's website, then downloaded the HD version from Apple. Watching the 1920x816 version pixel-for-pixel on a 24" TFT, it's clearly a good representation as the grain is being reproduced. However, at this level of sharpness, Naomi Watts looks every one of her thirty-eight years, and minor focus problems are highlighted unforgivingly. What would be an easily-overlooked makeup problem or microscopic focus buzz is easily noticed.

It's fairly clear to me that watching this 15-megabit h.264 is actually a better, cleaner, sharper experience than I'm getting at the local multiplex. Doesn't deal with fades very well - that's the only time it falls over.

Phil
  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 March 2007 - 09:10 PM

If you're saying that Naomi Watts is not attractive enough, then you've got even higher standards than I do for beauty, which is fine...
  • 0

#19 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11938 posts
  • Other

Posted 31 March 2007 - 09:48 PM

She's beautiful.

She's just not 27 any more.

Oh, for Tank Girl...

Phil
  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 31 March 2007 - 10:30 PM

Not to take away from the obvious skills of Stuart Dryburgh, but I was only making the point that it's a little easier for a DP to create beautiful images when shooting a period movie. For example, a simple shot of a woman writing at her desk by a window, lit with just window light. Period dress, period house, garden outside the window compared to some college student in a white apartment with rock posters on the wall. Same camera, lens, film stock, lighting... but the first might get you praise for your beautiful cinematography, the second might not even get noticed. Throw in an exotic location for the period, even better. Add some candlelit night interiors, etc. Cast an attractive actress...
  • 0


Metropolis Post

CineTape

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Glidecam

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

Willys Widgets

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Abel Cine

CineTape

Glidecam

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Opal

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets