Jump to content


.,,


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Tim Partridge

Tim Partridge
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2007 - 09:08 AM

---
  • 0

#2 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 10 December 2007 - 12:08 PM

I also "Stardust" when it first came out yes it was shot anamorphic but i agree you wouldnt have thought so let down again by a crap DI . I seem to be only person who thinks "The Golden Compass" is well shot and that was S35 so not like me to admire a DI going via that post finish .
  • 0

#3 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:24 PM

so not like me to admire a DI going via that post finish .

Indeed John, we all here are getting worried about you. Next thing you'll insist that digital is better than film ;)
  • 0

#4 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:34 PM

I wish that was true Max. Think to many people have been suckered into the DI route by the labs trying to save their arses loads of money to made at the moment forget the quality .
  • 0

#5 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 10 December 2007 - 02:43 PM

I agree John, when I am seeing a film shot in anamorphic that went through a 2K DI I cannot help thinking how much nicer it would have looked if they had done photochemical post. I can count the good DIs I have seen on the fingers of one hand.
  • 0

#6 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 12 December 2007 - 04:22 PM

I agree John, when I am seeing a film shot in anamorphic that went through a 2K DI I cannot help thinking how much nicer it would have looked if they had done photochemical post. I can count the good DIs I have seen on the fingers of one hand.


The DI for 'Darjeeling Limited' didn't help much.
The zoom they had was very soft, I think going to 2K only made it softer.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 12 December 2007 - 08:10 PM

There is nothing particularly wrong with the way "Stardust" was shot -- it was rich-looking (particularly the early home life scenes) and well-exposed. The sort of look that the studios tend to love, nothing too edgy. Part of the problem is that many of the scenes didn't really have an obvious light source, sort of that generic big set lighting where you see all the action and the art direction. And that's not so much of a knock because those sorts of big sets are hard to light if there is no strong indication as to where the light is coming from in the design -- just a lot of high walls all around.

It just isn't as interesting to look at as "The Golden Compass", for a number of reasons. And the more contemporary setting of that movie (vaguely early 20th century design) makes the soft light sources motivated in a way that the vaguely medieval setting of "Stardust" doesn'tm because that "period" calls out for darker lighting from torches, candles, etc.
  • 0


Visual Products

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Opal

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc