Jump to content


Photo

Indiana Jones and Crystal Skull etc.


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#1 John Holland

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

Posted 22 May 2008 - 11:44 AM

I just got back from seeing it . Fun good movie just as its meant to be , but let down by the Cinematography . Lots of scenes [ mostly exteriors but not all] are overlit much to much diffusion and a DI which mucks up flesh tones most of the time . Complete waste of time shooting Anamorphic i saw a film print good projection but images are so soft its mad to have done this and not a photo/chem finish .
  • 0

#2 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 22 May 2008 - 12:41 PM

So they put the whole thing through DI?

Thanks George Lucas. . . .
  • 0

#3 John Holland

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

Posted 22 May 2008 - 12:44 PM

Yep they sure did EFilm did the dirty work .
  • 0

#4 David Calson

David Calson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Other
  • Georgia

Posted 22 May 2008 - 01:07 PM

I like how one critic sums it up, "It should have been called, "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Exposition."

This movie brings back memories of 'The Lost World' Some nostalgia but overall an ehhh what were you thinking mentality.

All the cgi and different cinematography really ticked me off.
  • 0

#5 Rupe Whiteman

Rupe Whiteman
  • Sustaining Members
  • 336 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 22 May 2008 - 05:48 PM

... just watching the trailers puts me off... looks pretty hokey... I'll save my money.
  • 0

#6 Michael Lehnert

Michael Lehnert
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1086 posts
  • Other
  • London, UK / Basel, CH

Posted 22 May 2008 - 06:49 PM

Uh Oh... that's not great to hear, John. I hope I won't have to agree with Karl's statement re. Lucas, because although I grew up with Han Solo and Kenner's action figures, Darth Lucas recent practices on every level have eaten up all credit gained during my childhood. I sometimes wish he would return doing what he did from the mid-1980s to late 1990s... nothing.

Thanks for sensitising me for some aspects of the finish and cinematographic minutiae. I will pay attention if I notice those as clearly as others have, plus the CGi integration which bothered me a bit in the trailers (but those split-seconds shouldn't bias me). As I feel a bit too pre-informed now to just follow the film, I will leave my partner unaware of that (I guess she took too much interest in Aatons, latitude and Dedolights, lately, too... bad influence from me...) and have her focus the plot, and then, we will put our two impressions together over a Starbuck half-skinny semi-decaf latte afterwards... or "hot water" as we call it!

Thanks for the first impressions, guys.

-Michael
  • 0

#7 Jason Anderson

Jason Anderson
  • Sustaining Members
  • 75 posts
  • Student
  • Denver, Co

Posted 22 May 2008 - 07:09 PM

If you get past all of the flaws it was entertaining, sort of funny and probably will still make more than enough money to pay back all the extra money spent on CGI. My major problems were the monkeys and the waterfall, and the fact that Indiana Jones did not get abducted

The lighting style was sort of strange in the exteriors at times, the background would look perfectly normal but the characters were lit in such a way that made them feel much to separated from the environment.

Where did I park my car :unsure: "It has gone to the space between space." :blink:

Jason Anderson
  • 0

#8 Jon-Hebert Barto

Jon-Hebert Barto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 May 2008 - 09:01 PM

Can't replicate the look of carbon arcs. Kaminski did his thing....I mean replicating a film look from almost thirty years ago..with todays equiptment? Wish it did look better, but it was good fun and further, I hope they make another. Although I did get a crappy seat (waayyy up front) the film did look muddy and there were too many halo effects around the people, just diffused to hell in some parts for my taste. But, again, the overall film/viewing experience was a treat.
  • 0

#9 Jon-Hebert Barto

Jon-Hebert Barto
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 349 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 May 2008 - 09:20 PM

One more note....

The sound in the opening scene was atrocious....the dialogue sounded as if it was over-dubbed with cassette tape from 1980. I actually was thinking, "Is this Harrison Fords voice?" Took me out of the film before it even started, really.

But on the look , I'll go see it again (mainly for a better seat!) and give my final opinion.

-Jonnie
  • 0

#10 Craig Knowles

Craig Knowles
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 182 posts
  • Director
  • Cleveland

Posted 22 May 2008 - 10:03 PM

Overall, I thought the cinematography was terrible, or at least, not at all suited to my taste.

The opening scene alone is brutal. Unmotivated lighting, obvious reflector fill lighting, and Kaminski's net-diffusion look from Munich, in my opinion, look terrible here. Other notable scenes that sucked, in my opinion, were the diner (where Shia talks to Harrison for the first time) where again, brutally unmotivated lighting was in full force, and almost every dark interior in the film -- the warehouse, the graveyard, the ending, etc.

Essentially, a guy walks into a pitch black cave with a yellow torch. Once inside, we see lights coming from all over the place -- red, yellow, blue, net-diffused highlights, rim lights, fill. I couldn't help but think "they're doing everything they can possibly do to take me out of this film and crush my suspension of disbelief."

Mix that with obvious CG elements, compositions and lighting that emphasize the limitations and edges of the set (as opposed to hiding them) and I left very angry at Kaminski. This looks nothing like previous Indy's, not even The Last Crusade, and it's obvious to me they didn't even try.

Not that they had to, of course, but for my taste -- someone who, like a lot of us, grew up with the previous films -- I was entirely unable to suspend my disbelief at what Kaminisk was try to do here.
  • 0

#11 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 May 2008 - 11:17 PM

Ironic considering Douglas Slocombe never once used a light meter on the original trilogy...


That is quite a feat, though surely his gaffer used one or he asked for x footcandles and got it. Care to explain more?
  • 0

#12 David Calson

David Calson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 269 posts
  • Other
  • Georgia

Posted 23 May 2008 - 12:13 AM

Indiana Jones is highlighted in next months AC, should be interesting to hear the justification for what went on.
  • 0

#13 Bill Totolo

Bill Totolo
  • Sustaining Members
  • 698 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 23 May 2008 - 03:55 AM

I shot a fun bit for G4 TV at the Fox in Westwood last night. Interviews like the 1st person in line to see the movie, the last person, etc. Turns out the 1st person in line was a producer for "Hitman".

Anyway look for it tonight and/or tomorrow on "Attack of the Show".
  • 0

#14 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 23 May 2008 - 04:50 AM

this was pilfered from yahoo, what is wrong with this picture? or what do you like? lighting? composition? etc?
  • 0

#15 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 May 2008 - 07:11 AM

Indiana Jones is highlighted in next months AC, should be interesting to hear the justification for what went on.

There is a shot article in this month's ICG magazine that does not go into much detail at all. They quote Kaminski as using 5274, but then there is a picture with a camera that is labeled as being loaded with 5217.
  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

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

Posted 23 May 2008 - 11:18 AM

There is a shot article in this month's ICG magazine that does not go into much detail at all. They quote Kaminski as using 5274, but then there is a picture with a camera that is labeled as being loaded with 5217.


Probably an efx shot.
  • 0

#17 John Holland

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

Posted 23 May 2008 - 11:57 AM

In my get home seen it hated cinematography post for people who yet to have the pleasure look for the HMi on the ground behind a jeep thing on a fast tracking shot where the ants are doing their bit its supposed to be the sun but we see the real sun at end of shot ! And at the screening there was a trailer for "Get Smart" which was shot on the Genesis which looked 100% better than Indy and that was just a trailer !!!
  • 0

#18 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:38 PM

Probably an efx shot.

On a 180mm then.
  • 0

#19 John Holland

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

Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:42 PM

Explain please Max.
  • 0

#20 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 May 2008 - 01:57 PM

I'm just thinking that efx shots are usually shot on wider lenses, so that you can actually composite something into it. Obviously one can do them on the 180mm as well. I'm just in general a bit vary of the information dispensed in AC and ICG.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Paralinx LLC

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Technodolly

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Ritter Battery

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Glidecam

CineLab

CineTape

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Abel Cine

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport