Jump to content


Photo

Come on, Star Wars


  • Please log in to reply
208 replies to this topic

#1 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 12134 posts
  • Other

Posted 15 December 2017 - 03:16 AM

Much as I hesitate to reinforce any reputation I may have as an unsympathetic, malcontent curmudgeon, this sort of thing is OK on the sort of stuff I shoot because I'm shooting stuff for precisely three dollars. It is not OK on Star Wars. Well, actually, it's not OK on anything, really, is it? But it's especially not OK on something that probably cost well north of two hundred million dollars.

 

mark.jpg

 

focus (ˈfəʊkəs) noun: the state or quality of having or producing clear visual definition.


  • 0

#2 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2017 - 03:59 AM

There were 3 out of focus shots in the entire movie that I saw... one of which was a close up of Luke and yet again I was shocked.

I don't understand out of focus shots in big movies, I really don't. They're doing dozens of takes, they know it was out of focus, as it's clear as day through the lens. So when the camera stops, the operator can see and say "hey that last take was out of focus" and the script person would make a note, the director would re-shoot with it properly in focus and that would be the end of that.

So yea... umm, no I don't get it at all. Interstellar had many out of focus shots as well, but Hoyte is like MR. No-light, so I get it. The Last Jedi was very well lit and honestly, I thought the cinematography over all was great.
  • 0

#3 Mark Dunn

Mark Dunn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2641 posts
  • Other
  • London

Posted 15 December 2017 - 04:42 AM

It's a good job I stopped going to the pictures a few years ago, then, because I always notice Sean Young's first closeup in Blade Runner where the focus is half an inch off.


Edited by Mark Dunn, 15 December 2017 - 04:42 AM.

  • 0

#4 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 822 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 15 December 2017 - 05:45 AM

Well, if there is something out of focus on a movie it is probably because the director and the editor (OR the producer) chose that out of focus take over other ones because of the acting, it doesn't matter at all as it is something that people are used to seeing now and only 1% of the people in the world is going to take notice of that.

 

Particularly, that scene of The Last Jedi is so fantastic that 3 seconds of Luke out of focus don't make a difference because you're paying attention to other things.

 

Have a good day. 


  • 1

#5 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1471 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 15 December 2017 - 06:26 AM

The late cameraman Andreas Demmer I knew and had the pleasure to work with once told me that the focus plane, when it has to be placed somewhere at a large stop, should be on the root of the nose of a character or on the eyes. Eyes are often more difficult to see focus with. Demmer had assisted Eugen Schüfftan. I shouldn’t understand such foul work either. The core of the technicians cast must work like gears. Lapped and oiled gears. The oil is the money paid for high-class work.

 

Yes, there are out-of-focus takes in many movies.


  • 1

#6 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7329 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 15 December 2017 - 10:20 AM

It happens; budget notwithstanding and often times, most times I'd say, they'll by DEFAULT pick that shot. I think there's some kind of quantum entanglement between the film and the editor; and when it's out of focus, the waveform collapses and that is the only shot to be picked!


  • 2

#7 Vladimir Cazacu

Vladimir Cazacu
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Student
  • Bucharest

Posted 15 December 2017 - 11:09 AM

Do we need to talk about Interstellar, Murder on the Orient Express and any other film recently shot on 70mm / Imax then? 

 

We can all dream and look forward to the day where our light-field equipped cameras will be able to be refocused in post, and where the editor/director will choose to butcher our work further  :D as is the current trend of reframing in post.


Edited by Vladimir Cazacu, 15 December 2017 - 11:10 AM.

  • 0

#8 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1157 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 15 December 2017 - 01:13 PM

I haven't seen this but that looks like it was enlarged and someone threw a blur on it to hide pixelation.
  • 0

#9 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 822 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 15 December 2017 - 01:15 PM

Vladimir, Greg (1st AC on Interstellar and many other big budget movies) has talked on these forums about the movie quite extensively and the reason behind the out of focus seconds on some of the shots (which are like 0.5% of the movie). 

 

It happens that Nolan and Hoytema were very aware of that. 

 

Plus sometimes directors want things slightly out of focus at some stage because it looks more real to them (happens a lot on commercials), mix that with the current trend of shooting at T1.3 while trying some "guerrilla" style with no time and you will see the reason behind why things are out of focus too. 

 

Tyler, If you are saying that Hoyte is "no-light" because he uses primarily natural light and that might be the reason behind the "out of focus" shots, I suggest that you take a look at the American Cinematographers where his movies are featured, be aware that you might be astonished.

 

Using natural light doesn't have anything to do with things out of focus. 

 

Have a lovely day!


  • 0

#10 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2017 - 02:12 PM

It happens; budget notwithstanding and often times, most times I'd say, they'll by DEFAULT pick that shot. I think there's some kind of quantum entanglement between the film and the editor; and when it's out of focus, the waveform collapses and that is the only shot to be picked!


HA! lol :D
  • 0

#11 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2017 - 02:16 PM

Using natural light doesn't have anything to do with things out of focus.


If ya run all the way open, you're going to struggle with focus.

If you light for T3 or a more closed down stop, all of a sudden it's easier to focus.

I've seen every second of BTS there is to see on Interstellar and there are A LOT of scenes which are underlit from my perspective. I'm also infatuated with the movie, so I've seen it A LOT. I just don't much care for the cinematography.

Hoyte did a better job with Dunkirk for sure. However, there are still some scenes in Dunkirk that you look twice at because they could have been shot so much better if they just added some light!
  • 0

#12 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2177 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 15 December 2017 - 02:50 PM

I wonder if there was some way you could talk directly to him to give him some much needed advice.. maybe a trainee position on your next feature ..?


  • 0

#13 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3329 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2017 - 02:52 PM

If ya run all the way open, you're going to struggle with focus.

If you light for T3 or a more closed down stop, all of a sudden it's easier to focus.

I've seen every second of BTS there is to see on Interstellar and there are A LOT of scenes which are underlit from my perspective. I'm also infatuated with the movie, so I've seen it A LOT. I just don't much care for the cinematography.

Hoyte did a better job with Dunkirk for sure. However, there are still some scenes in Dunkirk that you look twice at because they could have been shot so much better if they just added some light!

I don't think you can necessarily judge the light levels on a set from the BTS material. How do you know how the BTS operator was exposing? How do you know how Hoyte was exposing?


  • 1

#14 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 822 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 15 December 2017 - 04:55 PM

If ya run all the way open, you're going to struggle with focus.

If you light for T3 or a more closed down stop, all of a sudden it's easier to focus.

I've seen every second of BTS there is to see on Interstellar and there are A LOT of scenes which are underlit from my perspective. I'm also infatuated with the movie, so I've seen it A LOT. I just don't much care for the cinematography.

Hoyte did a better job with Dunkirk for sure. However, there are still some scenes in Dunkirk that you look twice at because they could have been shot so much better if they just added some light!

 

Tyler, using natural light doesn't have anything to do with using a T1.3 stop by default.

 

I use a lot of natural light and I usually shoot around T2.8

When I don't use natural light I also usually shoot around T2.8

 

And that's not just me, plenty of Oscar winner cinematographers (and non-Oscar winners) do the same. 

 

On the other hand, there are millions of dops in the world who shoot wide open because they like those kind of aesthetics, some of them are aware of the fact that things will not be in focus all the time and some others don't. 

 

Pretty sure that Hoytema is one of those who are aware.


  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20039 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 15 December 2017 - 05:34 PM

I think Greg already told us that Hoytema likes to light and shoot at T/2 when he can.


  • 1

#16 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 822 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 15 December 2017 - 05:50 PM

That's right, and he knows that by lighting that way there will be moments slightly out of focus which don't seem to be a problem for him or for Nolan. 


  • 1

#17 Vladimir Cazacu

Vladimir Cazacu
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 35 posts
  • Student
  • Bucharest

Posted 15 December 2017 - 05:51 PM

Vladimir, Greg (1st AC on Interstellar and many other big budget movies) has talked on these forums about the movie quite extensively and the reason behind the out of focus seconds on some of the shots (which are like 0.5% of the movie). 

 

It happens that Nolan and Hoytema were very aware of that. 

 

Plus sometimes directors want things slightly out of focus at some stage because it looks more real to them (happens a lot on commercials), mix that with the current trend of shooting at T1.3 while trying some "guerrilla" style with no time and you will see the reason behind why things are out of focus too. 

 

I realize now that my comment is in rather poor taste and that I might have phrased it a tad bit too seriously. It was meant to be taken as a light little joke, so I do feel the need to apologise for that.

 

I have the utmost respect for Gregory Irwin, Michael Green (focus puller on Murder on the Orient Express) and for any other 1st AC's that would have the stones to take on such a challenging job, as pulling focus at a T/2 on Medium Format is an almost impossible task (which is what I was hinting at).


  • 0

#18 Miguel Angel

Miguel Angel
  • Sustaining Members
  • 822 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Spain / Ireland / South Africa

Posted 15 December 2017 - 06:09 PM

 

I realize now that my comment is in rather poor taste and that I might have phrased it a tad bit too seriously. It was meant to be taken as a light little joke, so I do feel the need to apologise for that.

 

I have the utmost respect for Gregory Irwin, Michael Green (focus puller on Murder on the Orient Express) and for any other 1st AC's that would have the stones to take on such a challenging job, as pulling focus at a T/2 on Medium Format is an almost impossible task (which is what I was hinting at).

 

No need to apologise! I sure misunderstood the intention! :ph34r:   ;)


  • 1

#19 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 377 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 15 December 2017 - 06:52 PM

Anyone want to talk about what they thought of the film, plot wise or general quality wise?


  • 0

#20 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4032 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 16 December 2017 - 03:16 AM

Anyone want to talk about what they thought of the film, plot wise or general quality wise?


There is another thread for that entitled "The Last Jedi"
  • 1


Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Tai Audio

Technodolly

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Abel Cine

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly