Jump to content


Photo

The Island


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 Robert Hughes

Robert Hughes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Sound Department
  • Minneapolis

Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:23 AM

Just caught this flick at the cineplex, perfect fare for a July evening in the 90's.

The nightmare sequences caught my attention with their extreme color intensities. Was this effect created in digital post, or by clever photo stock and chemistry manipulation?
  • 0

#2 Preston Herrick

Preston Herrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Producer
  • Washington

Posted 24 July 2005 - 02:34 AM

According to AC magazine, the film (at press time) was scheduled to go through a DI. The dream sequences were directly attributed to the DI process.
  • 0

#3 Jayson Crothers

Jayson Crothers
  • Sustaining Members
  • 351 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 24 July 2005 - 05:52 PM

Did anyone else catch the vignetting in the corners on the aerial work at the very beginning (and very end) - it was the fly-by stuff of the island. Especially with a DI, I'm not sure why they'd be kept in the film.

It was interesting to see Mauro Fiore doing some work that directly echoed Kaminski - the heavy backlight / massive lens flare stuff especially (towards the end in the clone center - I'm assuming that with the trailer out I'm not spoiling anything for anyone).

What I found myself looking at was how well I thought close ups of Ewan McGregor looked, but some of the close ups on Scarlett Johansson seemed a bit more raw and less careful.

I had a good time though - haven't got my AC issue yet though.............
  • 0

#4 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 25 July 2005 - 02:37 AM

...but some of the close ups on Scarlett Johansson seemed a bit more raw and less careful.

I have only seen the trailer and some publicity stills, but that was my thought exactly. He really didn't light her in a flattering way. A poly from below is the way to get her to look good.
  • 0

#5 Preston Herrick

Preston Herrick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts
  • Producer
  • Washington

Posted 25 July 2005 - 06:09 PM

Yes, I noticed the vignetting too and thought it a bit odd. (Also noticed dust in the gate that varied from shot to shot. Theater didn't mask the edges very well.)
  • 0

#6 Boone Hudgins

Boone Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Other
  • Toledo, OR

Posted 27 July 2005 - 01:03 AM

A lot of cinematographers are adding vignetting in the DI nowadays. Harkening back to the silent picture days, possibly.
  • 0

#7 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 27 July 2005 - 01:06 AM

A lot of cinematographers are adding vignetting in the DI nowadays.  Harkening back to the silent picture days, possibly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


But this wasn't a soft vignette.
  • 0

#8 Boone Hudgins

Boone Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Other
  • Toledo, OR

Posted 27 July 2005 - 01:37 AM

Hm. I wonder if it was intentional or not. I'll probably watch it on Thursday, mostly because it's Mauro Fiore and anamorphic.

I like vignetting, subtle or no. I probably couldn't explain why.
  • 0

#9 Dominik Muench

Dominik Muench
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brisbane

Posted 28 July 2005 - 06:24 AM

what was it shot on?

i thought in some scenes they did something to johanssons face, cause the side thats closer to the cam is always smother than the other and almost "airbrushed".
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 28 July 2005 - 09:40 AM

35mm anamorphic (Panavision).

They used digital diffusion in the digital intermediate stage to selectively defocus and diffuse portions of Scarlett Johanson's face. Perhaps she had a horrible pimple or the director became overly obsessed with removing some natural feature on her face like a mole or crease... it was rather distracting, I thought, because the diffused spot was also degrained.
  • 0

#11 Tim Tyler

Tim Tyler

    Administrator

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1291 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Olympia, WA (US)

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:51 AM

...it was rather distracting, I thought, because the diffused spot was also degrained.

I agree. It looked like if they just backed the softening effect off a bit, it wouldn't have been so noticable. I wonder if, while making all these decision looking at a 40" CRT, they just couldn't see how it would look on a 40' screen?
  • 0

#12 Saul Pincus

Saul Pincus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 July 2005 - 04:55 PM

But this wasn't a soft vignette.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


According to the AC article, Bay had Panavision make anamorphic versions of a few close-focus sphericals and an Angenieux zoom. I haven't seen the film, but I wonder if the shots in question used these conversions?

Incidentally, didn't Panavision also make a lens for him on "Pearl Harbor," a 20mm anamorphic?

Saul

Edited by Saul Pincus, 28 July 2005 - 04:59 PM.

  • 0

#13 Saul Pincus

Saul Pincus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 114 posts
  • Director

Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:57 PM

According to the AC article, Bay had Panavision make anamorphic versions of a few close-focus sphericals and an Angenieux zoom.  I haven't seen the film, but I wonder if the shots in question used these conversions?
Saul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I just found another fascinating article on these conversions at Millimeter.com:

http://millimeter.co...deo_bay_method/

Much more detail here. Very cool.

Saul
  • 0

#14 Dominik Muench

Dominik Muench
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 443 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Brisbane

Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:31 PM

im pretty positive they did that with the girls in "Sin City" as well.
i also think it is very distracting and gives the whole thing a very unnatural fake look.
  • 0

#15 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 July 2005 - 03:20 AM

Incidentally, didn't Panavision also make a lens for him on "Pearl Harbor," a 20mm anamorphic?


They did. A 20mm C-Series lens.
  • 0

#16 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 29 July 2005 - 03:32 AM

Great article, especially on the lenses. Shame they don't use all this technology to make a better movie though.
  • 0

#17 Boone Hudgins

Boone Hudgins
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Other
  • Toledo, OR

Posted 30 July 2005 - 10:22 PM

I see what you guys mean by vignette now. It looked almost like the rounded corners of the film frame. I'm not sure what caused it, and it seemed to only be in, like, two helicopter shots. 2nd unit?

The film looked pretty nice. I didn't notice overabundant face softening, but none of the shots lasted very long. It probably would have been even more of an issue if Michael Bay could pick a shot and stick with it. The movie itself was kind of dumb, though. Thankfully it didn't try to pretend to be anything else but dumb.
  • 0

#18 Jonathan Bryant

Jonathan Bryant
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 284 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Athens, GA

Posted 01 August 2005 - 11:43 PM

They used a Arri 235 which looks like a fun camera due to its size. What is the going rate on one of those? Any limitations compared to other Arri cameras? Also I am just curious as to how much a 235 would cost? And no I don't plan on buying one so nobody has to inform me of the cost savings of renting. Though a 235 would make a great bday present or xmas stocking stuffer.
  • 0

#19 Adam Frisch FSF

Adam Frisch FSF
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2009 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, USA

Posted 02 August 2005 - 12:53 AM

I think the 235 is about $60.000.
  • 0

#20 Danish Puthan Valiyandi

Danish Puthan Valiyandi
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Germany

Posted 02 August 2005 - 02:55 AM

I think the 235 is about $60.000.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


wrong, it´s in the area of 30000 euro , but even without vf I think
  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

The Slider

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Technodolly

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

CineTape

Ritter Battery

CineLab

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Technodolly

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products