"The Informant" trailer [Archive] - High Definition Digital Video Forum

zenio

2009 July 2nd, 16:30

yes it looks awful because its overexposed and white is blowed up in post ,this was intentional but it looks so videoish , like 90% of hv20 with 35mm adapter ,you have to keep your eyes open to watch out for proper exposure,just compare this to this footage of red one :
http://red.cachefly.net/redreel/RedReel_h264_720.mov

This looks amazing ,makes you hate all those guys who get so terrible footage from their RED cameras.

2009 July 2nd, 17:00

Cool, another movie I don't have to watch now! :)

stav1606

2009 July 2nd, 21:19

I don't think it looks like video because of the RED. The lighting is terrible. In almost every scene there is some really strong light in the background, be it a window or a lamp, making everything back lit and therefore improperly exposed. And the color correction seems to be bad. I don't like the image but not because of the camera.

Chicken Warrior

2009 July 3rd, 02:42

Man, gotta love a forum where a bunch of aspiring mini-DV users can critique the crap out of a Matt Damon film. Really.

Although...the overblown highlights almost look intentional. Certainly in a few situations, like the plane and w/ interior lighting, that effect would most likely not occur naturally. Also, I don't give a hoot what it looks like if the writing is good, and granted it's recycling a tired subject matter, it seems to be a-okay.

Eugenia Loli-Queru

2009 July 3rd, 03:00

Chicken Warrior, the movie looks like this intentionally, we know that, thanks. The specific director is not an idiot. The video look and lighting is intentional even.

simulacro

2009 July 3rd, 09:41

the director is one of the best film directors right now, few ones in his level, maybe Winterbottom, Kiarostami, Von Trier... (i know this is a comment out of issue, it's just i saw recently Guerrilla and i loved it's clarity).

Snazzy Flapper

2009 July 3rd, 11:48

Looks great. I'll definitly see it.

lobstaman

2009 July 3rd, 13:33

Looks great. I'll definitly see it.

Agreed .. I'm very interested in watching it. :hv20-smilie03:

spideralex90

2009 July 4th, 15:08

Soderbergh is one of my favorites. The cinematography in this reminds of the Oceans films in shooting style. they need a new light technician though. However i will see this film because it looks humorous.

Chicken Warrior

2009 July 4th, 21:15

Chicken Warrior, the movie looks like this intentionally, we know that, thanks. The specific director is not an idiot. The video look and lighting is intentional even.

I was responding to the comments of lighting being 'terrible' and colour correction 'bad' - I guess those are generic terms, but in mind this is, in the opinion of some folks, 'bad taste' and not technically flawed, which is the impression I got. Wasn't trying to be snarky or sarcastic, and I apologize if I misunderstood.

Personally I have no problem with the 'overexposed' highlights - I think it adds style and interest.

stav1606

2009 July 6th, 17:23

I was responding to the comments of lighting being 'terrible' and colour correction 'bad' - I guess those are generic terms, but in mind this is, in the opinion of some folks, 'bad taste' and not technically flawed, which is the impression I got. Wasn't trying to be snarky or sarcastic, and I apologize if I misunderstood.

Personally I have no problem with the 'overexposed' highlights - I think it adds style and interest.

In that sense WHATEVER crap we see from someone who is considered an artist is going to be 'intentional' and an artistic intervention. I can film poop and light it terrible and say I give style and interest. So since there is no objective way to judge, the conversation ends here. The lighting looks terrible to me, and just because I might not be able to do it better does not deprive me of the right to criticize. Just because I am not a soprano does not mean that I cannot say that Madonna is terrible when she is singing live and so on....

Chicken Warrior

2009 July 9th, 14:13

In that sense WHATEVER crap we see from someone who is considered an artist is going to be 'intentional' and an artistic intervention. I can film poop and light it terrible and say I give style and interest. So since there is no objective way to judge, the conversation ends here. The lighting looks terrible to me, and just because I might not be able to do it better does not deprive me of the right to criticize. Just because I am not a soprano does not mean that I cannot say that Madonna is terrible when she is singing live and so on....

Wha....? I was not being sarcastic in the slightest when I said that people on this forum were able to judge a film's technical quality...

The lighting here adds style and interest not because it's bad, or because it's intentional, but because it makes sense.

'Overblown' highlights, in this context:

- Adds a surreal quality that reflects the main character's apparent distraction and disconnection.

- Mimmicks a lot of cheap corporate videos and sales pitch productions that might come out of the same type of dog-eat-dog office environment.

- Gives the impression that the characters could be oblivious to the existence of the great-outdoors and creates a strong separation between the corporate world and the everyday world.

- Is fitting of the character's apparent rose-coloured outlook on his career, despite the trouble he causes and the sticky situation he puts himself in.

If you wanted to make a film about poop in bad lighting, I would be happy to review it. I may or may not find any artistic qualities in it, but most likely not. Yes, these are just my opinions, just as it is your opinion that no feature film should have overblown whites in it.

Good luck with the poop.

funnychicken11

2009 July 9th, 14:28

Those are definitely not blown out highlights, weather it was done in post or in camera... It's a diffusion filter; probably optacle. They're not blown out, their diffused, and bleeding into the rest of the frame.

I agree with most of you, it looks terrible, but it's not technically 'blown out'.

He he, sorry if i seemed like a perfectionist there :hv20-smilie03:

bluesoldier11

2009 July 9th, 14:30

Just like most of the people in here, I don't like the backlighting, but the movie seems kind of funny so I might have to go watch it. Hopefully I can resist the urge to clean my glasses because that trailer made it seem like they were smeared with grease.

Snazzy Flapper

2009 July 9th, 14:46

I gues I would just hope that everyone who's bitching about how bad this looks will show us something better that they're created.

2009 July 9th, 14:55

...everyone who's bitching about how bad this looks will show us something better that they're created.

Often used, but rather poor argument! :hv20-smilie77:

mrblofish

2009 July 9th, 14:59

Often used, but rather poor argument! :hv20-smilie77:

how so????...... please enlighten....

Erik Bien

2009 July 9th, 15:11

It's a diffusion filter; probably optacle.

According to someone (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=441682&postcount=17) who visited the set, a double-fog filter (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=441770&postcount=25) was used.

bluesoldier11

2009 July 9th, 15:34

Often used, but rather poor argument! :hv20-smilie77:

I second that. :hv20-smilie09:

Snazzy Flapper

2009 July 9th, 16:27

Why is put up or shut up a poor comeback?

People are complaining about Soderbergs (sp) shooting style based on a trailer. It's easy to complain about what sucks, but its hard to make something that doesn't.

2009 July 9th, 16:30

Why is put up or shut up a poor comeback?

Ever hear of film critics?

Or, ever watch a kids' sport game? Ever notice how ALL the coaches have a beer gut and couldn't run half as fast as the slowest kids they are yelling at?

:hv20-smilie81:

Snazzy Flapper

2009 July 9th, 16:38

2009 July 9th, 16:52

The ones that really shine are the ones who love what they do, and know the sport based on experience.

Interesting [although predictable, as it ALWAYS happens with this argument] that you're moving away from having to be able to PERFORM the same or better as what is criticized ("put up or shut up" & "show us something better"), to now only having to have knowledge of the subject matter through experience, and to "love what they do". Even a great coach might have had TONS of experience, but SUCKED at the sport/discipline him/herself.

There's plenty of GREAT coaches (almost all in fact) that can't to a 10th of the person[s] they are criticizing, and there's plenty of critics who can give valid opinions/critiques of a particular event/subject without them being capable of doing any better.

This is rather absurd, but amusing nevertheless...

:hv20-smilie77:

It's easy to complain about what sucks, but its hard to make something that doesn't.That I agree with, but you can still have both, as we should have...

bluesoldier11

2009 July 9th, 16:53

Perhaps that's why I don't consider the opinion of most critics valid. Just having the title of critic doesn't bestow special knowledge on anyone. And anyone can be a coach. The ones that really shine are the ones who love what they do, and know the sport based on experience.

So if you only listen to the voice of those who have made something better than what they're critiquing, you'll only listen to award-winning filmmakers' opinions? Considering that you're in a DV-user forum, its gonna be hard to find someone who has successfully made a feature-length film of extraordinary quality. (Don't get me wrong, there are talented folks here that have completed this.) But basically you're criteria for criticism is similar to going into a physio ward full of wheelchair-bound people and telling them that they can't critique someone's running form.

Split Field Diopter

2009 July 15th, 13:33

Anyone on here that is talking about over blown hightlights being "bad" practice is a complete idiot.

Has anyone ever seen a movie by Stanley Kubrick? Almost all the windows in his films are blown out. He wasn't much of a technician/photographer though....

Oh wait. He had more talent in his little finger than all of us do in our entire bodies combined.

Most of you need to get a clue.

stav1606

2009 July 15th, 20:44

Anyone on here that is talking about over blown hightlights being "bad" practice is a complete idiot.

Oh you are so right, because the thing here is talent and culture. Because the blown highlights is not seen as a disadvantage of the camera but as an artistic intervention and because if a tested camera could not handle the overblown highlights we would say "it is so talented what you created".
I think the one who needs to get a clue is you.

Chicken Warrior

2009 July 15th, 21:46

Oh you are so right, because the thing here is talent and culture. Because the blown highlights is not seen as a disadvantage of the camera but as an artistic intervention and because if a tested camera could not handle the overblown highlights we would say "it is so talented what you created".
I think the one who needs to get a clue is you.

Wow, this is confusing. Do you mean to say that this effect is inevitable on a Red one?

I sincerely hope that's not what you're suggesting.

stav1606

2009 July 16th, 06:27

Wow, this is confusing. Do you mean to say that this effect is inevitable on a Red one?

I am just giving an example of why here (in this forum) any of these imperfections are not judged for their artistic innovation but as faults. I have seen a movie on the big screen shot on RED and did not see any problem. Therefore I am not suggesting anything like this.

Split Field Diopter

2009 July 16th, 08:32

I've very confused. Are you saying that RED cameras are incapable of handling highlights? Or that over exposing light is bad?

Anyway. To make my point more clear I will just say this.... The blown exposure is a choice. I happen to like it.

I think you guys need to stop reading your video manuals and start paying attention to actual movies.....

stav1606

2009 July 18th, 16:13

Since the blown expousre is a choice I can have my own opinion. I happen to not like it, and I was just defending the digital cameras by saying that I find the lighting is not good. I am not saying anything about the artistic choices of the director.

I am saying that I am for digital imaging, I am against overexposing, except if the weird feeling I get from it is the intention. I just dont "like" it as a general choice.

bluesoldier11

2009 July 18th, 16:58

The blown exposure is a choice. I happen to like it.

Thanks for that; its definitely a better way to express your opinion than saying people are idiots.

Ian-T

2009 July 18th, 18:34

As we move more into digital aquisitions we are going to see a lot more of this type of going againts the grain when it comes to creativity. I liked the look of this movie. Regardless of how some view it as video (in a lot of ways you are right)....it had that something special...and that is "not looking like anything else" on the big screen. I can think of another movie that looked different with a similar look...."Sky Captain"...which I believe was DV also (not sure). Plus, the movie seems funny as heck. Damon's character is one dumb cluster bomb. lol

I C

2009 July 21st, 17:21

That look is intentional, no two ways about it.

It's not entirely original even. It reminds me of a few Robert Redford movies actually. That 80s in-between video and film look with a bit of a soft glow. Low contrast and bright glowing all over the place. It's a look. In this case, judging by the way Matt Damon looks on the main page of that site, and that hairstyle, etc, they are PURPOSEFULLY making it look that way.

I think it will fit the movie well.

Erik Bien

2009 July 21st, 17:45

That look is intentional, no two ways about it. It reminds me of a few Robert Redford movies actually.

Or (one of my favorites) McCabe & Mrs. Miller (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067411/) — in addition to fog filters, Vilmos Zsigmond also (*gasp*) uses a zoom (to great effect, I might add): the then-revolutionary Angenieux 25-250mm (http://www.owyheesound.com/images/arri-IIc-25-250mm-fearless2.jpg).

Sminc

2009 July 25th, 09:35

Anyone on here that is talking about over blown hightlights being "bad" practice is ../.. little finger than all of us do in our entire bodies combined.
Agreed. Agreed. and agreed.

I think it is a camera flaw, possibly. Or one of the technicians faults. But who says that you shouldn't use this fault to an artistic advantage? The effect reminds me of an 'older' more 80's style home movie, yet has that cinema soul deep inside.

And hell, it's better than the Star Trek lens flare fiasco.

Sminc

Stunts

2009 July 31st, 08:24

I couldn't find the DoP's name on that page!

Back in the day when commercials and low budget feature films were shooting in this really new technology. I remember working with many DoP's that didn't know the first thing about lighting for video. Or even a video camera.

Its a different technique, one you dont need as many lamps.

Erik Bien

2009 July 31st, 16:28

I couldn't find the DoP's name on that page!

That's because Soderbergh has photographed all of his recent pictures himself (under the pseudonym "Peter Andrews (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001752/)").

Stunts

2009 August 1st, 10:48

That's because Soderbergh has photographed all of his recent pictures himself (under the pseudonym "Peter Andrews (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001752/)").

Maybe then he should have concentrated on Directing and not Lighting?

alpinestars_2002795

2009 August 6th, 16:46

Ya it should look good when redone Camera's cost like 100,000 dollars. I'd sure hope it look's good lol. Still doesn't compare in my opinion to the Sony Genisis F23 HDV. Then again the Genisis cost's 150,000 dollars, so I guess perhaps that's why. Yes Red One may have higher resolution. 4,000 x 4,000 Resolution, and the Sony Genisis F23 is just below 2,000 x 2,000 although to be shown on the big screen the standard kodak set long ago is 2,000 x 2000. Meaning the extra 2000 x 2000 in Resolution is wasted anyway. Although it is a cheaper solution for a indie film maker looking to try and compete with the big gun's at paramount, warner bro's, and Universal Studios to name a few, and the Red One camera does do a great job don't get me wrong. Although Resolution is only One measurement of a Camera's capabilities. There's also depth of feild test's. Color Depth test's. Clarity, and many other test's where Red One doesn't campare to the Sony's Genisis F23. So personally Red One is a good Cam. Although if i was shooting a real true film i'd want me a Sony Genisis F23 not a Red One. If it was at all possible, and if you can affford the Red One what's another 50 grand. LOL

Lastly Red One, requires special codec to decode it in an editing program. They use their own special codec. Which mean's most program's can't even handle it in editing suit time. Which is kinda not cool, that Avid doesn't even handle the codec. Considering Avid is and has been the industry standard in Film editing software as long as I can remember. Although some of the companies are catching on, Sony Vegas 9 Pro that i'm now using can Decode Red Code, or so they "Claim." I wouldn't know as i don't have 100,000 dollars to just pitch at a new camera unfortunatly. If i did. I'd have a really nice camera lol. Unfortunatly though. I am where I am like most of us on here that can only merely salivate at some of these camera's and "pray" for them to come down in price again.

Alpine-:hv20-smilie72:

Erik Bien

2009 August 6th, 17:12

Ya it should look good when redone Camera's cost like 100,000 dollars. I'd sure hope it look's good lol.

Dude, virtually everything you just said is completely wrong:

RED One costs $17.5K, quite some difference from $100K
The F23 records to HDCAM SR, not HDV
You can't buy a Genesis, only rent one (you can buy an F35, which is the same thing, however by the time you add the HDCAM SR deck, you're looking at more like ~$300K)
RED's native maximum resolution is 4096×2304 (4K 16x9)
Sony's F23 (and Panavision's Genesis/Sony F35) all have 1920x1080 native resolution.
Film doesn't have a 'native resolution' measured in pixels; that's determined by the scan it was digitized at (2K, 4K, etc.)
Avid, FCP, Adobe and Vegas can all handle RED's .R3D files

bluesoldier11

2009 August 6th, 17:34

Avid, FCP, Adobe and Vegas can all handle RED's .R3D files

So Red's files can be edited on a powerful consumer computer?

Erik Bien

2009 August 6th, 18:17

So Red's files can be edited on a powerful consumer computer?

Correct. Thanks to the QuickTime reference files and partial-decode options now available in Adobe CS4 (http://tv.adobe.com/#vi+f1510v1006), It doesn't even have to be that powerful (I know folks who cut RED footage (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=455808&#post455808) on three-year-old MacBook Pros), but final renders will be slooooow. The new RED Rocket card addresses this issue; it can transcode 4K .R3D to 2K DPX or ProRes at ~24 frames per second (i.e. "real time").

See the Workflow (http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5) section of the REDuser forum for system requirements in your favorite NLE.

bluesoldier11

2009 August 6th, 19:34

Sounds good. Hopefully I'll be able to scoop up a scarlet if I win a festival or two.

monkeynutsjr

2009 August 13th, 19:04

Dude, virtually everything you just said is completely wrong:

RED One costs $17.5K, quite some difference from $100K
The F23 records to HDCAM SR, not HDV
You can't buy a Genesis, only rent one (you can buy an F35, which is the same thing, however by the time you add the HDCAM SR deck, you're looking at more like ~$300K)
RED's native maximum resolution is 4096×2304 (4K 16x9)
Sony's F23 (and Panavision's Genesis/Sony F35) all have 1920x1080 native resolution.
Film doesn't have a 'native resolution' measured in pixels; that's determined by the scan it was digitized at (2K, 4K, etc.)
Avid, FCP, Adobe and Vegas can all handle RED's .R3D files
I was just about to post something similar to you when I saw your post. The internet sure does bring out the un-educated who act like they are educated on the subject. Thanks for posting this.

Duke

2009 August 14th, 14:04

RED One costs $17.5K, quite some difference from $100K

I'll only quibble with you about this one thing Erik. The camera body costs $17.5k. By the time you throw in lenses, monitor, handles, etc you're looking at $30-$34k. A few guys have posted that have their full kit cost $90k.

Nice camera, still cheaper than the others, but the $17.5k doesn't give you anything you can shoot with so it's not the real cost of the camera. It's not like saying an EX3 is $9k with the lens. And a Red Rocket card is $4-$5k, about the same as a custom computer.

Any more rumors on when the fixed Scarlet will come out? Seems Red has been quiet as a mouse of late.

Erik Bien

2009 August 14th, 14:35

I'll only quibble with you about this one thing Erik. The camera body costs $17.5k. By the time you throw in lenses, monitor, handles, etc you're looking at $30-$34k.

We've been through this before, but again: all professional cameras are priced this way, "body only." You'd need to add batteries, lenses, handles, monitor, etc. etc. to an F35, too. For price comparison purposes I still feel the "base price" of the body only is the most meaningful figure to use (everything else will vary considerably depending for instance if you're happy using a $6K set of ZF prime lenses or insist on a $120K set of Master Primes).

RED has stated they're changing their policy with regard to announcing target dates (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=30871); it seems even though they've always said "subject to change," some people are offended when a deadline is 'missed.' I wouldn't expect to hear a target shipping date until they're fairly confident it won't slip.

antman

2009 August 14th, 20:46

Nice post eric.

lordtangent

2009 September 8th, 17:13

RED's native maximum resolution is 4096×2304 (4K 16x9)

Nice summery Eric. But the Red One actually has even higher res than that now. As of the latest firmware there are modes where it can shoot the entire 4.5k horizontal resolution. Until now the area was not recorded and was only used for "look around" on the EVF. But now I guess they've managed to optimize the firmware and hardware timing's enough to record it. They've also added a newer higher bandwidth RedCode so the compression is even lower. So, more res, lower compression.