The Painted Veil

[Phil Rhodes]

I think this is particularly beautiful

 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/warner_indep...eil/medium.html

 

All I've seen of it is the trailer, but it's the sort of thing that I look at and have two thoughts:

 

- It's difficult to make something like that really visually rich, and they have;

 

and

 

- I have no idea how to do that.

 

Phil

[Guest]

First question is, what have you done with the real Phil? You claim to be Phil but you are saying some thing positive, is that really you? :D

 

Second, yes, looks like a nice piece of work.

 

R,

[Michael Nash]

- I have no idea how to do that.

 

I learned a long time ago that what you put in front of the camera is almost more important than how you shoot it! Just go to South China and turn on the camera. ;) Of course Dryburgh is no slouch!

 

Seriously, what in particular impresses you the most? It is indeed beautiful and well-crafted stuff, but I'm curious what about it makes you take such notice?

[Phil Rhodes]

Because it's "normal" without being bland. I can only make stuff look in any way nice if it's really stylised and odd-looking; the kind of thing that makes conservative viewers go "Hang on, it's all blue/green/orange and the contrast is really high."

 

What I can't do is make it look like that - stylish, classy, attractive, but in some objective way normal - a picture of a happenstance which just happens, without any obvious artifice, to look nice.

 

Phil

[Justin Hayward]

I can only make stuff look in any way nice if it's really stylised and odd-looking; the kind of thing that makes conservative viewers go "Hang on, it's all blue/green/orange and the contrast is really high."

 

Do you feel that you're covering for bad (or no) production design?

 

Lighting can be icing on the cake to good production design.

[Phil Rhodes]

Oh, probably.

 

P

[David Mullen ASC]

Since natural source lighting is so attractive in general, and period settings so color-controlled, it seems easier to make a period film look more photographically attractive.

 

Anyway, I think rich, subtle but natural-looking lighting that tells the story but doesn't need heavy manipulation is something that a lot of us hope we can accomplish someday.

[Rajavel Olhiveeran]

hi

that's ofcourse great looking. isn't it so much in the DI ....that such a kind of look is possible, though production design lays the basic foundation for it.

is it possible to get such a period look without DI.....? any such examples of period films! and how they manages it?

thanks cheers!

[Max Jacoby]

is it possible to get such a period look without DI.....? any such examples of period films! and how they manages it?

Try any period film before 1998.

[NathanCoombs]

Here's a film with no lighting and shot on miniDV, looks fantastic. Isn't it amazing how cinematographic a broken country can look.

 

http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/...gments/trailer/

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> shot on miniDV

 

So why the hell have they put an HD trailer up?!

 

Phil

[NathanCoombs]

Hi,

 

> shot on miniDV

 

So why the hell have they put an HD trailer up?!

 

Phil

 

bah, you know what I mean: miniDV, HDV...whatever... ;)

[Dan Salzmann]

Some period films (a very small list!) that I think look very good with no DI:

 

Aguirré: Wrath of God

Barry Lyndon

Bridge Over the River Kwai

The Duellists

Gandhi

Ran

Breaker Morant

Godfather II

Elephant Man

Once Upon A Time in America

Badlands

 

And apparently Iraq in Fragments was shot with a DVX100 SD camera.

[David Mullen ASC]

And there are plenty of period movies that did use a D.I. that wouldn't look much different if they hadn't -- i.e. their look is not the product of the D.I. tools.

 

I don't know if "The Painted Veil" did or didn't use a D.I. and it probably doesn't matter. These days, the main use of a D.I. is to convert Super-35 to scope; the color-correction is pretty straight-forward. Even a movie like "Children of Men" that used a D.I. didn't particular need to use one to create its look. They had film dailies on that shoot with the ENR process; the D.I. was partially needed to get that look without paying for ENR for the release prints (which is too bad because silver-retention prints look gorgeous.) The other use was to convert Super-35 to standard 1.85.

 

"The Prestige" was a period movie that didn't use a D.I.

 

In other words, if a period movie looks beautiful, it's not because it used a D.I. but because it was beautifully shot in beautiful locations using beautiful actors...

[Tony Brown]

Interesting accent Mr Norton......

[Jason Reimer]

The Iraq in Fragments documentary was shot on a DVX, so the HD trailer is just MiniDV that's been scaled up to HD.

[Phil Rhodes]

Actually the HD quicktimes I'm watching, which use h.264 compression and look much better than Blu-Ray (at under half the bitrate!) put the lie to the idea that it's all about beautiful actors.

 

I first watched the trailer on the tiny windowed quicktime on the movie's website, then downloaded the HD version from Apple. Watching the 1920x816 version pixel-for-pixel on a 24" TFT, it's clearly a good representation as the grain is being reproduced. However, at this level of sharpness, Naomi Watts looks every one of her thirty-eight years, and minor focus problems are highlighted unforgivingly. What would be an easily-overlooked makeup problem or microscopic focus buzz is easily noticed.

 

It's fairly clear to me that watching this 15-megabit h.264 is actually a better, cleaner, sharper experience than I'm getting at the local multiplex. Doesn't deal with fades very well - that's the only time it falls over.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

If you're saying that Naomi Watts is not attractive enough, then you've got even higher standards than I do for beauty, which is fine...

[Phil Rhodes]

She's beautiful.

 

She's just not 27 any more.

 

Oh, for Tank Girl...

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Not to take away from the obvious skills of Stuart Dryburgh, but I was only making the point that it's a little easier for a DP to create beautiful images when shooting a period movie. For example, a simple shot of a woman writing at her desk by a window, lit with just window light. Period dress, period house, garden outside the window compared to some college student in a white apartment with rock posters on the wall. Same camera, lens, film stock, lighting... but the first might get you praise for your beautiful cinematography, the second might not even get noticed. Throw in an exotic location for the period, even better. Add some candlelit night interiors, etc. Cast an attractive actress...

[Rajavel Olhiveeran]

well said david......

recently i had a similar experience...my first film had songs with a group of college girls and some funky music...it was shot like a music video

my second feature had a song with a beggar on the streets......which i had skip bleached.....i thought that i had captured the right mood by that tone......

now...when i had these two on my showreel.......some guys (wanabe directors) iritated the guts out me by asking things like...."why is ur 1st movie better looking than the second......didnt u get the right equipments'......" your work is better in the 1st" and things.........

 

just reminded of that......when u said that....what stands before the camera influences all......+ vely or - ve ly...depending waht stands......

cheers

[Oliver Ojeil]

I remember when I first saw the trailer, I was taken by the magic of the locations and photography. I love the natural lighting feel it casts. I am personally biased to this kind of cinematography, and about once every decade a movie like The Painted Veil or Out of Africa, etc. come out. The more natural looking the cinematography is, the more I am taken by the magic of the location and the actors. With all this said, unfortunately I couldn't see it when it came out in theaters! I'll just wait until it comes out on DVD and I'll watch it on a 43" LCD.