Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

[John Morrison]

So I dragged my wife to see Sky Captain this weekend and was surprised to see no mention of it here. The story wasn't particularly smart, but holy cow what great images, the vintage sound effects and the 30's film noire style lighting made this movie a vision to behold. I thought the acting and directing were spot on for re-creating the old style serial thriller. Not a bad way to spend an hour and a half plus. :) Who else has seen it and what did you think ?

[Bill Totolo]

Not my cup o'tea.

[Ryan Puckett]

Definitely one of the weakest stories I have ever seen in a theater, but the visuals were a treat.

It was great to see the vintage style eyelights, the nice soft slashes of light placed just right.

Not quite the same as watching an original film noir, but fun anyway.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Huge amounts of it were bluescreen. The rest was treated rather interestingly in post, having been shot on F900s. They pulled all the colour out of it, then recoloured it with colour swatches taken from the original plates similarly to how you'd colourise a black and white movie. The CGI sequences looked incredibly gaudy when first rendered, but it was all tied together with this odd technique.

 

It's starting to trail here - although it did trail a bit some months ago - and it is fairly soft, presumably a result of F900 plus diffusion of various types - clearly mainly digital on the bluescreen shots. I like it, though.

 

Phil

[Tenolian Bell]

I was amazed by the opening sequence. This film made Manhattan appear as the world of tomorrow. I imagine in the 1930's this is the image most people had of the dynamic stature of New York City.

 

The original purpose of the observation deck on the Empire State Building was for docking zeppelins. But in reality proved too dangerous and was never really done. But an idea shown with graphic astonishment in the film.

 

Pretty much after they left NY, then the astonishment of the animation wore off and I started to become bored with it. The soft tones, the muted colors, light and shadow acting in ways that defy the laws of physics.

 

Definitely an interesting exercise in showing what can be done, and the possiblilites of photorealistic animation. I would have been satisfied with the first third of the film.

 

I think what this clearly shows is that 2K is the absolute bottom in this type of venture, with 4K being the ultimate goal. Under 2K is just too soft.

[Greg Gross]

I read somewhere that they got all the actors together for one week and had

them do their scenes in front of a blue screen. Everything else was done digitally,

special effects. I'm going to see it this weekend. I try to see every new film that

gets released.

 

Greg Gross, Professional Photographer

Student cinematographer

[Morgan Peline]

Interesting article in August 2004 ICG magazine:

 

http://www.cameraguild.com/magazine/stoo804.htm

 

I haven't seen it yet but I suppose this is how future low budget projects are going to try to make things look grander.

[Max Jacoby]

I read somewhere that they got all the actors together for one week

 

It was a lot more than just one week. Despite it being bluescren, they had a regular shooting schedule, including reshoots.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I thought it looked like a very, very good computer game introductory sequence. Stuff like that is often rendered for that kind of purpose; not usually to that kind of level. I thought the graphics and writing kind of bridged the gap between VGs like "Wing Commander" and feature films.

 

Now that might be read as a pretty big insult, but it happens to be a genre I'm quite into, and I enjoyed the film.

 

Phil

[Tenolian Bell]

Thinking back to it. At the point we were looking at man made objects (concrete and steel) the animation worked a lot better. The illusion worked better. Maybe because of the texture of man made objects.

 

But later in the film when we are looking at natural landscapes. Mountains, forests, the illusion doesn't work so well. That's just not how it looks in real life. To me the texture just wasn't right.

[Mike Brennan]

I think what this clearly shows is that 2K is the absolute bottom in this type of venture, with 4K being the ultimate goal. Under 2K is just too soft.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It does gets sharper if digitally projected so 4k, although desirable may be less of an immediate issue with digital projection.

 

It was a lot more than just one week. Despite it being bluescreen, they had a regular shooting schedule, including reshoots.

 

The shoot lasted about six weeks. First completely bluescreen movie so they say.

 

I wasn't convinced by the switch to almost full colour in parts. Superb key at times, notably the detail of fine strands of blonde hair.

 

Didn't see any of those vertical lines that are supposed to be on every f900 :)

 

Mike Brennan

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Bear in mind you're watching HDCAM that's been burned out to film; it'd look a hell of a lot better projected digitally.

 

Phil

[Tenolian Bell]

Perhaps...... but digital projection does bring its own set of problems.

[Just Initials]

I'd much prefer digital projection,

Film projection wipes out most of the color and saturation,

 

I didn't truly appreciate most of the movies I saw until they came out on DVD,

(LOTR, Spiderman, etc.)

 

So with a movie like this that's intentionally washed out, I'd hate to see it in a theater.

I'll wait and rent it...

 

;)

[Max Jacoby]

I'd much prefer digital projection,

Film projection wipes out most of the color and saturation,

 

'Scuse me?

 

Film projection is much better at handling colors than digital projection. Not to even mention contrast, resolution and shadow detail.

 

If you serioulsy think that dvd gives you a better picture than theatrical projection then you must have been to some truly abysimal theatres that are the exception, not the norm.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I wouldn't necessarily say it's better at handling colours - it depends very much on circumstance. I've seen digital projectors that people were actually considering using as a grading reference (with Truelight correction); I believe Framestore CFC are evaluating this at the moment.

 

In practice, because of their great cost, digital projectors are often underspecced for the job they're being asked to do. In my experience, which includes projectors from desktop models all the way up to very upscale six-figure units, they're only ever any good when used at a maximum of two-thirds the advertised capability. It's therefore quite easy to get one to look very good on a smallish screen in your living room, and very easy indeed to find commercial installations which are hopelessly lacklustre.

 

Phil

[Landon D. Parks]

I cant understand why a HUGE budget studio picture would use a 900 to shoot bluescreen with, not only could they have used 35mm film in the first place, but they would have also at least used Vipers or 950's... 900's are kind of old and out-dated now.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

It wasn't a huge studio picture, it was practically an independent movie. That's the entire point - haven't you read ANY information about it? Five minutes with Google will show you budget estimates of seventy million, and quotes that it'd have cost twice as much to do conventionally.

 

And anyway, Landon, when was Sky Captain actually shot? You obviously know, since you're telling us that the 900 was outdated when it happened. I don't want to be as unpleasant - well, actually I do, but we'll pretend I don't - but you're coming off as opinionated as you are inexperienced. Just to make this clear - you aren't allowed to say "900's are kind of old and out-dated" yet. I wouldn't say that, I've only come across them very briefly. Have you ever actually had one on your shoulder?

 

Phil

[Landon D. Parks]

No phil, But seeing as how its been around for about 6 years or so, there is better options out there.

 

 

and $70 Million is no where near an indie film. Thats more than what a majority of studio flicks cost.

 

 

Also, what do you consider "conventional"? Being shoot on 35mm instead of Hd? I see 35mm costing them a few million more, but not twice as much at all.

 

Is there somthing I'm not getting here?

 

and no, I have never had a 900 on my shoulder, and never will for that matter. Im not a cameraman.

 

And I may not know a lot about cinematography, but I know a good bit about filmmaking in general. And having investigated the 900, 950 and viper for several years now, and I still think the 900 is an outdated camera.

[Tenolian Bell]

They did have reason for using the 900. At the time they were shooting the Viper wasn't practicle, I don't remember why.

 

The logic of shooting an all green screen film in HD over 35mm is pretty clear. But the cost of doing so is soft muted tones.

 

I'm sure if there was a better camera than the 900 at the time they would've much preferred to use it.