Swordfish

[Roberto Ditleff]

Does anybody knows what filter they used on the film "Sworfish". I mean it looks like there was a constant 85 filter on the lens , sometimes it looks like an enhancer plus a yellow......

Tks

Roberto Ditleff

[J. Michael Whalen]

I've never read anything about the shooting of that film, but I would think it's shoot 'straight' and then processes in post. If not, then they took a hell of a chance with it during filming. haha.

[Mike Williamson]

There's an article about the film in the June 2001 issue of "ICG Magazine", haven't read it myself unfortunately but I'm sure that would provide some info. My guess would be that they used Tobacco filters for some of the day exteriors, which would give it the heavy sepia feel in certain scenes, a sort of heavy yellow look. I did a test of different warming filters (Chocolate, Tobacco, Straw, 81EF, etc.) and I feel like "Swordfish" looks more like Tobacco than anything else.

 

As far as taking chances and creating a look in-camera, that's what cinematographers get paid for. It's not magic, you can shoot tests.

[Roberto Ditleff]

There's an article about the film in the June 2001 issue of "ICG Magazine", haven't read it myself unfortunately but I'm sure that would provide some info. My guess would be that they used Tobacco filters for some of the day exteriors, which would give it the heavy sepia feel in certain scenes, a sort of heavy yellow look. I did a test of different warming filters (Chocolate, Tobacco, Straw, 81EF, etc.) and I feel like "Swordfish" looks more like Tobacco than anything else.

 

As far as taking chances and creating a look in-camera, that's what cinematographers get paid for. It's not magic, you can shoot tests.

 

 

 

Thanks for the filter advise

[J. Michael Whalen]

As far as taking chances and creating a look in-camera, that's what cinematographers get paid for. It's not magic, you can shoot tests.

 

 

I understand that, however there is a step called 'Processing' that is usually how many people get 'the' look of the film. If more Directors had the guts of Tony Scott where he'd probably allow a DP to throw paint on the film as it was shooting, that would be great, but many aren't that brave.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

I understand that, however there is a step called 'Processing' that is usually how many people get 'the' look of the film. If more Directors had the guts of Tony Scott where he'd probably allow a DP to throw paint on the film as it was shooting, that would be great, but many aren't that brave.

 

Processing is a very important step. Without processing the image on the film would remain latent and the DP might as well have run leader through the camera.

Edited September 15, 2006 by Leo Anthony Vale

[John Holland]

Well this interesting , met Tony Scott a few times , think if i meet him again , will tell him to forget that silly [processing] thing and just dribble paint over the neg !!!! John Holland , London

[Stephen Williams]

he'd probably allow a DP to throw paint on the film as it was shooting, that would be great, but many aren't that brave.

 

 

Hi,

 

A director tried that on a Photosonics shoot, only trouble was the lens was in the way!

 

Stephen