Juno

[Brad Grimmett]

I just saw this tonight. What a great movie! Great script, great acting, great directing, and great cinematography that supported the story very nicely. This is by far the most original film I've seen all year.

Congrats to Eric Steelberg!

I may have to see it again and pay better attention to the cinematography, as well as to hear all the lines I missed because the audience was laughing so hard from the line before.

[Kevin Zanit]

Beat me to it Brad. Elhanan and I saw the film the other night. It was excellent, looked great Eric, congratulations. Plus the film was great, a lot of fun, congrats on being a part of the project!

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Thanks guys! It's been quite a ride with all the reviews and now the Golden Globe noms. I'm trying to find out where it's showing digitally...I saw it at the Arclight Hollywood last week and the projection was actually too bright.

[David Mullen ASC]

It's a great movie, and looks great too.

 

I saw it at the Landmark, which oddly enough, had a projection problem - the bottom of the screen kept drifting out of focus slightly, which screwed up the final pullback in the movie because the two main characters went soft as the camera pulled back.

[K Borowski]

It's a great movie, and looks great too.

 

I saw it at the Landmark, which oddly enough, had a projection problem - the bottom of the screen kept drifting out of focus slightly, which screwed up the final pullback in the movie because the two main characters went soft as the camera pulled back.

 

Storm up to the projection room, whip out your ASC member card, and ask for your money back (not that a projectionist would even know what The ASC is)? ;)

[John Holland]

This a bit off subject [ Juno not here yet] its just seems you have more bad projection problems in the US then we do here ,although everything follows through a few years later to here , i remember seeing a Peter Jackson horror movie name i dont recall Micheal J . Fox was the lead anyway watched this film in a multiplex in Colorado Springs . It was 2.40 format most of which was not on the screen but on the right hand side of the wall of the cinema . Tried to complain but was told your the "only one ."

[David Mullen ASC]

It's hard for a projectionist to easily and quickly fix it when the problem is that the film is not flat in the projector gate. That could be a mechanical problem that needs fixing later, or the gate has to be pulled and cleaned out, etc.

[John Holland]

Yes i do know the mechanics just worried me that no else in the audience cared !

[Kevin Zanit]

Saw it in the new Arclight in Sherman Oaks, was pretty good projection and sound.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

When I was screening a print at Deluxe the right side of the screen was soft so I'm not surprised. I ran into David at the Kodak Vision 3 thing and we were recounting bad projection stories...amazing how common it is.

 

I can't stand film projection. So inconsistent. For all the drawbacks digital has, you gain so much more in other areas.

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't stand film projection. So inconsistent. For all the drawbacks digital has, you gain so much more in other areas.

 

Though I suspect that when there are just as many digital projectors as there are film ones, and they start to age and drift in tolerances, the law of averages will catch up and we'll see all sorts of new problems - and a few classic ones!

[Brad Grimmett]

I saw it at the Grove and the projection was fine.

[Bill Totolo]

Just caught it at The Landmark. Congrats, Eric on a great job.

I'd love to have an animated credit like that some day.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

They start rolling out to digital screens this Friday, unfortunately none in the LA area. But there will be digital screens in Chicago, NYC, Phily, DC, most major cities.

 

I poked my head into a screening yesterday at the Sherman Oaks Arclight and it looked pretty good.

[Rory Hanrahan]

Saw this tonight (with some fellow Cine.com users, no less) and truly loved the film. Beautifully shot, Eric. The cinematography was perfectly in balance with the story and direction. I was also a fan of the creative opening credit sequence (same design firm that did "Thank You for Smoking" I believe?). Was that entire sequence taken from live action (shot with backgrounds), or was green screen involved?

 

I saw it at the Landmark, which oddly enough, had a projection problem - the bottom of the screen kept drifting out of focus slightly, which screwed up the final pullback in the movie because the two main characters went soft as the camera pulled back.

 

I noticed this final "soft shot" too, but assumed it was intentional, as the tree towards the end of the move seemed sharper than the actors. It seemed to fit the story to me -- a happy accident maybe?

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Saw this tonight (with some fellow Cine.com users, no less) and truly loved the film. Beautifully shot, Eric. The cinematography was perfectly in balance with the story and direction. I was also a fan of the creative opening credit sequence (same design firm that did "Thank You for Smoking" I believe?). Was that entire sequence taken from live action (shot with backgrounds), or was green screen involved?

 

Thank you Rory, that is the best kind of compliment. I try to remember that what I do is for the story, not my reel. That being said, I think there is a real beauty and discipline in trying to be transparent and lo-fi.

 

Yes, the opening was done by the same company, Shadowplay Studios. It was pretty incredible how they did it. They took digital stills of neighborhoods, then videotaped Ellen Page on a treadmill in our production offices against the white walls. Once done, they printed frames out on paper, then Xeroxed a few times over, then hand colored them. They cut her out and placed it on the backgrounds. They did that whole process many many times, and it took them right up until the very last minute. I absolutedly love what they did. I had them send me a still from my credit and it's beautiful.

[Rory Hanrahan]

Very cool, thanks Eric!

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Just saw this for the second time at BAM with my girlfriend. I would like to continue the congratulatory sentiments that have been displayed for Juno and its cinematographer Eric Steelberg. Very Unselfish cinematography which in my mind equates to good cinematography.

 

On a technichal note, having seen it twice, I am curious about the last shot which trucks out as Juno and Paulie play a duet at the steps of his house. The first time I saw it I thought it was a problem with projection but on a second viewing it was still soft on the characters for the entire shot. Was this a deliberate choice or was the shot only executed once and discovered soft all too late. It really doesn't efffect the shot and as another poster said it "works" and maybe it was a happy accident.

 

Once again, congratulations on a fine job and a exceptional contribution to a wonderful film.

 

Juno and Paullie are actually quite sharp in that shot. What you're seeing is a loss in resolution of the original due to the nature of a release print and the fact that they get so small in frame...the print just cant resolve enough detail to make them appear sharp. It was shot at the wide end of an 11-1, probably at about a 5.6-8 on 5205...so even if the AC was a few feet off (wasn't) they'd still be tack sharp.

 

Thanks for the note about the 'unselfishness.' What is BAM?

[Guest Robert Skates]

Eric,

I saw JUNO yesterday. Very nice work. I have a question. Very early in the film the film there is a shot of Juno walking up to her house. The color saturation is very rich. The greed and red of the foliage and the light blue color of the house really pop. Were you using an Enhancing filter for the shot.

 

I hope you don't mind all these "how did you do..." questions. Your work as well as David Mullen's are an inspiration to all of us on this forum. I do not think we say it enough, thanks for sharing the details of your work and experience with us.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Robert,

I think you are referring to the early evening shot before she tries to hang herself...if so, no there was no enhancing filter. There are a couple of reasons for the saturation. The first and biggest reason is that the shot is underexposed about a stop to a stop and half. I shot it without a color correction filter on 5217 so amongst the prevailing coolness of the image, the red sweatshirt on Juno and the amber foliage really seem to jump out. I even think I dialed back the overall saturation just a bit in the DI because I thought it was too much.

 

Right after that scene, the rest of the film is on 5229 Expression exclusively, so that beginning shot amid a film on a lower constrast/saturated stock would tend to jump out a bit. And the reason I chose 5217 for the opening was to get a bit more color since I knew that's when were were going to be seeing the warmth of the fall foliage.

[Landon D. Parks]

Kind of off-topic, but I bet the big Studios will be happy when they don't have to spend $15 million dollars to make release prints for there films anymore...

 

Although, I'm not sure I'm very happy with digital just yet. I went and seen Golden Compass at my local theater, and it appears they now have new digital projectors. The Film itself was not shown on that projector, but they ran some trailers and stuff before the Film on it.... It looked all washed out and had that damned "screen door" effects in the bright scenes. I think they content they where showing had something to do with "Sony Pictures Digital content Service" or something like that???

 

To be honest, I know there are better projectors out there than the one I seen, and it kind of disappoints me to see them buy these projectors, instead of better ones. This means it's gonna take longer for them to actually get GOOD digital projectors.

 

I know it's hard to do, but there needs to be ONE type of standard projector, and ONE type of content provider. This way, there is very little variance in the quality.

 

PS) I haven't seen Juno yet. I don't think it's playing locally yet (if it ever will?).

[Tommy Oliver]

Congrats Eric - being a cinematographer, I tend to have a very hard time watching a movie and not seeing the shots (i.e. composition, dolly/zoom/crane, under/over exposed) but in Juno I didn't have that issue one bit. Your cinematography perfectly complimented the movie which for the first time in a while allowed me to just watch a movie. Thank you and job well done.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Wow, Tommy...thank you. It was really important for me to try to make it transparent yet help the story tonally.

[Jason Reimer]

Hey Eric,

I finally saw Juno last night, and loved it. As a lot of people have mentioned, your work supported the story and didn't take you out of it by calling attention to itself. That said, I still made a conscious effort to pay attention to what you were doing. One thing I really enjoyed about it was how it just didn't look like so many comedies shot in southern California that look really bright, slick and glossy. The day exterior shots were really beautiful (like the magic hour shot at the beginning where Juno is looking at the chair in the yard), and there was some grain, which I love to see as well. Definitely looking forward to your next project!

[Brad Grimmett]

Definitely looking forward to your next project!

Speaking of that...I'll go slightly off topic. Has your agent been swamped with calls since Juno's release? And, if so, what kinds of projects are calling? Are you getting a lot of calls for quirky comedies in the low'ish budget range or are you getting a wider variety of offers? Studio or indie?

I'm interested to hear about this since I believe this was your first studio feature (is that correct?), and I'm very curious how the financial and critical success has/will affect your future offers.