Jump to content
John Holland

Mission Impossible - Fallout .

Recommended Posts

Rob Hardy BSC does a fantastic job on this . Film and Panavision Cinelab London processing . A good romp full of great stunts . A bit to long but good entertainment to be seen on a large screen. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I largely agree with John above - I loved this movie and feel like the M:I crew and Tom Cruise are doing incredible things to remind audiences of how thrilling and spectacular practical stunts and fx can be. In recent years I think only Christopher Nolan is pushing this side of filmmaking in the same way.

 

From a cinematography view Rob did a great job too, although I found one thing particularly distracting; some of the darker scenes such as shots in the tunnel during the Walker reveal, or under the bridge at the beginning were excessively grainy. I know they shot 35mm but it felt almost like the neg had been pushed to an absolute extreme. Is this an effect caused by underexposong quite far and then trying to push it back up in the bath? I tried to find a story motive for why they were shot like that but really couldnt and they took more out of the movie for small moments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I didn't see any grain in the movie at all. It looked super crisp and a lot of the night scenes were clearly digital. I know the guys over at Cinelab London and they told me, quite a bit of the film was shot digitally.

 

Over-all, it was enjoyable popcorn fodder with the age-old ticking clock trope. I sure as heck enjoyed it more then any of the crazy VFX movies of late. However, I didn't really much care for the big vehicle stunt scenes. Sure there were some great single moments, but over-all the scenes seemed to be lacking for a few reasons. I felt the close up hand combat scenes were excellent though, especially the bathroom scene, that was a marvel.

 

Cinematography wise, it was so complex, with so many moving bits and literally hundreds of physical locations, it's hard to judge. Nothing felt wrong or out of place outside of a few blocking/framing things I didn't care for. Some of the digital shots were very recognizable as digital and the film shots had so much noise reduction, the motion in some scenes was uncharacteristically digital looking.

 

I didn't hate the movie, I just wasn't in love really. It was fun, it was entertaining, but the entire time I kept thinking the only reason it exists was to train Tom Cruise how to jump out of air planes and fly helicopters. It's like the movie we see is just a side effect of that stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who do you know at Cinelab London ?

 

Adrian

 

They're really great guys over there. I think they're probably the best lab in all of Europe currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see some grain in the darker scenes, probably from underexposure and maybe push-processing. I thought it added to the grittiness of those scenes. Saw it in Dolby Cinema.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did see some grain in the darker scenes, probably from underexposure and maybe push-processing. I thought it added to the grittiness of those scenes. Saw it in Dolby Cinema.

Beside from the underexposed scenes what did you think of the quality in Dolby Cinema?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the movie looked great, I liked some of the funkiness from use of haze and filters -- I'm guess sometimes filters were used to keep the hazed look going, something like a Tiffen Smoque or UltraCon or LowCons or lightest grade of something like those. I haven't read any articles yet on the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the movie looked great, I liked some of the funkiness from use of haze and filters -- I'm guess sometimes filters were used to keep the hazed look going, something like a Tiffen Smoque or UltraCon or LowCons or lightest grade of something like those. I haven't read any articles yet on the movie.

 

Would you prefer a film print or Dolby Cinema? I have not seen the film yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most cases, Id prefer Dolby Cinema laser projection, which finally has the black levels of prints that digital projection typically lacks. But I love seeing projected contact prints off of original negative, especially in larger formats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea I agree with David, the dolby cinema system is really nice. The double projector system helps cover up aliasing issues and the contrast ratio is excellent. Sadly the only two dolby cinema's I know of are at the El Capitan and the Television academy.

 

Where did ya wind up seeing it David?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Digital IMAX is or was double 2K projection for 4K but I didn't think Dolby Cinema laser projection was.

 

NYC has two, at the AMC 34th St. and the AMC 42nd St. (which seems rather close).

 

Los Angeles has five Dolby Cinema set-ups at the AMC15 Century City, AMC16 Burbank, AMC16 Promenade Woodland Hills, AMC18 Del Amo Torrence and AMC20 Rolling Hills Torrence. See:

https://www.dolby.com/us/en/dolby-cinema/locations.html

 

Unfortunately I've been in a back-and-forth with the AMC15 Century City and now Dolby over problems with their projector there, for the past three months, a visible screen door pattern has appeared over bright areas -- they are aware of the problem but clearly it isn't an easy fix or they would have done it by now (I'm guessing that the heart of the projector needs to be replaced). But it's annoying to pay extra for something that isn't up to their own standards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dolby Cinema laser is not double projection Tyler !

 

Ohh, I'm only basing my experience on the two theaters I've been to with Dolby Cinema. The television academy, in which Dolby themselves donated the projection system and the El Capitan, which is Disney's premiere theater in Hollywood. Both have Dolby Vision and both are double laser 4k HDR projectors, just like IMAX.

 

From the Dolby website "Dolby Vision™ HDR was designed for the cinema to deliver incredible color, a million-to-one contrast ratio, and twice the brightness of standard screens. Powered by dual-laser projection technology and engineered for a consistent experience, Dolby Vision lets you see more of the story."

 

It appears there are two different systems here. There is "Dolby Cinema" which appears to be standard cinema with Atmos sound and Dolby Vision is more of a post production to projection standard, using double projectors. Like THX and IMAX, dolby is clearly diluting the brand in order to put their logo in front of consumers at cinemas. From my perspective, double laser projection is a far superior format due to it's ability at masking the aliasing issues of digital cinema to make a smooth, but clear image. IMAX developed this technology first, but Dolby has come along and copied it. The system also allows for far better 3D reproduction with active or passive glasses.

 

I have visited many of the OTHER theaters on the Dolby certification list, but never noticed anything out of the ordinary or special about the presentation that would lead me to believe it was unique in some way. Only the two theaters I listed above, actually actively promote the Dolby Vision system in both logo's at the theater and explanations before each presentation. I must admit, having seen movies on both screens, the system is nearly up to par with IMAX. The one thing the current IMAX system does better is mastering. Dolby Vision theaters don't have to playback Dolby mastered content, so it's a crapshoot. Sometimes you go and it's HDR and looks great, other times and it looks like a standard DCI-P3 2k master.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw it. Bit long. Otherwise fine, and with a refreshingly limited reliance on cheesy CG.

 

I suspect there's quite a lot of non-cheesy CG, but that's fine.

 

P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw the new Mission Impossible film last night and I thought it was one of the WORST looking films with that high a budget.

 

A few minutes in I nearly called the usher to tell the projectionist that it was out of focus.

 

The first few scenes had these reflections all over the image, as if just prior they cleaned the lense with Windex and were getting all kinds of glare and rainbowy things.

 

Nearly every scene with a light or a window, had this wildly unnatural glow like a roman candle -- a firework -- a flare -- whatever you call it.

 

The scene in the underground tunnel where they set up Superman was sooo grainy and blured it looked like it was shot with a 90s era home video camera (and not to any sylish effect like "28 Days Later").

 

Other scenes were literally smudgy -- out-of-focus!

 

I honestly think they showed us the 3-D version and forgot to hand out the glasses. (This particular theater screens both versions) That would explain everything!

 

I"m going to call the theater later and ask if that is indeed what happened. But I don't know if I could sit through the whole thing again in 3-D... :wacko:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just back from the theatre. It was a good fun romp, felt very much like the previous couple of MI films to me, so not quite the step up I was expecting given all the rave reviews. But watching Mr. Cruise run around like a lunatic for 2.5 hours felt well worth the price of admission!

 

FANTASTIC stunt work.

 

Photographically I think Rob did a lovely job of keeping things grounded, and most of the action was really well done. I was quite shocked by the sheer volume of close-ups with fudged focus so. An incredibly high percentage of them had sharp ears and soft eyes. Personally, I'd probably have fired my focus puller after just the first quarter of them had been missed (there were literally THAT many).

 

And I also found it interesting that (for possibly the first time) I felt like shooting on film didn't bring anything to the equation. Now it may just be the sheer volume of soft faces that's pitched me against it in this instance (that wouldn't have happened with digital). But in some of the darker scenes as well, it felt like the stock had been pushed a little further than it was comfortable going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a possibility that Mr Cruises ears are acting as parabolic deflectors .. therefore leading to false cine tape readings.. this was a problem that manifest itself on many of the early Bing Crosby films.. leading to studio bosses insisting on corrective surgery.. apparently against Mr Crosby,s wishes..and arguably leading to the early demise of his acting career ..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Rig Wheels Passport



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Ritter Battery



    Glidecam



    Abel Cine



    CineLab



    Paralinx LLC



    Visual Products



    Tai Audio



    Metropolis Post



    Serious Gear



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Wooden Camera



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS


×
×
  • Create New...