John Holland Posted July 26, 2018 Share Posted July 26, 2018 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. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Malamatinas Posted July 27, 2018 Share Posted July 27, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted July 28, 2018 Share Posted July 28, 2018 Should have shot it digitally ... throw some Neat Video at it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted July 28, 2018 Author Share Posted July 28, 2018 Funny James I didn't see see grain in those scenes . Maybe because I am getting old ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted July 29, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted July 29, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 Who do you know at Cinelab London ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted July 29, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted July 29, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted July 29, 2018 Author Share Posted July 29, 2018 Yes they are . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 29, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted July 29, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanji Robinson Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 30, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted July 30, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sanji Robinson Posted July 30, 2018 Share Posted July 30, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 30, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted July 30, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted July 30, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted July 30, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted July 30, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted July 30, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted July 31, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted July 31, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted August 1, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted August 1, 2018 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted August 2, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted August 2, 2018 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolby_Cinema I apologize to Tyler, apparently Dolby Cinema does use a dual 4K laser projection system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted August 2, 2018 Author Share Posted August 2, 2018 I also apologize Tyler . Learnt something today . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Perkins Posted August 8, 2018 Share Posted August 8, 2018 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted August 9, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted August 9, 2018 Yea, that was not the experience I had at all. It looked crisp and had no problems. Sounds like a theater problem to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Mark Kenfield Posted August 11, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted August 11, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 (edited) 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 August 12, 2018 by Robin R Probyn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bruce Southerland Posted August 13, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted August 13, 2018 I thought the movie looked great as well. It's amazing the stunts the actors will actually do these days... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hzhb3Su8TAE I agree with Mark - I was shocked by the number of soft close ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Flanagan Posted September 12, 2018 Share Posted September 12, 2018 Here's an excellent interview with Rob Hardy from British Cinematographer magazine about MI:Fallout. https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/rob-hardy-bsc-mission-impossible-fallout/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now