my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Film Handlers' Forum   » The Informant over exposed?

Author Topic: The Informant over exposed? Justin Hamaker Film God Posts: 2253 From: Lakeport, CA USA Registered: Jan 2004 posted 09-18-2009 03:53 AM                        I just watched The Informant and I felt like a significant portion of the movie was over exposed. There are many scenes where characters are standing in front of sunlight windows and they are being washed out by the light. The reason I posted this here is to see if anyone else noticed this or if it might be the sign of a problem. If this was intentional, I'm curious to know if anyone has any rational for why Soderbergh shot so many scenes that way.  |  IP: Logged Paavo Mardi Film Handler Posts: 27 From: Tartu / Estonia Registered: Sep 2008 posted 09-18-2009 08:14 AM                     I´ve also seen it on different optically made prints. Maybe labs are trying to gain picture contrast and color saturation? We had two prints of "Ice age 3" and both had overexposed Fox openings. One reel of our "Public enemies" had too saturated colors.  |  IP: Logged Karl Borowski Expert Film Handler Posts: 161 From: Sulking in GameFAQ Forum Registered: Sep 2009 posted 09-18-2009 08:32 AM                     Not that I have seen it myself, but, your description doesn't sound like over-exposure. Most likely it is a bad step in the optical printing process. . .  |  IP: Logged Richard P. May Expert Film Handler Posts: 243 From: Los Angeles, CA Registered: Jan 2006 posted 09-18-2009 09:57 AM                     I haven't seen it either (and after reading this morning's LA Times review, don't expect to), but this is typical Soderburg. He acts as his own cinematographer, and uses odd processes and lighting for effect. Remember THE GOOD GERMAN, where the publicity said it was made to look like B&W films of the forties, but it ended up looking like a bad print from a multi generation dupe? The labs don't control how the prints look (on purpose, anyway). The filmmaker gives final approval and prints are supposed to duplicate that result. DM  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Weigel Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1062 From: Edmond, OK, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 09-18-2009 10:38 AM                     I was thinking the same thing when I screened it. The whole movie had a fogging appearance to it once it got past the opening WB logo. Since the entire feature appeared this way I chalked it up to stylization.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 09-18-2009 01:34 PM                        It was probably shot on video and therefore the highs (brights) are clipped.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 09-18-2009 01:56 PM                     It was shot on video with the REDone camera. Soderberg is Mr. Video.  |  IP: Logged Joe Elliott Master Film Handler Posts: 497 From: Port Orange, Fl USA Registered: Oct 2006 posted 09-18-2009 07:39 PM                     We had a similar print of up where the first two reels were too dark, and the last 3 were too bright. Also our print of the Ugly Truth is too bright also. The colors are nice and rich, but it seems like the contrast was turned way up when it was made. Each were noted on my film reports, but were not bad enough to request replacement reels. Both were TES, but I'm not sure which labs they may have been printed at. Might be worth looking into if it is happening more often. Edit: Oh, but by the way, our print of Informant looks fine, so it is probably a lab issue.  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-18-2009 07:45 PM                     How bright are your screens, Joe? An underlit screen (like a drive-in) would probably look dandy on clipped highlights like is being discussed above.  |  IP: Logged James Westbrook Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1133 From: Lubbock, Texas, Usa Registered: Mar 2006 posted 09-18-2009 08:11 PM                     The trailers to The Informant looked "overexposed" as well. I had just changed a xenon bulb in the big house, including the focus adjustments using the "Loony Toons" method. The first trailer to hit the screen was The Informant and I had thought I had the picture way too bright. As these are Rentecs, that's somewhat impossible to do. The following trailer pretty much conformed that the light was as bright as it's going to get... I had read somewhere that Radio City Music Hall used to get prints that were intentionally printed to appear brighter on screen due to light issues.  |  IP: Logged John Hawkinson Film God Posts: 2273 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 09-18-2009 09:10 PM                     In addition to shooting on the RED One camera and serving as his own cinematographer, Soderbergh also has a tendancy to shoot available-light. I don't know about The Informant in particular, but this sort of thing is consistent with his past films. --jhawk  |  IP: Logged Brad Miller Administrator Posts: 17775 From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall) Registered: May 99 posted 09-18-2009 11:19 PM                     That's because Sodaburger isn't a real filmmaker...on both accounts.  |  IP: Logged David Despain Film Handler Posts: 10 From: San Tan Valley, AZ USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 09-19-2009 02:26 AM                     We had a customer complain tonight about the lighting in The Informant, so I watched it the last round, and it does look pretty bad.  |  IP: Logged Joe Elliott Master Film Handler Posts: 497 From: Port Orange, Fl USA Registered: Oct 2006 posted 09-20-2009 01:32 AM                     I don't remember on Up, I think it was just a high brightness, if it was, that would have looked ok on a drive-in screen, but Ugly Truth, it is more like the contrast is turned up. The dark areas would still be too dark, but the bright areas, were lacking a lot of detail. Drive-in prints are just an increase in overall brightness, and that's not what it looked like. This just looked like someone goofed, either filmmaker, or the lab.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.