What's up with Spielberg and Kaminski?

Raiders90

Well-known member
I think the look of the film was actually one of the biggest problems for me. The washed out, dreamy look isn't at all consistent with the crisp, nicely colored, very Technicolor-ish look of the original 3. Too bright, too overlit, it seems hazey at times...Whereas the original films have a very grounded look. I'm not a cinematographer, so I couldn't explain it in technical terms, but I think the fact that it looked vastly different didn't help. Also, Spielberg's directorial style seems to have changed with wider shots etc. Sometimes I think these elements actually hurt the film more than anything else--Stuff like the cinematography, the lackluster score (in comparison to the previous three)--Actually, it could've been pretty good if it had a good score and Slocombe on board.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
044.jpg

363.jpg

397.jpg

103.jpg

013.jpg

228.jpg

160.jpg

191.jpg

242.jpg

228.jpg

020.jpg

157.jpg

023.jpg

287.jpg

083.jpg

076.jpg

103.jpg

104.jpg

491.jpg


There just seems to be a level of grit missing from the look of KOTCS that was present in the original 3, a certain down to earth, gritty look that I can't quite explain. It just seems like things are too clean, too glossy, too shiny in KOTCS; almost gives off a glow, whereas the originals have grit and grain. There's a certain endearing warmth to the colors of the originals which isn't at all present in KOTCS either.
 
Last edited:

Toht's Arm

Active member
Seeing all those frames in a row really does highlight the difference. Has anyone seen Spielberg or Kaminski comment on the choices made with the cinematography/lighting? Were they aiming for a different look because it was set in a different decade?
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Toht's Arm said:
Seeing all those frames in a row really does highlight the difference. Has anyone seen Spielberg or Kaminski comment on the choices made with the cinematography/lighting? Were they aiming for a different look because it was set in a different decade?

That seems viable.

Maybe it's the way I'm seeing it, but I think Kaminski was at least trying to imitate the way the other films were DP'd. I think the use of digital just changed it.

See, the colors and blocking seem to be very similar, it's brightness and the clarity that have changed. Could be color corrected digitally, that could explain a lot.

Maybe it was just accidental due to the use of digital cameras . . .
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
HJTHX1138 said:
That seems viable.

Maybe it's the way I'm seeing it, but I think Kaminski was at least trying to imitate the way the other films were DP'd. I think the use of digital just changed it.

See, the colors and blocking seem to be very similar, it's brightness and the clarity that have changed. Could be color corrected digitally, that could explain a lot.

Maybe it was just accidental due to the use of digital cameras . . .

I think it was film, not digital. If I recall correctly, Spielberg was adamant about using film rather than digital and he said they did it that way.
 

HJTHX1138

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I think it was film, not digital. If I recall correctly, Spielberg was adamant about using film rather than digital and he said they did it that way.

Huh. Doesn't even look like film to me. That's distressing.

Did he ever talk about using digital post or color correction?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
The movie was indeed shot on film, but there's no way of perceiving that origin given the final look, which I think is a combination of digital intermediate (originally not going to be used) and Kaminski's trademark diffusion filters that he kept on the camera lens for the entire shoot. That diffusion effect is almost certainly the big culprit here, but apparently it couldn't be resisted despite insistence from Spielberg that both he and his DP were going to "swallow their pride."

EDIT: Just want to cite some sources for my claim that the decision not to use DI in fact changed over the course of production, much like the degree to which the team was to rely on computer-generated imagery. From this very informative article (emphasis mine):
digitcontentproducer.com said:
The complexities of shooting that chase through the jungle are what eventually led Kaminski and Spielberg to settle on the decision to do a digital intermediate on the film, working in concert with Efilm colorist Yvan Lucas. The DI process was something the two filmmakers had not planned on initially and had traditionally avoided over their many years of collaboration.

“For this movie, the DI was the right choice because we had lots of visual effects and wanted them to be more organic with the rest of the movie, and there were certain areas of control it gave us in [complicated action sequences],” Kaminski says. “It started because in that jungle scene, there were so many issues with mismatching light, and not always being able to put lights in exactly the proper position. I knew I would have to even certain things up. And it wasn't just light — I couldn't always control all colors in those scenes either. I had four actors [in some shots] wearing different makeup, and so I knew that is a sequence where I could [better] control contrast [in the DI suite]. Sometimes, the shot would go into very bright areas that were four stops over, and I didn't have the means to control that as well [in the field].

“So I got an agreement from [Spielberg] that I could do a DI for that sequence to control the amount of brightness in the frame, by reducing it down a little bit, maybe lowering the contrast a bit, and controlling secondary colors on the faces of the actors. So we did a DI on that scene, and Steven really liked it, and we agreed we could do the whole film like that. Basically, the technology has really improved, and the people doing the DI work have really improved in the last few years, so Steven was willing to go there.”

But Kaminski is quick to interject that he insisted on following a traditional photochemical timing template in the DI suite.

“We only agreed to do it because we felt the DI finally matches the quality of the photochemical processes,” he says. “So I used it exactly as I would photochemical timing, using point scale and primary colors. Occasionally, I used secondary colors, but only in very necessary conditions. I make my movies on the negative, and not in the DI, and I feel that was true here. This film would have looked amazingly beautiful either way, but it just happens we were able to improve certain things, or enhance them, by doing a DI this time.”

And here's more from Kaminski from an interview with AllBusiness.com:

AllBusiness.com said:
The cinematographer supervised Crystal Skulfs digital intermediate (DI) at EFiIm, where he worked with colorist Yvan Lucas. It was Kaminski's first feature-length DI since The Terminal (AC July '04). "I see a great advantage in digital timing because I can control the secondary colors, particularly in people's faces," he notes. "On this movie, I was constantly fighting different tonalities between the principal actors. With the DI, you can play with tiny changes in red, green and blue in order to conform the flesh tones; you would never be able to do that photochemically.

"I think DI technology has improved immensely, but the trick is to work with someone like Yvan, who really understands conventional timing," continues Kaminski. "He works on a machine [EWorks] that allows him to apply conventional controls; he's got red, green and blue, and he's got points. It's the same language as photochemical timing, and that not only made me comfortable, it also allowed Terry [Hagger] to be part of the process. This is the first time that the digital image I see matches what I'm getting on a film print, and that's great."

Taking stock of his contribution to the Indiana Jones mythology, Kaminski muses, "It was a tremendous honor to follow in Douglas Slocombe's footsteps and continue the visual style he established. At the same time, I was happy to be able to create my own interpretation of the material, because this movie takes place 20 years later. Overall, it was great to be part of the legacy of Indiana Jones."
 
Last edited:

Forbidden Eye

Well-known member
Yeah, thanks for finding those links Udvarnoky.

It sounds unpractical for modern times sadly, but I would love to see what this movie would've looked like without DIs, just to see how closer certain scenes would've looked to the original trilogy.


As sort of a sidenote though, I've always felt Last Crusade looked different as well when compared to Raiders and Temple.
 

Toht's Arm

Active member
Man, that's EXACTLY the info I was hoping someone could come up with. Thanks so much, Udvarnoky! :D

It's interesting that it seems, from those quotes anyway, that difficulties with the jungle chase led to the rest of the film having a look distinctively different from the first three films.

Slightly OT: whether you love or hate the film, the consensus seems to be that the jungle chase was underwhelming. I'm wondering now if this is because they were simply too ambitious. (Which led to many fans complaining that it looked too fake...)
 

Indy's brother

New member
Toht's Arm said:
It's interesting that it seems, from those quotes anyway, that difficulties with the jungle chase led to the rest of the film having a look distinctively different from the first three films.

Slightly OT: whether you love or hate the film, the consensus seems to be that the jungle chase was underwhelming. I'm wondering now if this is because they were simply too ambitious. (Which led to many fans complaining that it looked too fake...)

Thanks for distilling this info, TA. I was trying to get through the quotes earlier on my tiny phone and got disinterested by all the technical jargon. Boy, the whole film looks that way because of the jungle chase. Totally not worth it. Don't get me wrong, I think the film has an interesting look and I'm not as averse to it as many others seem to be, but all things considered, I don't think it was worth it.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
The movie was indeed shot on film,...
35mm film, to be precise.

There is a great article about all the post-production work in the June 2008 edition of the magazine, "Post". Here's a portion regarding DI:

---
DI AT EFILM

Efilm handled Indy 4's DI, and DP Janusz Kaminski worked with Efilm color timer Yvan Lucas. "This is the first time that Steven Spielberg has agreed to do a DI," says (Pablo) Helman. "He is really flexible and he adapts to new things really quickly. He was very comfortable with that technology, he enjoys it." Helman checked in at Efilm a few times to guage how ILM's VFX sequences matched up with Kaminski's straight shots. Using Efilm, an Autodesk Lustre house, was an idea that came that came later in the process -- ILM had been sending the film prints and the neg to Amblin Editorial, where Spielberg would review them.

ILM transferred color-timed VFX shots from its EXR format to Cineon files for Efilm's use Color timing is consistent with esthetic decisions established by the director, the DP and the ILM compositing supers, relying on proprietary color software, to ensure that the shots remained "on look" and consistent throughout. Some shots' color was tweaked at Efilm once they were viewed in context. Sometimes a background needed to be changed, and Spielberg immediately understood the power and flexibility that comes with DI. Efilm will also scan film into Cineon files and work in 4K, Helman says, ultimately, recording back to film.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Given the use of DI mentioned above, is CS limited to 4K? I've read in time the last two SW prequels will be rendered unwatchable due to being filmed in 2K digital. So when we move on to 8-10K, will CS look bad visually?
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
Most experts contend that a 4K scan is sufficient to capture all the data of 35mm film. Some say it's even overkill. There's some debate in this area because celluloid doesn't actually have resolution; it isn't made up of lines, but of particles. There is some equivalent resolution that the image theoretically corresponds to once it's been scanned and thereby turned into digital data, but there's a hundred factors at play, like the film stock used and the processing that a film undergoes that naturally degrades the image. Many people will tell you that what you were seeing at the multiplex back when movies were still shown on film was likely sub-2K in quality, because you were watching a dupe print horrible mangled by lousy projection standards.

At any rate, CRYSTAL SKULL being "locked in" at 4K is fantastic, because that's really as good as it can look. It's also as high-res as any film gets preserved, unless it's a 70mm film that is deemed prestigious enough to be worth the cost of an 8K scan (like 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY, BEN-HUR or MY FAIR LADY). I think even in those cases they still get output to 4K. At a certain point there's a limit to what the human eye can even resolve.

Most films since O BROTHER WHERE ART THOU? that went through DI were finished in "mere" 2K, and are therefore stuck there unless a studio feels like spending a huge amount of money and time re-scanning the film elements (if it was shot on film) in 4K and redoing all of post. It's even more impractical if it's a movie with a lot of digital effects.

There are some ironic consequences to this. For example, my understanding is that with the HDR release of the HARRY POTTER movies, only the first two movies are in true 4K, because they were shot and finished on film, meaning they just had to go scan the film to get the higher resolution. But the rest of the Harry Potters were finished digitally in 2K, so in that resolution they remain; those discs are just up-rezzed to 4K. Which isn't some tragedy -- after all, a movie can't be reasonably expected to look better than it did in the theater itself (though we often get that very miracle with older films), and 2K is what they were projected in.

It is true that STAR WARS Episodes II and III, by dent of being early digital productions, are stuck forever stuck at 1080p. But as far as being "unwatchable"? They will be no more so than they were when you saw them at the cinema.
 
Last edited:

Major West

Member
Raiders112390 said:
Given the use of DI mentioned above, is CS limited to 4K? I've read in time the last two SW prequels will be rendered unwatchable due to being filmed in 2K digital. So when we move on to 8-10K, will CS look bad visually?

Crystal Skulls DI was in 2k according to the technical specs on the IMDB.

Negative Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision2 250D 5205, Vision2 500T 5218)
Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format)
Panavision (anamorphic) (source format)
Printed Film Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision Premier 2393)
D-Cinema

Plenty of modern blockbuster movies made now only have 2k DIs. Why? because it's very expensive to render visual FX CGI higher than 2k. So many of these recent blockbuster movies are just upscaled to 4k afterwards.
 
Last edited:

Raiders90

Well-known member
A side question:
All these home movie cameras that say they're 4K, are they actually? I've had the same video camera since 2010 and I want to get something that will capture vivid, crisp, almost filmlike videos of family and friends, for an affordable price.
 

Udvarnoky

Well-known member
You're not going to get a feature film quality camera for a low price. You can get a 4K home video camera and yes they're really 4K - but resolution is only one factor. There is also compression, the quality of the lens, the quality of the sensor, etc. And that's just the camera. Lighting is hugely important, too.

That said, you can definitely get an affordable camera that shoots a great image. Just don't think that "4K" in and of itself means you're gonna get anything that looks like Hollywood films. If you're just shooting stuff of your family and friends, you'll have a lot of good options.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
Udvarnoky said:
You're not going to get a feature film quality camera for a low price. You can get a 4K home video camera and yes they're really 4K - but resolution is only one factor. There is also compression, the quality of the lens, the quality of the sensor, etc. And that's just the camera. Lighting is hugely important, too.

That said, you can definitely get an affordable camera that shoots a great image. Just don't think that "4K" in and of itself means you're gonna get anything that looks like Hollywood films. If you're just shooting stuff of your family and friends, you'll have a lot of good options.

What's something low compression, 4k, with a good quality sensor for under say 500?
 
Top