Indy 4 on DVD
- Thread starter Bowie Fett
- Start date
sandiegojones
New member
It's funny to see so many scenes that were filmed "live on the set" which the haters claimed was CGI.
sandiegojones said:
To be fair, the horrid digital grading that's being pointed out at the moment does a spectacularly good job at making things seem more artificial than they otherwise would. Seeing all the effort they put into the sets is depressing for me, because the decisions made by the DP prevented so many fans from being able to appreciate it.
The Man said:
There was nothing wrong with Kaminski before he had access to all these digital tools. Although I don't care for the film itself, his Lost World jungle footage was superb.
WeAreGoingToDie
New member
So... in the novel the conquistadors stole the skull, ran away from the temple, were killed by the temple natives and then were wrapped up by the natives using alien metal?
I guess that makes sense, though I'm glad they cut it. It's another detail in an already full plot that would have confused casual viewers.
I guess that makes sense, though I'm glad they cut it. It's another detail in an already full plot that would have confused casual viewers.
AtomicAge said:
So you're saying it's exclusively the physical filters, and not any kind of digital grading, that gave the movie its distinctive look? I'm genuinely curious here, because I'm no expert on this stuff, and I'm interested in knowing exactly what's responsible for the movie's soft, glowy look.
Major West said:
It's meant to give an idea of what the movie could have looked like. What, you expect the general public to have access to the original negative (assuming it was not an actual lens filter that gave the movie that look, as AtomicAge is suggesting)?
Major West said:
I'm fully aware that the use of filtering and lighting to achieve a certain look, which can include an attempt to mask an actor's age, is as old as cinema itself. (Of course, I can only guess that's what you're referring to, since you're more interested in petty insults rather than elaboration.)
Last edited:
Laserschwert said:
I'm not particularly thrilled with what was done here. The highlights have been blown out even more than they were, the blacks have been crushed, and the whole image sharpened, giving the whole thing a rather unfilm like look. In fact it reminds me of over processed video.
Doug
agentsands77
New member
It's not perfect, but I prefer it to the soft, glare-filled look of the original film, though. I really dislike the pearl-o-vision that INDY IV was shot with. You almost need sunglasses to watch the finished film.AtomicAge said:
Well I mean it's impossible for such manipulations to look anything but processed. The only way it would look that sharp and also look good would be if the movie was re-filmed. I think what these fan tests show though is how unncessary it was to take that glare style to the level it was taken.
The Man said:
Cundey is still very active. He did 3 films this year. I loved his work on Congo. I saw that Jungle set in person and its amazing how he made it look like a real outdoor location!
Personally I think I would have chosen Don McAlpine, Stephen Goldblatt, or Steven B. Poster. Hell I'd even go back to Allen Daviau. After all he shot the U.S. Unit on Temple of Doom.
Doug
Udvarnoky said:
I do this for a living, and I've used digital grading tools. I don't see much going on with this film other than standard color correction and a slight warming of the over all image. They aren't going crazy trying to get things to look completely different from what they did on the set.
I'm really convinced that it is the use of filters on the camera that is the culprit. If you watch in the extra features, the documentary camera is sometimes shooting the video tap monitor on the set, and I'm still seeing the halo effect on those monitors, which means it must be filters on the camera.
Doug
Thanks for the clarification!
I gotta say I do have an inherent issue with the filtration, simply because from my perspective it's so over the top, but obviously that's just me, and the greater issue is that it has the end result of not looking like the other movies. Perhaps if the movie didn't make such obvious pains in the areas of composition and lighting to mimic the other three, the fact that the filtering makes it stand out so much wouldn't have mattered. But they obviously were trying to stay faithful, so why undermine all of those other efforts? The movie would have set itself apart well enough visually without the filtering, just by virtue of the vastly different time period and the simple fact there was a different cinematographer behind the lens. However hard he is trying to emulate Slocombe, Kaminski naturally still brings something different to the table, like his slightly more active camerawork and his apparent obsession with smoke. And that's perfectly fine.
I gotta say I do have an inherent issue with the filtration, simply because from my perspective it's so over the top, but obviously that's just me, and the greater issue is that it has the end result of not looking like the other movies. Perhaps if the movie didn't make such obvious pains in the areas of composition and lighting to mimic the other three, the fact that the filtering makes it stand out so much wouldn't have mattered. But they obviously were trying to stay faithful, so why undermine all of those other efforts? The movie would have set itself apart well enough visually without the filtering, just by virtue of the vastly different time period and the simple fact there was a different cinematographer behind the lens. However hard he is trying to emulate Slocombe, Kaminski naturally still brings something different to the table, like his slightly more active camerawork and his apparent obsession with smoke. And that's perfectly fine.
Last edited:
agentsands77
New member
I do. I think it would look bad on whatever film they put it on.AtomicAge said:
agentsands77
New member
Sure, but none of those films have the pearl-o-vision aesthetic that KINGDOM does.AtomicAge said: