Skyfall Bond Vs Patrice in shanghai (4 replies and 7 comments)
Was this scene one of the hardest to shoot?
I loved that you guys chose to silhouette the characters against the neon lighting, but with all the glass there as well i'm assuming it was a logistical nightmare? Or was it one of those situations where it looks incredibly complicated and ended being straightforward?
The scene was rather complicated to prep. Originally the scene was going to be shot on location but that seemed impractical to me. Besides, the idea of a maze of glass walls interested me. So, the first thing we did was build a model. We set computer screens to mimic the LED screens and we played the footage of the Jellyfish to check where the reflections would fall etc... I spent some time lighting that set, on evenings or at the weekend before we were to shoot it. A set like that is all about prep. The shoot was not so difficult really, other than walking into a glass wall now and then!
I suppose it helped being able to move walls of the set around for camera access for certain angles? Something I doubt you'd have been able to do otherwise? Or do you just use some wide angled lenses?
You shot it on the Alexa right? Did you use a huge range of lenses or find a small selection was sufficient?
I'm assuming shooting in 4k you could always crop in post? (Or am I wrong in assumming most cinemas project in 2.8k?)
Roger you didnt mention if you used green screens for this. Did you film the jellyfish or was that library footage. The shot of the glass breaking, was that shot on a different set made to hold the "sugar glass" panel . Lovely scene, Daniel must be the fittest Bond as cant see Sean or Roger doing that scene.
Thankyou Roger. Mike
Crop in post!!!! That is possible but we never cropped shots like that on 'Skyfall'.
The lenses we used were nothing out of the ordinary. We shot with the Alexa, which is 2.8K native.
No green screens and almost everything was shot in camera. i say almost everything as some moving traffic was added to some shots which see the street level and the falling figure was a composite shot. The body falling was shot with a stunt man as a separate element.
The jellyfish was library footage that we were using on our model of the set and both Sam and I fell in love with it.
Some of the breaking glass was a CG element shot separately and inserted but we used no green screens.
It would be a great challenge to use green screen on a dim light all glass set. I just can't imagine the headache with spill or reflections
I asume those "!!!!" were because of the craft it takes to make a frame but since Skyfall was blown to Imax, did any of their technicians said something about resolution if cropped in a 2,8k image? (was it 2,8? I thought it was open gate?)
Those !!!!! were because I don't believe in creating framing in post.
'Skyfall' was not open gate as the system wasn't an option at that time. We shot full Academy frame so that the 'crop' for IMAX was not as if we were taking the middle out of the 2:40 frame but adding to the top and bottom. We did our own timing for the IMAX projection as their in house timing seems to add extra contrast and saturation to me. The people at IMAX did say that they thought the 'Skyfall' image looked as good as any they had seen.
Just to be clear I hope I didn't come across as insulting with my question regarding cropping, moreover a little knew to all of this. Cropping in post is often done in amateur short films as if you have shot something in 4k and are only outputting to 1080 then obviously you have the option to make a wide closer should you deem it better after the fact.
I merely wondered if this was ever done on big films. Its clear to me now that if you really know what shots you want then theres really no need to crop in post as the shot will have been framed correctly to begin with.
Sorry Roger if my question sounded anything other than newbie 🙂
well, I have found that the crop or not to crop is depending of which way of thinking you come from... Doesn't have to do with amateur or pro, is sort of the same discussion on people saying that if you take a picture using manual exposure it is automatically better than one using auto exposure... not necessarily the important thing is the output. To give an example one of the reasons David Fincher uses Red (dragon in the case of gone girl) is because he does reframe quite a lot in post, I would not say his films are amateur because of that
Sorry to dig up a two-year old topic, but i just read an interview of Hugh Murray (IMAX's senior vice president of film production) who said that, some scenes of Skyfall had to be cropped from the scope image because the cg had been done at a scope level. Is there any true to that ? Thanks
There are times when a closer insert is required by an editor and he/she does an enlargement but that is part of the editing process. But when I hear that some people create their 'compositions' in post, that to me is just sloppy. This has nothing to do with resolution but how you tell a story with a camera. Where you put the camera and the length of lens you are using for any particular shot is so much part of the 'language' you use in telling a story. If you just shoot a scene on a wide shot and then do an 'optical' zoom in post to 'find' a frame you are arbitrarily changing the lens length with no consideration of the impact on an audience. In the extreme you are creating a film shot on a long lens or, if less extreme, one that cuts unpredictably from a long lens shot to the wide angle that was the camera original.
I predict this post process will become a norm when 'cameras' record a scene as a total 3D reality under a flat shadow less light. Then any and every camera angle will be chosen in post. That is the same way camera angles are decided on many animated films and I see this technique applying to live action at some point. Of course, soon after that happens the whole thing will become an animation anyway, actors, scenery, the lot!
It think that will be a sad day.