Solo Was the lighting a problem?

Yep. This may have been mentioned before, but avoid 3D if at all possible. It compounds the problem. Apparently 2D IMAX looks great.

https://www.slashfilm.com/solo-projection-problems/

 

I saw it in IMAX specifically because I had heard that many cinemas couldn’t handle the black levels in this and that all of the shadows had been crushed into one flat level.

In IMAX the depth in the shadows was there. This movie will look great on Blu-ray and 4K I bet. They will brighten it up slightly.

 

That pretty much confirms what many suspected. Another reason I can't wait to get this movie on Blu-ray.

 

They were forever standing in front of the light , windows etc. And with no reflective light on them , faces were often flat and hazy .

 

I watched in 3D and some scenes were so dark I could barely see anything. It reduced by enjoyment of the picture. The theater was a crappy 2 screener - so I do believe the projector had something to do with it.

 

Do you really need a tech to notice this?

Anyway, what didn't help was how each location seemed to have just variations of one color. everything was grey, or brown, yellow in Vos' ship, etc.

 

Seen the movie on a massive scope screen in a large multiplex and it was as dark as Hell.

Went to a fancy small one screen cinema with armchairs tables wine and beer the screen was super bright.

 

With regards to the Lady Proxima scene, I thought the darkness worked really well for that sequence - kinda added to Corellia’s grittiness.

This is the first I’ve heard of the film being too dark...

 

I find it suprising that people are talking about lighting. I never noticed anything wrong.

 

I could barely see my showing. Not only was it extremely dark, but it also seemed to be very desaturated. It looked terrible.

 

I like the look of the film, it's grimey and crimey which works in the world it's set, but I did like it better in 2D on a smaller screen.

 

I thought the cinematography in the film was gorgeous (save for the weird tracking shot through the leaves at the end, which felt out of place), but I could see how it would be way too dark and make it difficult to see what's happening on screen if the projector wasn't lit correctly. I'm like 90% sure that's the problem most people are having, given it's been a noted issue I've seen critics pointing out for years. Movie theaters will intentionally project movies at a lower light setting in order to save money, and it can be annoying for most movies (I've noticed it before and it's definitely irritating), but on a movie like this it can be disastrous.

 

I've seen it in two different venues- a big complex and small independent. I didn't note any issues with the lighting- even with the darker scenes at the beginning.

 

I thought that the brightness levels were too low. I struggled to make a lot out on screen (mind you, I have just been prescribed glasses so that probably doesn't help)

 

I could generally see fine and I liked it, but the Proxima scene was close to the borderline and I completely understand complaints about the lighting. Artistically it gets high marks from me, but functionally it's a mixed bag.

 

These problems others are having enhances my loyalty to our theatre of choice.

 

Functionally speaking, there are parts that are a little dark.

However, the lighting is brilliant. This is the first Disney Star Wars film that has a really distinct look (although Rogue One was trying). It looks more like a crime film than a fantasy science fiction film, and it makes it all the more unique.

 

I sympathize with viewers that may have had a technical issue with the selected camera intensity of their theatre or any other issues that existed outside the intended color palette of the film. In my shorthand, the color palette selected for the film was the tone and hue of empire. It was an unrelieved palette because it was a glimpse into these years that was unrelieved by any big wins. Depending on how far back the shipyards of Corellia go, and how much Imperial contracts altered the socioeconomic divides of Corellia, Han may be more a total product of the Empire than Luke was. That's what the unremitting palette tells me.

 

I saw it again the other day and the projection must have been different because it was no way as dim as the first time I saw it. But even saying that, watching the trailers and clips on my TV at home and there is zero issue at all. So while the film looks stunning, I cannot wait to own it at home.

 

Solo was meant to be darker visually, to give it a more gritty realistic look; although Star Wars doesn't need to be more realistic than it already is. The already established, otherworldly yet familiar, look of this idealistic fantasy world is real enough. I personally don't mind seeing a grittier Star Wars movie every now and then; but even I, who loved the movie (saw it 4 times ), thought it could have used a few more brighter scenes. Star Wars has always been about the visual experience. If you hide a Star Wars movie with too much darkness, you end up defeating the purpose.

 

Now I get it. I just came back from my own #3. My first two were in a new 50-seat addition with stadium seating and small screen and presumably recent model projector. Today, I sat in one of the large 100-seat original theatres, in the second row seats, lower right. I experienced what everyone is talking about, crushed blacks and basic movements obscured. I wonder if sitting as straight on to the projector as you can, thereby reducing cosine losses, would make any difference. It may be that the newer screens grant you a newer projector or more recently replaced bulb.

 

The lighting was just ok, it worked for the tone of the film but it was not really well done. The cinematography as a whole is nothing to write home about in my opinion.
While Ep 7. and 8. both offer stunning pictures Solo is very average in this regard.

 

I have mixed feelings about this. It seems that there were actually some interesting ideas behind Solo's cinematography. However, some moments were simply too dark, without a good reason to justify it. This is evident even from the trailer:



Look at moment 0:27, and 0:35 and the face of Emilia Clarke at 0:55. I really don't get what's the artistic value of having a normal scene of dialogue in which you just can't see the face of who's talking.