Solo Was the lighting a problem?

It is almost as like they used shadows and darkness but forgot to use light. The movie would probably look very bad on a B/W screen.
They should have made some effort to make visually uninteresting scenes more appealing too, like use of symmetry or interesting compositions.

Edit: Something I noticed is that during interesting scenes like chase scenes or the stand off with Nest the cinematography is very good but when there are calm scenes the cinematography tends to be uninspired.

 

Really?
The image in which Qira has her face completely in the dark, even though she's the one who's talking and nothing else is supposed to capture the attention of the viewer?

 

my sister works at an eye doctor as a tech so guys please don't take this as an insult or the wrong way My dad is legally blind and I am close to legally blind and we saw everything in the movie fine. it was a generally a dark film in tone and the picture if you look at Willow it has a similar color pallet. I think it comes down to three things, either you saw it in 3D and 3D tends to be on the Dark Side you should pick what 3D movies to see more Carefully I would never see a new star wars movie in 3D I don't think it warrants it. my favorite 3D I have ever seen has been Avatar and Jurassic Park the original it was as if I was in the movie! I did see the new Beauty And The Beast live action in 3D That was pretty good but I don't make a habit of seeing 3D, another reason could be your theater had a malfunction, and finally may be you need new glasses or have some other eye issue like cataracts or Glaucoma or a dethatched retina.

 

thank you very much that makes my day and or night! my sister says I type like I talk so if you find yourself reading a long post of mine like the one up above try to imagine that's how I talk! again thanks I appreciate it!

 

Hmmm.. I didn't have a problem from what I can remember.. Not like the Fathier scene on the cliff in TLJ, that was horrible.

 

This is the issue I had today. I saw it on IMAX, on opening night for the fans event at AMC. While Corellia was tough to see, it was much better when Han left with Tobias. While still a dark film, I could pretty much see everything no problem.

Today I went to my local one and took my Grandma and Aunt. My Grandma said it was too dark, and that was at the beginning. As the film went on though, I noticed the whole picture was like this. Even the parts like the card game and the Kessel Run were unusually difficult to see it clearly. It did have a washed out effect to it. It's crazy because my theater just went through a remodel, but not sure what they did about bulbs. Though I'll admit they did have a decent amount of lights glaring where the stairs are which may have played a role.

 

The cinematography was excellent. Second only to Rogue One and ESB, in my view.

 

I saw it for a second time the other day in a different theatre. Completely different experience! I could see everything the way it was supposed to be seen! I could see the wookies in the Kessel mines for the first time. The snow looked white rather than grey. I feel like asking for a refund for the first viewing I had. During this second viewing, at no point did I feel that I wanted to reach for the remote to turn up the brightness. It looked fantastic.

 

I've seen SOLO on five different screens....my fifth viewing today -- and wow! I didn't realize how much of the film I couldn't previously see....amazing. It's an even better film than I previously thought.

I didn't even notice the lighting being a problem until ran across this thread after my second viewing....third viewing I noticed it being dark in some scenes and settings. My fourth viewing was an absolute lights-out feeling....extremely dark and bothersome.

The picture quality today was completely crisp and clear and bright and it revealed sooo much more.

Definitely some projection issues or technical problems on the part of theaters. What I saw today looked fantastic.

Can't wait for the b/r.

 

worst cinematography ever seen in a SW film, even worse than AOTC

 

I'd say of the new Star Wars films, it's just behind Rogue One for best cinematography. This film looked great.

 

I felt the camera work wasn't quite on the level of Rogue One and it was lacking in as many eyecatching compositions but in terms of lighting I certainly didn't think there was any problem, indeed I think next to the design work it was actually the standout element of the film.

 

I went to two different theatres. The first time (2D) was sometimes too dark (Mimban and Corellia), the second time (3D) was fine. Both were small theatres. I think the lightning in 3D was fine because the theatre used Solo to advertise their new projectors.

 

For me it was dark where it was supposed to be dark, Corellia, Proxima's lair, Minban, Kessel. And bright in Vandor, Vos's ship, Savareen, etc. Seemed fine to me.

 

I wonder how it will look at home in HD. We will all see if the bad projectors thing is just an excuse. I have no idea why they would make such a muddy SW movie. Like a low budget movie where they try and blur out the problems. And fail.

 

Bradford Young
low level cinematography
intentional

From: http://www.fanthatracks.com/news/fi...pher-bradford-young-on-the-art-of-filmmaking/

I was unfortunate enough to see this once in a large, old theatre with low-powered projector, and it had crushed blacks and hard to see movement. I found one very small theatre with bright projection and saw the movie a few times in that. It was also a loud theatre that I could catch all the under-the-breath mutterings that really flesh out the world building.

This film is low light, low stakes, low news, low obvious import. I get how people don't value it. I do not see how its cinematography, set design and production values are dismissed. It is not bombastic on a scale with other Star Wars. It is not bombastic with a lot of things exploding for poorly explained or established reasons on a scale with TFA or TLJ. So I prefer its exercise of restraint and strong focus on what character bonds. I also do not understand how any of the principles' acting is dismissed. The lightning is low and creates intimate settings for several key bonding moments. Or, the strength of certain bonding moments is a function of the low light cinematography.

 

The ability to see what's on screen is a two way street. Sometimes its an intentional decision by the director of photography, but it also depends upon your theater's projection. The second time I saw The Last Jedi was in a different theater, and the projection was especially murky during the night scenes on Canto Bight, whereas everything was pretty visible the first time.

 

Ok, but do you agree with me on the fact that, besides the obvious need of having important things visible, it's also quite natural to question the stylistic decision of having characters' faces in the dark during normal scenes of dialogue?
I mean, even if we assume that it's possible, with a little effort, to see facial expressions, do we actually like to have characters in the shadows while they're supposed to be the focus of the scene?

 

It's an aesthetic choice. You're free to disagree with it.

 

Fair enough.

 

I can't remember where I read it, but I recall that Robert Altman's McCabe and Mrs. Miller was a big influence on the look of the film when Lord and Miller were envisioning it, and that's pretty evident in some of the murkiness on Vandor. Howard and Young certainly seemed to embrace that.

 

The sabacc game on Vandor is straight from McCabe and Mrs. Miller, visually. Almost to a T, with even the central lamp above the table providing most of the lighting.



Card scene begins at 0:33.