PT Cinematography of the Prequals: Bad or Good

Despite the fact that a number of of actual sets were built for the prequel, we still have people complaining about the "bad CGI" without realising that some of those shots weren't created via CGI.

Take this scene for instance:


This was actually an actual set, that was touched up in post-production.



Looking at the two pics, most people think that the bottom picture looks more real. So why do people find it hard to distinguish an actual set from CGI? And why do they still complaint that EP1-3 is entirely made via CGI and blue screen?

I think one of the reason is most people aren't really complaining about bad CGI, as much as they are complaining about the cinematography of the prequels. Whether we have an actual sets or not, the entire prequels has a rather 'unrealistic' glossy look to it.

The lighting of the prequels is very different from most movies during its time, opting for a far more glossy look that is only matched by much later films like Avatar. I suspect that digital cinematography is to blame here, as it was a new technology when they were using it to shoot the prequels.

 

i say neither.

 

Why do you think so? Considering the biggest complaint about the prequels is how they "looked" like on screen, I would think cinematography is one of the problems people are having.

 

Well, the flaw with your theory is that Episode I wasn't filmed digitally, except for a few shots thrown into the final cut as a test to see if they were distinguishable from analog. I suppose maybe that shot in the OP was one of the digital shots, but it looks fine to me, and I don't know if anyone has ever been able to definitively identify those digital shots for certain.

 

Personally I think the cinematography was one of the unassailable achievements of the Prequels. That camera is never in the wrong place or doing the wrong thing.

As for the miniature photography in general, I think the CG touch-ups that breath the life into those shots can create an illusion that the entire shot is CG. It's an unfortunate misconception.

 

Didn't most of the scene went through digital processing? The act of integrating CG elements into the shots would have affected the raw negatives anyway. I think most of those shots went through rather extensive colour corrections, which produce the "CG" look people are complaining about.

I wonder if is possible to edit those scenes to reduce CG look?

 

because i don't problems with either. those complaints are other people's feelings not mine.

 

Cinematography has nothing to do with how the effects are made. It's about camera movement, image composition, etc...

With that said, the cinematography of the prequels is excellent, and definitely one of its strongest qualities.

 

Unless the scene has dedicated visual effects and/or CGI compositions, then you'll have to set up the camera accordingly.

 

Image composition in a computer will and can alter the look of the film. CGI shots usually had their own digital lighting, so it does affect the overall cinematography.

 

You're missing the point. The art of cinematography is completely independent from visual effects and how they are made, thus when you evaluate it they have no relevance. That doesn't mean a cinematographer doesn't have to adapt to different circunstances.

 

THIS.

 

I also agree with this.
Of course it's an entirely subjectiv thing, but these movies look great!

Regarding the effects work: The example in the OP is a bit ... cloudy. I mean, does anyone honestly think the second pic shows a giant sports arena on a planet in a galaxy far, far away? I can hardly believe that, since the "human" in the pic would then have to be like 300 meters tall etc.
The second picture is more "realistic" as a miniature modul that's being filmed for a film, but it's not supposed to look like a miniature model that's being filmed for the film in the film!

Moreover, both pictures also show different angles, so it's not perfectly comparable, and film is about moving images. Not isolated pictures.

ILM has done movie effects for a very long time. I'm quite sure they applied the best technologies available. Dennis Murren worked on both TPM and AOTC, he's a expert and worked on the OT, too. The digital cameras might have had a slight effect on AOTC and ROTS, I could imagine that. However - as has already been stated - that does not apply to TPM and TPM was used as an example.

In 2002, George Lucas have a long interview, discussing AOTC's digital cinematography. You might finde it interesting in regard to the thread's topic: http://www.theasc.com/magazine/sep02/exploring/
Excerpts:

 

I found the cinematography in the PT to be excellent.

 

I actually thought the cinematography in the PT was the pretty good IMO.

 

That camera is never in the wrong place or doing the wrong thing
-----------

THIS.

Say what you like about the PT, but you have to admit you never once think "what shoddy camera work".

 

Glad that's so for you, mate. Yet, assuming no one has issue with camera work is faulty.

 

Good overall points, both of you

I think the camera work is great, but what is good camera work can differ from person to person.

 

The cinematography is more of a classic style, like the OT, than modern movies (Guardians of the Galaxy or Star Trek 2009 for example). Lucas didn't update his cinematography style too much, which is why Saga trailers like this work so well together.

 

I do have a few issues with the visuals.... the horrible gungan vs droids battle in TPM, the Clones vs droids in AOTC as examples I generally like Lucas' cinematographic style. He has a nice sweeping style that I find eye-catching. But my favorite LOOKING film of all 6 is Empire. Something about the look of that film is just RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT. Kirshner did a great job.

 

If you mean lighting, exposure and muted colors, that would be Peter Suschitzky. You'll find they all have the look of Empire Strikes Back. The other films of Kershner don't have that style. I wonder if Lucas ever asked Suschitzky back. He became the permanent Director of Photography of David Cronenberg shortly after Empire, because Cronenberg thought ESB was the best looking film he ever saw.

Here's that look:


Interview with Peter Suschitzky:
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/starwars/articles/empire/photo/index.htm

Lucas wanted him even on the original Star Wars, and finally hired him on ESB:
SUSCHITZKY: I was approached about photographing the original Star Wars, so my contacts with George Lucas and Gary Kurtz date back a few years now.

SUSCHITZKY: Being approached by George Lucas and Gary Kurtz a year-and-a-half before shooting began—even before they had settled on a director, in fact—didn't mean a constant involvement.

I found this interesting too:
SUSCHITZKY: I would go up to San Francisco and visit their studio and talk with the people who were going to be doing the model work. I'd ask their advice and give them my opinions and feelings about what I would be doing, and we had a fairly useful exchange, I would say.

 

Man, I loved Suschitzky's work on ESB. It still totally feels like Star Wars, but he had a certain eye for intimate lighting, and his compositions do such a perfect job of supporting the tone of each scene, that just brought things to life in a lovely way.

But yes, there's something to like about the cinematography of the entire saga. Even AOTC, which I've been most critical of, has its own way of being very beautiful and very "Star Wars".

I actually disagree with this. An essential part of the DoP's job on a big effects driven film is collabrating with the director and the effects department to weave the real photography seamlessly with whatever will be put in later. There's absoltely a method and skill in getting the lighting seamless and perfect when the actor is standing in front of a green screen that will later become a dramatic sunset.

 

As far as the compositions go, I believe those were decided in pre production/storyboarding with the art director and Lucas. Lucas had a hand in deciding the compositions in all the films. The DP didn't really get to frame shots as far as I can see. They got to design the lighting (with the art director) and choose the camera settings. Lucas' approach to hiring directors was mainly to direct the actors, not so much to decide framing or look. Kershner did storyboard parts of ESB though! He said he storyboarded the Falcon escaping the Star Destroyers.