The Signal - XL H1 + Mini35 - Who's seen it?

K

Kholi

Section Moderator
More relevant to this section. Who's seen The Signal?


For those who don't know, "THE SIGNAL" was shot on an XLH1 and Mini35, produced for around 60K and sold to Magnolia for, I believe, 1.5 Million. I finally got the Blu Ray release over the weekend and, once again, it kinda puts everything in perspective about technology. Not only does the 1080p hold up incredibly well on my 46" 1080 Samsung LCD, all of the things that we tend to call distracting weren't at all distracting to me during the course of the 2 Hour feature. Did I "notice" things? Yes.

Like the dead pixel on the camera's CCD during Act 3, and the ground glass grain. Super blown out skies etc. etc.

I really suggest people go and grab this and watch it, along with the BTS, if not purely for studying how they did it and how the combo looks when used properly.
 
I've seen the Signal shot here in Atlanta. :)

It looked good, I didn't really notice many "problems" and again it's how you take it. Making a good story should be objective #1. the good prod quality objective #2. Small things like blow out skies, while not as impressive, aren't really as big of a problem as most indie's make it out to be. At least IMHO
 
I saw "The Signal" over the summer and really liked it. The 2nd act was a funny shift inside the minds.

It was shot well and it definitely had its own look. Just goes to show you what could be done with a few bucks. :)
 
DC said:
I saw "The Signal" over the summer and really liked it. The 2nd act was a funny shift inside the minds.

It was shot well and it definitely had its own look. Just goes to show you what could be done with a few bucks. :)
Click to expand...

Keyword: Own Look.

It didn't look like "film" but it had it's own look and it was beyond acceptable. Which, I think, is the basic go to strive for: an acceptable look that moves even the most technical audience member beyond the image and into the actual "movie".

It had the core aspects that were necessary. Very inspiring on a more realistic level.
 
Kholi said:
Keyword: Own Look.

It didn't look like "film" but it had it's own look and it was beyond acceptable. Which, I think, is the basic go to strive for: an acceptable look that moves even the most technical audience member beyond the image and into the actual "movie".
Click to expand...

I always think the "film look" concepts are interesting. Like you inferred, the average viewer could care less, as long as the images are pleasing. I find myself more and more distasting the "film look" for the more digital look. - Brighter more Saturated Colors, Sexy Crushed Blacks. The only thing I don't like is the white clipping. As long as that can be smoothed away, I'm good. :)

I just watched a movie recently with hollywood budget $20 mill, they shot on Panavision (I watched the behind the scenes) it was gorgeous with nice crushed blacks and saturated colors. I never been too much of a fan of the muted drama look. :beer:
 
I can't agree with you on crushed blacks and over saturation. But, I can agree that digital is more than acceptable when applied properly. I think it's also partly contributed to FOV and DOF that adapters add, as far as THE SIGNAL goes.

Just looks like what we're used too. I think that's okay.
 
I think I remember there being a thread on this a while back when they were shooting (maybe done by the DP?). I'll have to pick this up as I told myself it looked interesting.
 
Yeah, if I remember right they were forum members and there might still be some posts around on XLCinema.com.
 
did anyone notice the switch from adapted footage to stock? it's really obvious to me in the trailer... the nighttime large outdoor zombie bits shot from above. it's only for a split second.

also a question.. if this went to theaters, is the DVD/blueray a scan of the 35mm print or directly from the digital source?
 
I've been wanting to see this film since I first read about it on DVinfo.net two years ago. Is it on netflix?

davide
 
I can't see those pictures. If I remember that thread properly it was a mini35, though. P+S. Someone want to correct me?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top