Mysterium sensor...

"too bad Full Frontal was a disaster for Canon"

Disaster is Katrina htting new orleans !!

i think canon would disagree ... canon got alot of free advertisement out of it ... maybe XL1 sales didn't increase but other models did ...

so why do we rip apart filmmakers that use a digital camera that give their projects the look they want !!! StevenS said he wanted a "dirty " image ... so that dirty image didn't show the BEST image that the XL1 could produce ..
how many 35mm films have you seen and they are not the BEST image that 35mm can produce ?
once you hand a person a RED or any camera and tell them to make a project - it is subject to artistic decisions and that includes the final "look"... if RED was to hand me a camera ( BIG hint-hint) to test i'm not going to go out and try to make it look like 35mm ...
 
Donatello,

Soderberg simply does what all good directors do - analyze the production values and "look and feel" that most maximizes the project, and direct so as to achieve that end.

You don't need to worry about RED bringing you in to test the RED One, I already invited you down the coast to shoot with my RED camera, one of the first ones to be delivered.

See ya in SLO! Sorry I missed you at Cine Gear.

Gibby
RED camera #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Full Frontal, what a great movie!

Thanks for that link Gibby. What's up with Steven adding a 'h' to Soderbergh? Is that mistake at the website?

Soderbergh has something deep in his personality which I believe could change the form of films, or come as close as possible.(2001 a space odyssey)



I don't think that's true. I think you have some very definate ideas about what should be done with Danny and I'd like to know what they are.
You think maybe he should be taken to a doctor?
When do you think maybe he should be taken to a doctor
As soon as possible?!?!?!?
 
donatello said:
"too bad Full Frontal was a disaster for Canon"
i think canon would disagree ... canon got alot of free advertisement out of it ... maybe XL1 sales didn't increase but other models did ... ..
Click to expand...

actually its just the opposite. Canon spent more money then ever before in its prosumer histroy on advertising the fact he was shooting full frontal with the XL1. They spent a fortune. I guess they just assumed it would look good.. when Soderberg(h) crippled the footage from the canon to make it look very bad, heads rolled and it went down as a P.R dissaster.. and which is whey Steven hasn't pimped anything for Canon since.
 
taubkin said:
Jesus Christ, It just got to me! I have to raise 17000 Bucks!
Click to expand...

LOL, yeah, it could be about time to start thinking about that.

About Canon and the XL1: I think they better had advertised Danny Boyle's 28 days later, which made the XL1 shine a lot more.
But that movie was much later produced and made then Full Frontal, if I'm not mistaken.
 
Though you'll find it mis-spelled Stephen Soderbergh, Steven Soderberg, and various other ways - his name is Steven Soderberg.

If someone at Canon didn't fully discuss the production values that Soderberg was trying to achieve with Full Frontal, it was a mistake on that person's part. The concept of Canon supporting a notable director's feature film that was to be shot on DV with the XL1 was a very good promotional concept at face value. Not ascertaining that Soderberg wanted to dirty down the look of the XL1 footage was probably a mistake.

I've used multiple cameras from virtually every manufacturer for my projects. Everything from F900's down to DVX100's. I've used an XL1 and an XL2 for many of the standard definition national television projects I've worked on - when the look & feel, interchangeable lens ability, etc. of the XL1/XL2 cameras made sense for those particular projects. My DSLR and all of it's lenses are Canon. I've also used tons of ENG-style Canon HD and SD lenses over the years, with excellent results.

My take on the Full Frontal/Soderberg/XL1 issue is that someone at Canon didn't fully understand the production values planned for the finalized version of the feature. I also feel that Soderberg's choice of look & feel for Full Frontal was a good one for portraying the emotions he was trying to convey in the movie.

Sidenote: My most recent Emmy Award was for my work as a director on a nationally airing television program, I’m a national Emmy Awards judge who regularly has to judge specific skills like direction, and I have a very high opinion of Steve Soderberg’s work as a director.

To move this thread back onto RED, I expect that the RED One camera will be versatile enough to be used in a myriad of genres, cine-style and ENG-style, and by every one from new professionals who may have to rent the entire system for smaller projects, up to Oscar-winning professionals like Steve Soderberg who could use it on features.

Same tool – re-accessorized for many users and uses.

Gibby
RED camera #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Last edited:
Jarred Land said:
actually its just the opposite. Canon spent more money then ever before in its prosumer histroy on advertising the fact he was shooting full frontal with the XL1. They spent a fortune. I guess they just assumed it would look good.. when Soderberg(h) crippled the footage from the canon to make it look very bad, heads rolled and it went down as a P.R dissaster.. and which is whey Steven hasn't pimped anything for Canon since.
Click to expand...

not to be a tool, but in ocean's twelve that little guy is rocking the XL1/XL2 in some scenes for almost no reason, jus twalking around in the background shooting stuff with it.
 
Full Frontal would be a very good movie if re-shot. It looked like crap, and was even too irritating to get past the look to get into the story.

That said, I love the fact that Soderberg will try almost anything. He's like Gus Van Sant, either hit or miss but baby they take some big swings.
 
I agree with Zig. "Full Frontal" looked absolutely horrible. I saw it on the big screen when it first came out. There were 15 people in the theater when the movie started and when it was less than half over, all that were left were the 5 people in the group I was with.

I tried watching "Traffic" but all of the hand held camera work really took me out of the story. Soderberg really needs to stop shooting his own movies. I just don't care for his "syle".
 
Ocean's 11 and 12 and Solaris are beautifully photographed movies. Solaris particularly. Soderberg just gets better and better as a cinematagrapher IMO. I haven't seen Bubble.
 
It's certainly impossible for everyone to agree and opinions make us different, which is a good thing. I don't think that Full Frontal, along with Bubble, are movies for mass audiences. I understand many people walking out during Full Frontal just as I understand when people haven't heard of F For Fake. I think some movies can be particularly appealing to other filmmakers, in a filmmaking sense. F For Fake is an example but is more difficult to explain why, take the way Stanley Kubrick films appear to be lit by natural sources. It always seems as though you can identify the sources of light he used, something other filmmakers admire but is lost on most of the audience. Although Kubrick's achievement in cinematography is opposite of the bad picture quality Soderbergh used in Full Frontal, I think they are both directorial decisions which create the movie we experience. Perhaps Full Frontal would benefit some from having the video footage improved while keeping the realistic feel it presents.

Syriana kind of caught me off guard with the shakey hand camera feel but after a few minutes I was right back into the story. Unless the movement makes you feel sick or dizzy I don't see what is distracting. I strongly urge to you watch Traffic again if you can stand the camera work, the story is great and the acting/directing/editing are even better in my opinion.

Check out Bubble for the cinematography of the F-950 if nothing else. Soderbergh shot Bubble using only available lighting of the locations, never adjusting lamp positions or changing the way places were lit. If you appreciated Solaris I think you will enjoy Bubble very much, for all it's aspects. It has an amazing audio commentary too with Soderbergh and Mark Romanek.
 
zakforrest said:
not to be a tool, but in ocean's twelve that little guy is rocking the XL1/XL2 in some scenes for almost no reason, jus twalking around in the background shooting stuff with it.
Click to expand...
And in Superman Returns there is a guy doing the exact same thing with a JVC HD10u, again for no reason.
 
KHendrix2 said:
I tried watching "Traffic" but all of the hand held camera work really took me out of the story. Soderberg really needs to stop shooting his own movies. I just don't care for his "syle".
Click to expand...

It's important to recognize that the handheld work in Traffic is a directorial choice. The director chooses, the cinematographer executes. For Traffic, they just happen to be the same person.
 
Many credible sources list his last name as Soderbergh, with the “h”, so perhaps they are right on the spelling.

He does take artistic chances, both as a director and cinematographer, but then again the good ones usually do. If you view the films he has directed and shot, he uses a wide variety of styles. Some actually approach traditional in production values, while others are patently avant garde.

Full Frontal was obviously an experiment, and definitely wasn’t for everyone, but I understand what he was trying to do/say with the piece. It was not commercially successful, and frankly I don’t think it was intended to be. I had no problem watching Traffic, reference the hand held shooting. To me, the shooting style enhanced the suspense and immediacy of the picture, almost like a “fly on the wall/you are there” POV shot. Some very trained eyes liked his cinematography on Traffic, as he was nominated by the British Society of Cinematographers (BSC) for the Best Cinematography Award for his camera work on the film, and won the Best Cinematography Award from the Chicago Film Critics Association.

I agree with Greg’s opinion of Soderbergh’s cinematography in Solaris, Oceans 11, and Oceans 12. I think a lot of cinematographers get in a creative rut and their definition of “good cinematography” is very narrow. They don’t take chances, and they are afraid of the harsh criticism of their traditionalist peers. Soderbergh is not like that. Artistically he isn’t afraid to stretch in his craft, and he’s not afraid of what the peanut gallery of critics will say.

Traffic and Erin Brockovich were both very successful commercially. What Soderbergh accomplished in the same year (2000/2001) with those two films is nothing short of phenomenal:

The first director in almost 60 years to be nominated for an Oscar for his direction of two different films in the same year.

Traffic – 5 Oscar nominations, 4 Oscar wins, Best Director Oscar win, overall 57 international and national award wins and 46 nominations. Critics and award judges didn’t seem to be distracted by Soderbergh’s hand held shooting, and neither did the viewing public.

Erin Brockovich - 5 Oscar Nominations, 1 Oscar win (Julia Roberts). 26 international and national award wins, and 41 nominations.

Soderbergh is a versatile, progressive, risk-taking director and cinematographer. Nobody directs or shoots projects that are universally acclaimed by the public and the industry critics. I like directors and cinematographers that aren’t afraid to get out of their comfort zone, and the audience’s, and stretch their craft.

When I act as a judge for the Emmy Awards, and we're specifically judging directing or camera work, beyond the usual skills and production values, I always look for a sense of uniqueness and challenge in the work.

Gibby
RED camera #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Last edited:
You are, of course, correct on the Soderbergh spelling. Apologies to Mr. S ... with the g on the end.

I agree, what makes Soderbergh so interesting is his willingness to take chances. And anyone who has both directed and directed the photography of a project of any scope has to be doubly impressed. Let's not forget that he also edits his own movies under yet another pseudonym (Mary Ann Bernard -- go figure).
 
Hey Proteus, What part of Myster(y)ium don't you understand. The Myster stands for Mystery. If they told you, they would have to change the name to Knownium. The only way to find out is to become a member of the RED team.
 
My favorite Soderbrgh is "The Limey" awesome camera work fantastic acting by Terranced Stamp and the most creative editing since Pulp Fiction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top