Soderbergh's "The Informant!": lens flare

S

squirrel$$$bandit

Veteran
Local time
6:26 AM
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
6,249
Anyone seen this movie? I am a big fan of Soderbergh, and I enjoyed it a lot...but the whole thing looks as though it was shot on a Summar with heavy front element damage:

image011.jpg


The-Informant-002.jpg


I actually found this kind of distracting, maybe just because I'm a camera nerd. Everything is backlit, everyone is enveloped by "glow." I know Soderbergh is using a Red One, but I can't find anything about optics, save for an article by an anti-digital crusader who speculates that this is the work of a diffusion filter (and, rather unconvincingly I think, accuses Soderbergh of having to do this because the Red can't handle highlights).
 
Sure it's a diffusion filter. You get the same 'glow' when coming in from the cold and taking a picture while the lens is still fogged.

Using a diffusion filter is an aesthetic decision. I don't think he'd use it solely because 'the Red can't handle the highlights'. He's not forced to use the Red, he can chose whatever tool he wants in order to achieve his aesthetic vision.

IMO, the 'glow' fits the movie quite well. It gives the whole thing a nostalgic look (the movie's set in the 90s) and a very dreamy quality. It makes everything look a bit less clear and less real which, again, fits the plot.
 
MartinP said:
The nineties are old and nostalgic ? Ooops, suddenly I feel ancient. After lunch, more photography needed.
;)
Click to expand...

Well, almost 20 years have past since the early nineties (which is where/when the movie's set). But don't feel bad, I'm also feeling ancient and I'm 'only' turning 26 next month.
 
MartinP said:
The nineties are old and nostalgic ? Ooops, suddenly I feel ancient. After lunch, more photography needed.
;)
Click to expand...

Oh, he meant the 1990s? That was just yesterday. You sure it wasn't the Gay Nineties he was talking about? Some interesting lenses then. :D
 
Jamie123 said:
Using a diffusion filter is an aesthetic decision. I don't think he'd use it solely because 'the Red can't handle the highlights'. He's not forced to use the Red, he can chose whatever tool he wants in order to achieve his aesthetic vision.
Click to expand...

Yes, I absolutely agree. I definitely don't endorse the interpretation I referred to.
 
For distracting lens flare, try the latest Star Trek movie. I know that in real life, lenses can flare so it wasn't a distraction for me in "The Informant" but in a movie with as much CGI as Star Trek has where I know some one had to add it, the flare quickly became a major distraction for me. If the movie had been better, I might not have noticed I suppose.
Rob
 
The flarey lookm goes in and out of style...look at all those movies from then 1970's that are ruined by thick filter packs. Also, using a foggy filter is an old hack's trick for avoiding the harsh, buzzy edges in video. Junk is junk.
 
rbiemer said:
For distracting lens flare, try the latest Star Trek movie. I know that in real life, lenses can flare so it wasn't a distraction for me in "The Informant" but in a movie with as much CGI as Star Trek has where I know some one had to add it, the flare quickly became a major distraction for me. If the movie had been better, I might not have noticed I suppose.
Rob
Click to expand...

They spent big money to put that lens flare into the Star Trek CGI scenes. A friend of mine developed the algorithm for it. The director liked it so much he put flare into the live action scenes by positioning a grip off camera to shine a flashlight into the lens. My friend fully realizes the irony of spending millions to put flare into scenes that the lens manufacturers have spent millions to get the flare out of.

He also worked on Avatar. You'll notice the fake flare is much more restrained in Avatar, but there is some here and there.
 
vdonovan said:
They spent big money to put that lens flare into the Star Trek CGI scenes. A friend of mine developed the algorithm for it. The director liked it so much he put flare into the live action scenes by positioning a grip off camera to shine a flashlight into the lens. My friend fully realizes the irony of spending millions to put flare into scenes that the lens manufacturers have spent millions to get the flare out of.

He also worked on Avatar. You'll notice the fake flare is much more restrained in Avatar, but there is some here and there.
Click to expand...

Your friend clearly did their job well! The director seems like he was enjoying a new toy--a bit too enthusiastic maybe?
There was some flare in Avatar but a much more realistic use of it, I agree.
Rob
 
I cannot speak from any firsthand (or otherwise received) knowledge, but The Informant's whole aesthetic is rooted in late sixties-mid seventies trappings. Look at the (absolutely wonderful) score for more info. An interesting choice, to be sure, given that the film is set in the 90s, but there you go. I'm sure that Soderbergh chose the lenses for their flare characteristics, and I'm guessing that in this case it was likely 70s era zooms. On Saving Private Ryan, Janusz Kaminski had the coatings removed from a set of old Zeiss lenses to increase flare (and, apparently to make them behave in a manner that might recall both old 16mm WW2 footage and the Robert Capa photos... this I offer firsthand), and it is possible that Soderbergh did something similar or even got the Saving Private Ryan lenses (they're still around, though I think they are Panavision mount and thus incompatible with Soderbergh's Red cameras). At any rate, nothing about the imagery suggested filtration to me; I saw uncoated lenses and technique designed to cause flare. I agree that the choice was rather questionable, and was my biggest complaint about the otherwise fantastic film.

I can say from experience that the Red needs no such filtration to handle highlights, and can further offer The Social Network (shot on Soderbergh's own Red cameras, most likely the same bodies used on The Informant) as evidence of this. I will admit that for The Social Network, the chips had been upgraded, and that Cronenweth is a much better cinematographer than Soderbergh. At any rate, no filtration is needed to control the (old) Red in this manner, the decision was intentional and meant to convey the 60s-70s aesthetic that dominates the film (consider as well the title sequence), and the choice was a questionable one, regardless.

Soderbergh, by the way, is no slouch as a cinematographer. The photochemical playground that is Traffic is really something to behold...
 
pluton said:
The flarey lookm goes in and out of style...look at all those movies from then 1970's that are ruined by thick filter packs.
Click to expand...

Any examples of the worst offenders from the 1970s? I think I know the look you are describing. Perhaps "Days of Heaven"?
 
Agree about too much artificial flare in Star Trek.

Interestingly, I was watching a documentary on Bladerunner and they mentioned adding flare effects to night shots of the skyline and flying vehicles as they made the models seem more real.
 
Isn't it entirely possible it was done in post? The amount of color grading and post work on today's films, especially those shot digitally, is both inspiring and insane.
 
vdonovan said:
They spent big money to put that lens flare into the Star Trek CGI scenes. A friend of mine developed the algorithm for it. The director liked it so much he put flare into the live action scenes by positioning a grip off camera to shine a flashlight into the lens. My friend fully realizes the irony of spending millions to put flare into scenes that the lens manufacturers have spent millions to get the flare out of.

He also worked on Avatar. You'll notice the fake flare is much more restrained in Avatar, but there is some here and there.
Click to expand...

Does your friend run the Video Copilot Adobe After Effects training site? (Just curious - he developed a plug-in suite for lens flare and did the titles for Star Trek. It's a great site...)

I think God came down and gave an 11th commandment. If thy movie is 3D animation, 1/3 of the scenes must have fake crummy annoying digitally added lens flare. - and your titles must go "wooooosh".

I like genuine optical lens flare - like if I'm watching a groovy 1970 Jess Franco Eurosleaze flick... Now there's a director who had no problem with lens flare, and liked his jarring rapid sometimes out of focus zooms. They only knew how to do lens flare from the mid-60's to the early 70's, just like they knew how to do ascots.
 
Last edited:
mabelsound said:
Anyone seen this movie? I am a big fan of Soderbergh, and I enjoyed it a lot...but the whole thing looks as though it was shot on a Summar with heavy front element damage:

image011.jpg


The-Informant-002.jpg


I actually found this kind of distracting, maybe just because I'm a camera nerd. Everything is backlit, everyone is enveloped by "glow." I know Soderbergh is using a Red One, but I can't find anything about optics, save for an article by an anti-digital crusader who speculates that this is the work of a diffusion filter (and, rather unconvincingly I think, accuses Soderbergh of having to do this because the Red can't handle highlights).
Click to expand...

Yeah, to each his own, but I have never seen the movie...probably never will, just not an interest of mine.

I still think it is nice to have different looks to movies. 1990's is hardly a nostalgic period but at least the filmmaker has a different look.:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom