The problem with getting rid of the foreground is: it's really there on location. We're stuck with it.
I wasn't suggesting fading it out entirely, just bringing in the atmospheric haze after the first few seconds almost as if the camera is literally pulling back all the way from orbit to the surface of the planet. But it was just a thought. Are you? The two guys on the left in the final frame are fully visible a little earlier and they're basically standing still. You could probably superimpose their legs over the rest of the shot and no one would ever notice at this distance. The guy on the right who's walking away from the camera and disappears behind the foreground ridge could probably be painted out entirely if you don't mind losing him in this one shot. The entire foreground could be painted out along with him and replaced with a less distracting patch of desert floor to match what's already there. Mind you, this is all coming from someone with only a rudimentary knowledge of the technical requirements of accomplishing what I'm suggesting, so take it for what it's worth. I find that foreground ridge to be a real detraction from the true focal point of the shot (the crashed ship), but maybe that's just me.
I fully understand Northstar's ponts. The 'unreal' appearance of the galaxyis the first thing I noticed about this. I already discussed that with Maurice, Dennis, etc. So I won't rehash those comments. I will add that 'artistic licences' is apropos in the sense that the sky looks like a mural (or a matte painting). For a similarly inspired scene but intended to be realistic I suggest the final scene from "The Quiet Earth".
My reaction to all of this is... wow, NASA has totally spoiled us! We know so much more what other worlds look like in photos than we did in the 1950s and 1960s... it's not just CGI, it's the viewer's knowledge.
Thank you for that... I was trying to place where I'd seen something similar before. I adore that final scene in The Quiet Earth... so haunting and beautiful, even some 30 years later.
My response about realism was to Fred. There's nothing realistic about that shot. Hell, the lighting on the beach and that on the planet doesn't even match.
Beauty and realism... wonderful! My wife once was a beauty, now she's a realist! I love the galaxy shot!
I happen to like the aforementioned Quiet Earth shot, but it proves that we don't need to be "realistic".
Err, the whole thing is nice and I love the look of the lander, but that Galaxy? It was my wallpaper on OSX Lion for about a year and a half. I'd say using such a well known image (at least in its current form with no alterations) is very distracting. EDIT: Ok, its not the exact same photo - but still, the thought crossed my mind "Hey! Thats my old desktop wallpaper!". Maybe its just me? I dunno, but that took me out of the shot. If its gonna be corrected further to match the sky then maybe it won't be much of an issue.
To me, I believe you are striving for a 50/60ish vibe to the production. Now, if this was produced in the 50's, I think the galaxy in the night sky would be a conceit in the script. The write imagining a distant planet with a full view of a galaxy. I can see that put into a script from the 50's.
DEAD LINK. Anyway, the issue with posting things like this in isolation is that people pick them apart because they're not seeing them in the context of the film (I've been guilty of same); when you see it as part of a sequence of shots you're not as focused on the imperfections of each. BTW, this planet is in the galactic halo outside the spiral arms, hence the viewing angle.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=M...t0QX4lIGIAg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=2560&bih=1265 Well it should be the first image there. You're right - its one tiny piece of the finished product, but its just something that really stuck out for me.