"Polaris"
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
The galaxy stays.
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.
The problem with getting rid of the foreground is: it's really there on location. We're stuck with it.
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.
But haunting and lovely, nonetheless.
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!
My wife once was a beauty, now she's a realist!
I love the galaxy shot!
Agreed, I like it.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
Hell, the lighting on the beach and that on the planet doesn't even match.
I disagree. Look at the rising ringed planet. The light source (presumeably a sun) for that planet is below the horizon to the right of the frame. The light source for the beach is reflected light from the rising ringed planet. Note that the man's back, toward the camera is not lit. Oddly enough we see some light around his feet 2 - 3 times as he walks.
I don't know if the ball of light that we see before tilting down to him is supposed to be a sun or still part of the 'effect', like the red dot, that changed his reality.
The cloud things though -- not sure what they are all about. I didn't even remember them from the movie. I wonder if they were added to a later release.
I will grant you that it is a bit dated now.
Anyhow, back to Polaris, what gives the galaxy image away, even if the scene were at night, is that there is no detail in the brighter parts. Those were saturated in the exposure when the image was taken, but detail there should be visible to the eye (and therefore to our audience). That and the oversized images of the brighter stars.
This happens a lot when painters paint an image from a photo. They often leave the most spectacular features blank because they are saturated in the photo.
The Polaris shot is a great idea. I just don't know how to fix it to make it look more real and less like a matte.
Then again, Dennis may be happy with it looking like a matte.
There is no accounting for taste, especially my own.
And that is a fair point.
Hell, the lighting on the beach and that on the planet doesn't even match.
I disagree. Look at the rising ringed planet. The light source (presumeably a sun) for that planet is below the horizon to the right of the frame. The light source for the beach is reflected light from the rising ringed planet. Note that the man's back, toward the camera is not lit. Oddly enough we see some light around his feet 2 - 3 times as he walks.
You can see the reflection of the real sun on the wet sand at frame center, which puts it actually overhead. The planet is lit from slightly above roughly center frame left, otherwise its shadow would intersect the very top of the sphere. I think the lighting on the clouds matches the planet fine. To my eye the lighting on the foreground and the sun reflection are what don't match. YMMV
Last edited:
Exactly so.