David Tattersall "Die Another Day"
Phil Meheux "Casino Royale"
Roberto Schaefer "Quantum of Solace"
No Skyfall (Roger Deakins) as it's part of the '10 decade. But since it's the only film thus far this decade, you may briefly mention it if you wish.
Best of the '00s lot? Probably Tattersall, if we don't include Deakins' work on SF.
Tattersall's work on DAD is colorful. But the PTS looks plastic and appears to have bad post-production smoothing of the image. Hong Kong and Cuba look lovely. The Iceland sequence looks perhaps too over-produced.
Meheux's work on CR looks so grungy and grimy. Lighting leaves a lot to be desired. Would never know he also shot GE. This is a film that should have looked exactly like TND. Instead it's like somebody left the negative in the sun for a week. It was our own Tim Partridge who pointed out how little color co-ordination there was in the casino sequences between the lighting, set and costume departments. The only time the film's visual style is appropriate is during the Venetian sequence, a nice tip-off that the film's not going to end well for Bond and Vesper. All in all, it's a shame because I now think this is the series' best film.
Roberto Schaefer's work on QOS is okay if unspectacular. It is however one of the most polished-looking films. It has a richness in lighting that the other films lack.
However if we include SF, then that is the best shot of the 21st century films. The Chinese and Scottish sequences are stunning. One crucial flaw: it's painfully obvious this film was not shot on celluloid. The dark interiors at Bond's estate don't look good. In case you didn't know, video has a major problem photographing dark-lit scenes. These should have been shot on celluloid. I also remember some really ungainly use of wide angle lenses when doing close-ups on Daniel Craig. The rest of the film's visuals are good if unspectacular.
Edited by Vauxhall, 17 August 2015 - 10:58 AM.
Poll added by moderator