Favorite Cinematography of 2006

[Andy_Alderslade]

Here is the British Academy nominations:

 

CINEMATOGRAPHY

BABEL - Rodrigo Prieto

CASINO ROYALE - Phil Meheux

CHILDREN OF MEN - Emmanuel Lubezki

PAN'S LABYRINTH - Guillermo Navarro

UNITED 93 - Barry Ackroyd

 

Not many supprises in this category, though some of the others are possibly insane.

[Adam Wallensten]

This (maybe rookie) question for David doesn't belong under this topic but maybe he can answer me in another forum.

 

quote from David Mullen:

 

It will be interesting to see if anamorphic makes a comeback next year, because some years, a majority of the nominations have been for anamorphic productions, and just a year or so ago, it was hard to even rent a set at Panavision because they were so popular. But maybe this is the beginning of an irreversible decline, probably tied to the rise of D.I.'s.

 

What has the decline of anamorphics to do with the rise of D.I's?

 

Sorry about the topic mash-up...

 

Adam Wallensten

[Angeliki Makraki]

They shot on the 235, which is a great (and tiny) handheld camera that allows you to do shots that a bigger camera wouldn't. The long scene in the car was shot with it for instance. Obvioulsy it's not MOS, so all the dialogue has to be ADR'ed later.

 

 

What is the 235 ?

[Richard Vialet]

I'm extremely surprised and disappointed that the visually stunning and poetic BABEL was not nominated...and in regards BLACK DAHLIA, it had good lighting but other than that I was not that impressed

 

 

My favorites were (in no particular order exactly):

 

BABEL

CHILDREN OF MEN

THE GOOD SHEPHERD

PAN'S LABYRINTH

THE PAINTED VEIL (does anyone know info on the photography of THIS film?)

THE FOUNTAIN

THE PRESTIGE

APOCALYPTO

THE ILLUSIONIST

LITTLE CHILDREN

CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER

THE PROPOSITION

ASK THE DUST

BLOOD DIAMOND

THE DESCENT

[David Mullen ASC]

What is the 235 ?

 

http://www.arri.com/entry/235.htm

 

What has the decline of anamorphics to do with the rise of D.I's?

 

Because D.I.'s make shooting in Super-35 and doing the conversion to anamorphic digitally more appealing.

[John Holland]

Great shame that , what a waste of negative space , ho hum . john holland.

[David Mullen ASC]

Great shame that , what a waste of negative space , ho hum . john holland.

 

Not such a "waste" if you shoot 3-perf or 2-perf... the only issue is that it is a smaller total negative area than 4-perf 35mm anamorphic photography.

[John Holland]

Yes David , but image wise cant be bettered , unless VistAvision , or 65mm . John Holland , although i have to admit the DI done on " Children of Men" did look f-ing good. John Holland.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes David , but image wise cant be bettered , unless VistAvision , or 65mm . John Holland , although i have to admit the DI done on " Children of Men" did look f-ing good. John Holland.

 

At least Super-1.85 involves reducing the image to standard 1.85, so there is less waste, not more (compared to the normal 1.85 process.)

 

Actually I have a theory that Super-35-to-anamorphic for scope prints looks about as grainy on average as standard 1.85 -- you're using less negative by cropping to scope but you're releasing it on a larger print area, so the net result is roughly in the same image-quality area as standard 1.85 photography (assuming the scope projection at the theater is decent.)

[John Holland]

1.85 is the most wastful of all formats , 3 perf seems good to me , 2 perf Techniscope when Technicolor did the Dye transfer prints were good , but i just dont think even with a good DI 2 perf for Cinema screening is going to work , i hope i am proved wrong . John Holland.

[Angeliki Makraki]

I don't know if it was necessarily my favorite cinematography of the year, but I caught El Aura the other day and I was really captivated by its cold, desaturated look.

 

There is a particular scene set in a casino that was shot in a way that grabbed my attention. Usually, you expect to see a lot of flickering lights and bright neon that is associated with the bells and whistles of a casino, but this particular DP lit it in a way where it was so dark and bland, that you really could only see the tables because they fell underneath pools of light. I'm not describing very well but it had almost an eerie quality to it; it was quite remakable.

 

Vamos Argentina! :lol:

It's even better the more times you see it.

Hey Sean is that you in the photo, it looks like something out of Memento.

 

As Tim Tyler posted, these were the ASC Feature Cinematography nominees:

CHILDREN OF MEN

THE ILLUSIONIST

THE GOOD SHEPHERD

APOCALYPTO

THE BLACK DAHLIA

 

I always find it interesting to look at this and the Academy Awards nominees to discuss trends. For the first time in a long while, I think, no anamorphic-shot movie was nominated. I'll fill-in some technical specs here:

 

CHILDREN OF MEN: Super-1.85, D.I., Kodak neg, Arri cameras, Zeiss lenses (some Cookes)

 

THE ILLUSIONIST: Super-1.85, D.I., Kodak neg, Arri cameras, Cooke lenses

 

THE GOOD SHEPHERD: Super-35 (3-perf), D.I., Kodak neg, Panavision cameras, Primo lenses

 

APOCALYPTO: Panavision Genesis HD to 35mm 1.85, Primo lenses

 

THE BLACK DAHLIA: Super-35 (3-perf), D.I., Kodak neg, Arri cameras, Zeiss lenses (but mostly Ang. zoom used)

 

Generally these movies were shot without much diffusion (a 1/8 Black ProMist for some of "The Good Shepherd", some Soft-FX for close-ups in "Black Dahlia").

 

So, why the Arri and not the Aaton ? ( Isn't it more stable )

[David Mullen ASC]

We're talking about 35mm features (excluding the Genesis one) -- the only Aaton 35mm camera made is not really designed to be an "A" camera for sync-sound studio-style production (a bit too noisy) but more of a handheld "B" camera.

 

In Super-16, there are a lot of people that prefer the Aaton-XTR Prod over Arri-SR3, although that may change if the new Arri-416 becomes more common place (although it is priced much higher than the Aaton I believe).

[Max Jacoby]

The 235, although an MOS camera is the smallest camera you can find. If you need sync sound, the Arricam LT is a better option than the Aaton 35. It is a bit heavier, but also much quieter and has more bells and whistles (LDS, electronic shutter,better video assist image etc...)

[Andy_Alderslade]

- the only Aaton 35mm camera made is not really designed to be an "A" camera for sync-sound studio-style production (a bit too noisy) but more of a handheld "B" camera.

 

Whenever I see documentries or footage of Brian Tufano shooting features I always see him using an

Aaton 35 III. He's from a documentry background and often shoots films for tiny budgets so maybe he like the low-profile nature of that camera.

 

I wonder how they deal with the noise issue.

 

But maybe a NFTS student/graduate would know?

[Morgan Peline]

Whenever I see documentries or footage of Brian Tufano shooting features I always see him using an

Aaton 35 III. He's from a documentry background and often shoots films for tiny budgets so maybe he like the low-profile nature of that camera.

 

I wonder how they deal with the noise issue.

 

But maybe a NFTS student/graduate would know?

 

I'll ask Brian if I get the chance though I'm not in England at the moment. I know that he likes the Aaton because it is so light. He has a hand-held technique where he wears gloves and holds the camera body in the middle of the body. He also tends to like Zeiss lenses.

 

There's a really funny hand-held sequence in 'Billy Elliot' where his brother is being chased by cops. At one stage he runs through a living room - I think where someone is weight training - and if you pause the DVD just at the point where the camera goes through the door frame, you can see Brian's gloved hand waiting to take the camera from whomever else is operating to continue the chase sequence. Unless you pause the DVD you would never notice!

 

For me I just watched 'Tristan and Isolde' on cable and I thought it was a very nicely lit film.

[David Mullen ASC]

For some reason, now when I read Brian Tufano's name, I think of the South Park movie song, "What Would Brian Boitano Do?" (... "I'm sure he'd kick an a-- or two, cus that's what Brian (Tufano) would do"...)

[Nicholas Jenkins]

Being in school, getting to the movies is tough. Quite frankly, I find that I end up going to the movies when I've had a REALLY bad week and usually go just for an escape, something fun... which lead me to see Jackass: Number Two twice. :D Don't knock it, it's an exhillerating experience. Plus it was nice to see the camera crew moving away from PD-150s and 170s to DVX-100s and an HDcam. If you watch the two movies back to back, the difference is REALLY amazing.

 

But I am REALLY looking forward to seeing Children of Men, The Queen, and The Prestige.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Nicholas Jenkins

[Morgan Peline]

:D

 

LOL

[Angeliki Makraki]

We're talking about 35mm features (excluding the Genesis one) -- the only Aaton 35mm camera made is not really designed to be an "A" camera for sync-sound studio-style production (a bit too noisy) but more of a handheld "B" camera.

 

In Super-16, there are a lot of people that prefer the Aaton-XTR Prod over Arri-SR3, although that may change if the new Arri-416 becomes more common place (although it is priced much higher than the Aaton I believe).

 

Some of those movies, like Children of Men had great handheld work. Why the Arri over the Aaton ?

Just the noise aspect ? I'm sure that there are ways to solve that problem.

I thought that a lot of people prefer the Aaton for it's stability. Cat on the shoulder comfort.

The new Penelope is also 35mm and is specially designed for 3-perf and 2-perf shooting

[Max Jacoby]

Some of those movies, like Children of Men had great handheld work. Why the Arri over the Aaton ?

Didn't you ask that question already? And hasn't it been answered already too?

 

If you'd care to look up the specs of both the Arri 235 and the Arricam LT and compare them to the Aaton 35, I think the answer to your question is quite obvious.

[Angeliki Makraki]

Didn't you ask that question already? And hasn't it been answered already too?

 

If you'd care to look up the specs of both the Arri 235 and the Arricam LT and compare them to the Aaton 35, I think the answer to your question is quite obvious.

 

You misquoted me. David Mullen said it was the noise problem and that it was 16mm, when they also make 35.

I don't see why it is so obvious if you try the cameras.

[Max Jacoby]

I don't see why it is so obvious if you try the cameras.

So you don't think being familiar with different cameras would help you understand why people chose one over the other? I mean I mentioned some time ago already the most common reasons why people go with Arris (and particularly the 235 and LT). Which is why I suggested that you should look at the specs of these cameras to understand what I am actually talking about, as I hope you understand that I am not going to start listing every single feature (and there are quite a few) of these cameras.

[Angeliki Makraki]

So you don't think being familiar with different cameras would help you understand why people chose one over the other? I mean I mentioned some time ago already the most common reasons why people go with Arris (and particularly the 235 and LT). Which is why I suggested that you should look at the specs of these cameras to understand what I am actually talking about, as I hope you understand that I am not going to start listing every single feature (and there are quite a few) of these cameras.

 

What I meant is that I like the feel of the Aaton better. Some people think that it is more stable, quiet and comfortable than the Arri. Feature film productions may like the Arri better because of the features you mention. I'll have to look it up somewhere. The Aaton is a better field camera.

Sorry to enervate you, I didn't receive all the replies to my message.

[Matthew Bennett]

My favourite cinematography of the year was in 'The Bothersome Man'.

 

I just watched the trailer for this, didn't understand a word of course, but it looked fantastic. Good pick, Max! Very tight, well-planned coloring from what I saw.. the shot in the basement with a ceiling made of light bulbs reminds me of a photograph by Vancouver artist Jeff Wall..similiar setup and probably a similiar use as a metaphor...

More non-hollywood choices, please!

[Ricky Norris]

I personally thought that Lady In the Water was a beautiful film, and my favorite cinematography of 2006. Christopher Doyle conveyed the story so artistically and gracefully.