The Artist and hi/Her Tool

[David Mullen ASC]

For the sort of shot and mood you are describing, quality is sort of on a continuum, in that obviously IMAX would capture that space with enormous detail. Is 35mm the lowest you can go and still create that "you are there" sense where you are in the frame, not staring at a frame from the outside? I don't know.

 

The more subtle and tiny the detail and texture you need to capture, the more resolution you need for both the shooting and the projection format. Or the closer you need to get.

 

Obviously format decisions are important, otherwise DP's wouldn't disgree so much over the finer points of Vision-2 500T vesus Vision 500T or Super-35 versus anamorphic, let alone Super-16, Ultra-16, and regular 16mm.

 

But we juggle a lot of other considerations, NOT just money. For example, I'm trying to sell a director on the idea of shooting in 35mm anamorphic, but he keeps throwing the word "deep focus" around. Do I dare suggest hi-def instead, knowing that a deep focus look would be much easier with a 2/3" target area? I could just say "oh, I'll just light for deep focus in anamorphic" -- except that there's a lot of night exterior work. Do I go with Super-35? Maybe I can just get away with a wide-angle look instead of a deep focus look. So even if I was told "money is no object" I still have to juggle a number of factors.

 

Skip-bleach doesn't "require" more quality to begin with. It degrades the image more by adding grain, but if you want more grain, then that's OK. I can certainly imagine shooting in SD video and doing an ENR treatment to the film print. Why not if that makes the print look the way I want?

 

I've shot half my 24P HD features for 2.35, which means lopping 1080 lines to around 810 lines. But it gets me the scope image I like so it's worth the resolution hit.

 

Technical quality matters when you decide it matters. It doesn't matter in some abstract sense just as a work of art isn't objectively "great" outside of any subjective response (I'm not a follower of Ayn Rand.)

 

But obviously when you need something to be of a certain technical quality, then you want to use the right tools to make it happen. Maybe some DP's follow some sort of lifelong constant measurement of technical quality that they are always trying to achieve, but I'm more of a believer in judging it on a case-by-case basis. That's why I might shoot Fuji on one project or Kodak on another, for example. Another DP, one I might even be a big fan of, might shoot every movie on Vision 200T with Cooke S4 primes only, for example. But then, people tend to hire that DP when they want that look, so it always ends up being appropriate because he isn't being offered jobs that require a radically different look. You don't hire Vittorio Storaro and tell him that you want the film to look like Janusz Kaminski shot it.

[Filip Plesha]

when i say that ENR still need qualitty i mean

that if you want an image that will shot details you need

to begin of a good format because it degrades the image.

 

It is a different story if you want the image to be really unclear.

Then you can use DV or whatever you want.

But some people just want to add texture,contrast and a black and white look

to the image,but not degade it to the point where it is not enjoyable on the big screen.And for that you can't use SD and blow it up to 35mm

and use skip bleach because you would have very little detail on screen.

That's why i said that even with ENR you need some starting point qualitty.

 

Of course only if you want qualitty.

Like you said,there are always people that want a certain low-qualitty look.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

The film school types I've been around would never even think of that stuff, or if they did, wouldn't do it because they're embarrassed.

I went to a pretty well known film school (NYU) and attitudes were very variable. Some kids would hire a Panavision and get some well known DP, others would go to the opposite extreme and be as cheap as Roger Corman - having no bones about it.

 

One thing I noticed that got me to laugh was how some film students would rank on NYU's equipment. One kid shot a subway scene (as a test - he went all the way to DC to do it) and when it was obvious that he had no fill light (which his DP was planning to rent for the actual shoot) he said "Yeah, NYU's lenses man, they suck". Knowing he was shooting with Zeiss Superspeeds, I wanted to smack him.

 

I remember how one DP came aboard a project and did a terrific job on it, using NYU's intermediate equipment package (an Arri light kit, a 1K, and an inkie). Everyone in the class was like "huh?". He just looked at them plain and smiled, and I knew he wasn't lying.

 

The feature I'm shooting now is being shot on equipment on the level of NYU's basic intro course, Sight and Sound (save for the tripod which is meant for still photography and doesn't work well). Sure, I could have used a sync motor yesterday and a bunch of gells to shoot a flourescent interior yesterday, but it was either loose a great location and opportunity, or endure some flicker and get an interesting sequence. Some of my classmates would have called me stupid (and my cinematography teacher will smack me in the head when he sees this), but others would applaud. All I have to do now is say it was intentional ;)

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

The 35mm camera you've been using for this feature doesn't have a sync motor? Is it constant-speed or a wild motor?

 

We had Conrad Hall come over to CalArts when I was there and do a lighting set-up with our stage lights. He didn't really complain, although he wouldn't let any photos of the set-up be published later because he felt that people wouldn't understand it was a test for a film school. But I thought what he did was beautiful.

 

In our school, most of the lenses DID suck. We had no Zeiss super-speeds at the time. We had Angenieux zooms and a T/3 Zeiss 10-100 zoom that was really soft at T/3. And a bunch of little C-mounts and Arri-mounts -- Schneiders, etc. Some of those were OK. I just started lighting everything to a f/4 in general when using those lenses, which I guess was a learning experience.

 

So some of the complaints about the quality of equipment at film schools are justified although what do they expect with old stuff being used by inexperienced students all the time, unsupervised. It's amazing that the stuff lasts to the next school year. Says something for how well-built most film gear is.

 

Anyway, you learn a lot as a student dealing with bad equipment.

 

I never was an equipment whore though -- I was just happy to be moving up from Super-8. By my last year, though, I was happy getting access to the Aaton at Panavision and 16mm Zeiss super-speeds as part of their student program. By that point, I had made a dozen shorts on an Eclair NPR and was ready for something better.

 

You always ran into the rich kid in film school who wanted to use state-of-the-art equipment. But none of them became cinematographers -- their ego would only allow them to consider directing. Anyone who was serious about cinematography was fascinated by all the gear, old and new. I've met very few real cinematographers who don't get misty-eyed just looking at a Mitchell BNCR or an Arri-S. Not that they want to shoot everything on them. The students who think filmmaking is only about using the best equipment generally never go very far -- unless they are so incredibly rich and well-connected, you know they are going to be shooting their first feature on some older equipment or cheaper format.

 

My first feature was shot on a 35mm UltraCam using donated Agfa stock (actually I was quite fond of the Agfa stock...)

[GeorgeSelinsky]

In our school, most of the lenses DID suck.  We had no Zeiss super-speeds at the time. We had Angenieux zooms and a T/3 Zeiss 10-100 zoom that was really soft at T/3.  And a bunch of little C-mounts and Arri-mounts -- Schneiders, etc. Some of those were OK

We had pretty much the same. The basic 101 course which was MOS was an Arri S with Schneider primes, wild or constant speed motor (some kids tried to shoot sync with it, then sat at the flatbed splicing and dicing the mag stock to get it to match), and an Arri light kit. I opted instead to use my non reflex Bolex with its 25mm Switar and 12.5 mm Yvar (the latter was a coke bottle compared to the Zeiss, but it did the job), not wanting to bother with equipment check out and worrying about deadlines. But I also did stupid things like not use a tripod half the time (smack, smack...)

 

Intermediate production ("color sync") got to use a CP-16R with an Angenieux 12-120. You got an inkie and a 1K mole plus the Arri kit.

 

The advanced production class got to use SR's with the Zeiss Superspeed primes (you either got those or the T-2 zoom). You got a few more 1K's and I think you could also request a 2K and even a 5K (no gennie though).

 

Right now I'm shooting with a IIc w/Cooke Ser II glass and a variable speed motor. It's good because I can slow the camera down when I need to (no light situations or stunts), and it's easier to handhold in a pinch with that motor stalk (versus the CS motor's flat base) which I am forced to do sometimes. I have 2 DP lights and 1 V light. My inkie disappeared :( I also got a bunch of 1K garage worklights for one scene - they're actually pretty neat. This for all intents and purposes is the same as the package we used at NYU's intro course, except its a 35mm rig.

 

I really am also not an equipment whore. I naturally marvel at the latest cameras, they're totally awesome and I'd love nothing more than to have it all sitting under my bed, ready to use at a moment's notice. I also sure as hell wish I had a follow focus knob on my camera, and it still baffles me as to why this feature costs like $1500 as a minimum. Some of the more expensive features like that actually make more sense when you're operating on virtually zero crew.

 

But I personally like to keep things as simple as possible, my philosophy is why spend when you can get virtually the same for less? I'm very charmed by older equipment, it's awesome to use a 40 year old camera and see that you can get such good results from it to this very day that rivals all the latest electronic gadgetry. The same is not true for video - I never saw a videographer get misty eyed over a tube camera and a "portable" U-matic rig :lol:

 

It is true that in filmschools there are people who have dollars and they go absolutely crazy on getting the best gear. You're right, they usually aren't the DP's, but I've also seen DP students that go totally nuts and who's pick sheets are outright embarrasing for their level of experience. I remember one idiot got a spot meter and he didn't know how to set the ASA. He was shooting on 7248 and he set the light meter for 1600 asa. What an idiot, he didn't realize something was wrong when he was stopping down to an f-16 with nothing more than a few 1K's in a large loft.

 

These guys always call every piece of equipment in film school "poop". When I saw an Arri S for NYU's intro course, I was like "Wow, this rocks! I used to pray that I could own this camera - I was shooting on a non-reflex Bolex all this time". I was equally impressed that we'd get to edit on a Steenbeck, which was another thing I'd look at in the catalogs and say "yeah, one of those would be neat...but I'll have to settle for a Moviola". Needless to say I was totally blown over by the lighting kits they had in the soundstage, which were basically old Mole richardson lights.

 

- G.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

The problem is that old film gear may be awful, but it has romance.

 

Video gear, for most dramatic shooting, produces awful-looking images, but it's generally only a few years old and crafted of the finest plastic. When they're all scratched up and rattly they don't even look hi-tech. Oh, the humanity.

 

Phil

[Filip Plesha]

Its the same with film stocks...

 

old film stocks have a charm,in every era of film history.

Old black and whites have their own charm,and so do technicolor films

60's eastman stock,70's and 80's etc.

 

But with video equipment its different,

i never heard of anyone wanting some specific old video look in video shooting

unless it is supose to look dated,

with video,the older you go,the worse it gets,there is no specific

charm in old S-VHS,unless someone is emotionally attached to that look or

something.

 

Personally,when i look at old emulsions,i think: "good old days"

and when i see old video footage i think: "thank good that that

over with"

[GeorgeSelinsky]

I do confess that I'd love to have one of those old B&W tube cameras where the flare would turn the video black. I always thought that looked cool, reminded me of all the mid/late sixties live TV footage of rock bands.

 

I wonder if there's any way to do that digitally now...

 

- G.

[Filip Plesha]

I noticed that black flare thing few months ago on TV,

it was some 60's video footage and i haven't seen

this effect before.

well now i know i'm not crazy,it is there..

[Mitch Gross]

Ah yes, the old Plumbicon tube. The effect all but disappeared with the Saticon tube, but there was still plenty of comet trails (the lag streaking effect from panning through a bright light). The world was a very different place before CCDs.

[Jayson Crothers]

Ok......since I attend AFI, I should probably say something.

 

Bill Dill, ASC, is our primary instructor, and his point about no excuse for bad photography is more a matter of photography that tells a story visually; it's photography that supports and propels the story along. Nobody in the audience will know or care about your low budget, short schedule, lack of a certain piece of gear, etc. If you don't have the budget, figure out how to tell the story the director and you want on the budget you DO have. Short schedule? Create fewer images that are stronger.

 

One can ALWAYS find an excuse for bad work; "Well, we only had 160 days of principal photography.....and with so much above the line money tied up, that only left us with around $50 million............"

 

Obviously better gear will allow one to do work easier, but too often film students get wrapped up in gear; I often hear "We got this really cool probe lens" more than I hear "It's this great story about a boy and his dog. . ."

 

You're the cinematographer; it's YOUR responsibility to create those images for the story; you're the final gatekeeper of every image; part of your job is to take into consideration the resources you have available and make them work for you and the story; learn from others and remember that simple is often far more effective (both creatively and logistically) than some cool set-up; think of the well known scene in "American Beauty" of the man and boy standing outside behind the restaurant smoking pot; big wide shot with a key side light, fill, and a light in the doorway - Conrad Hall could obviously get whatever he damn well pleased, but look at what he did with such simplicity. I was recently at Mole Richardson and watched Jack Green, ASC, do a fantatsic lighting demo where he did beautiful work with 2 simple lights - and he worked for years with Clint Eastwood, who hated doing more than one take, didn't like to rehearse, and insisted on 8 hour days. I can assure you he made all of that work (and quite well in my opinion).

 

What's taught at AFI (I can't attest for anywhere else really) is that you need to tell the story truthfully; you can whine about poor gear, or you can make it work for you in the best way possible. Gear is gear; nice gear is always nice to have, but not needed to do solid work of certain level of excellence. Too often people use gear as an excuse.......

 

And I'll step off of my wee apple box now.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

part of your job is to take into consideration the resources you have available and make them work for you and the story

.

Tonight I'm going to a Russian dinner dance function with my Arri, loaded with (hopefully) Vision 2 500 asa stock (to be pushed 1 stop), a Lowell V light, and a light stand, to steal some footage of Russian dancers and do a quick scene. Wish me luck <_<

 

The thing about some film students is that they think the equipment the craftsman makes - which is not true. In most cases the students can't even take advantage of the features available on the latest and most expensive equipment, the results they achieve on it can usually be matched if not bettered by more primitive gear easily. What's the point of an HMI light if you don't know how to aim it and how far to place it, for example? What's the point of a t 1.4 lens if you can't focus correctly at an f5.6? Etc...

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

Maybe student should be forced to watch more movies that look great that were shot with primitive equipment as a reminder. "Pather Panchali" or something...

 

The main issue with old gear is if it is working properly and does what you need it to do (although it really seems like you need to start working with crystal-sync motors, George...) And old lens is fine if it's not scratched and it's sharp enough or fast enough for what you need. The "X-Files" movie used the cheapest lenses at Panavision because they wanted as many lens flares as possible. Those lenses are listed in the catalog as renting for $12/day.

 

When students leave film school, the quality of the equipment they'll be able to afford to rent will only be a notch better than what they got in film school anyway.

 

David Watkin used to say that the only things that visibly affect the technical quality of the image are the lens and the film stock. How big or heavy or loud your camera is falls into other categories, like convenience. But certainly a 20-year old baby-baby is probably going to work just as well as one that came off the assembly line last week.

 

I certainly believe you can't make excuses to an audience -- they tend to assume that everything on screen is intentional. That doesn't mean that only flawless work is acceptable (I think a lack of flaws in a work of art is almost inhuman anyway) but it does mean that there should be the impression of intentionality regarding the look, even if it is rough.

[Filip Plesha]

Thats the great thing about film equipment.

You don't need to change the camera...well ever unless you

are bothered by its size or looks or something,or if it is broken.

 

My favorite still camera from the oness i have is an old

Practica/Pentacon.It was manufactured somewhere in 72 or 73 i'm not sure.

And i feel most confortable using it.

i don't really need a motor inside since i never shoot images is a row.

It always takes me few minutes to set things right and to think what i want

to do with it.

I like old equipment.

 

p.s. I know it's a little silly discussing things with you cinematographers

since i never touched a cinematic camera in my life,but i think i can relate

to you all in some things since still and motion picture cameras work on the same principle and because of that both processes have similar problems and issues

[Michael Nash]

More and better gear allows you more and better control, which allows you to make more and better choices. Eliminating this gear takes away control and therefore choices, but not ALL of them. If you can make decent images with basic equipment, than you should be able to make excellent images with the best equipment (and circumstances).

 

Of course tools let you do things photographically that you couldn't do without them. But the beauty of filmmaking is that there's always ANOTHER way to shoot something. That's where the TALENT of cinematography comes in, to complement the tools (and vice-versa). Talent can produce images with a minimum of tools. Tools can't produce squat with the talent behind them. Put talent and tools together and then you get images that people talk about.

 

I've always felt that 90% of cinematography problems are solved by avoiding the problem in the first place -- rather than by throwing masses of gear, crew and time to overcome them. If you can stage action so it's not against the window, then you don't have to ND the window, build up your fill light, or do the iris pull. Learn to plan ahead, learn common problems and think creatively, and you'll find yourself accomplishing a lot with a minimum of gear.

 

A classic example is in blocking. If you know you're going to cover a scene in a master and two reverse angles, block the action so that it works for all three shots. Time and time again I've seen productions block for the master only, and then find themselves painted into a corner when they have to move in for coverage. There's no room for the camera, the actor's against a difficult or ugly background, and the lighting becomes difficult. Then they have to start cheating things too much and spend time on complicated lighting rigs to overcome their own problem. A talented (in this case experienced) DP would know to line up the reverse angles during the blocking. Three minutes of planning saves thirty minutes of work and 300 lbs. of gear.

[David Mullen ASC]

Yes, that's so true. It's like I said about it being like chess and planning several moves in advance (or at least three.)

 

When blocking the master, I always think about where will end up in the coverage so that I don't get caught only having good backgrounds in the wide shot.

 

The other things are to have some of the lights you might add for the close-up standing by (telling the gaffer "in two shots I'm going to need that 2-bank Kino with 216 on a stand to fly in for an eyelight...") Also trying to prepare for the turnaround in the room so that it's not a cluster-f--- trying to clear everyone and everything. Think about where the power is coming into the room so that you don't have a major re-routing job (of course, the gaffer should be thinking about this too.)

 

Another thing: don't be afraid to cheat the background. One of the annoying things is when some novice on-set dresser gets upset when you cheat a lamp over to create a better composition. I once had an actor berate the set dresser for defiantly moving a lamp back after I had cheated it for the shot ("he put it there for a reason!")

 

It's related to an old rule that Alexander Mackendrick used to teach directing students: it's hard to establish the absense of something or an inaction on the character's part. But this has some advantages -- audiences tend to not notice something that is missing in the frame, so if you change the camera angle and some photo on the wall is a distraction, it would probably be worse to leave it in than have it missing, even if that's a continuity error.

[Tenolian Bell]

I went to film school also. I guess you can look at it in a glass half empty half full scenario. There was some benefit to going to film school, but I can understand when people describe film school as a joke. It?s not totally bad, but its not totally good either.

 

The value of film school for me was having access to so much equipment and able to shoot and experiment as much as we did. I was basically able to waste thousands of feet of film on trying different techniques that I cannot really try as much now. Most of the directors I work with to this day are from film school, or people I?ve met through film school. My film school actually had some pretty good equipment. We complained about it as all film students do, but looking back it wasn?t that bad.

 

The bad part of film school in my experience is the arrogance that permeates the air. Many of the students are arrogant, some of the professors can be arrogant and unsupportive. I?ve seen students fresh outta? film school walk onto professional sets with that film school swagger. They?ve seen all of the French New Wave films versed in Kurosawa and Kubrick. But generally extremely little actual on set experience. Which then is met with scorn from people who have worked in film for years and may have never gone school. I?ve seen some who couldn?t deal with the arrogance and unsupportive nature that can foster in film school, and I?ve seen some who were so driven and determined that they fought through it.

[Tenolian Bell]

?You're the cinematographer; it's YOUR responsibility to create those images for the story; you're the final gatekeeper of every image;?..?

 

I believe this statement in general, but at times experience can show you different. I agree that incompetence is inexcusable, I repeat incompetence is inexcusable. But what can end up finally on the screen may not be what even the most competent DP intended.

 

I?ve had to have my name removed from a couple of DV films because the final product was not my work. On one film after shooting I reviewed the original camera footage and it was fine. But after editing; the final picture had every type of digital problem you could imagine, jaggy lines, aliasing. A mix of the worst digital problems. I asked the director and editor what the hell did you do to this. They claimed to have done nothing to it, I argued they did something, and told them not to put my name in the credits.

 

A music video I shot in HD on the Varicam. Again the original camera footage was fine. But after editing the final product the colors bled all over the top of each other, and their was serious aliasing in the primary colors. It turned out the director wanted to saturate the colors more but pushed it beyond video limits. I strongly suggested they recut with original camera footage and I would help them saturate the colors. The director didn?t want to because he?d paid for the editing and color correction. So I told them not to tell any one I was the DP because that was not my work.

[Tenolian Bell]

And I?ve said quite a few times that equipment without talent means nothing.

 

Equipment does not equal talent.

 

You can improvise and figure out ways adding production value, I?ve done it many times myself. One time we stole (I mean temporarily borrowed) a shopping cart from a near by grocery store for a small dolly move. It?s nice to be able to think back and smile for being so clever with so little money, and no one would ever know the camera was in a shopping cart.

 

I?ve stood on a ladder, and faked a small vertical move, as though the camera were on a jib arm. It?s nice to exercise your brain and practice your problem solving skills.

 

But at the same time, I could?ve done so much more with a real dolly or a real jib arm.

[David Mullen ASC]

>I?ve seen students fresh outta? film school walk onto professional sets with that film

>school swagger. They?ve seen all of the French New Wave films versed in Kurosawa

>and Kubrick. But generally extremely little actual on set experience. Which then is

>met with scorn from people who have worked in film for years and may have never

>gone school.

 

There's a flip side to that as well, though - the long-term worker who has little knowledge or appreciation for the history or the artform of their own industry, who don't watch movies, and see the whole thing as a job like any other job. I met one camera operator who was trying to get his real estate license so he could get out of the business. I'm not saying that any of this is wrong - there's a lot of abuse piled on film workers because they are supposed to be there for "the love of cinema" and shouldn't expect to make a living at it, or work normal hours, etc.

 

Obviously I'd have a better time talking to the Kurosawa or Kubrick enthusiast on the set.

 

Of course, the worst are the people who have neither well-developed artistic pretention nor merely seek to be professionally competent, but the people who exercise artistic control but have incredibly bad taste. You can't really talk to them about Kurosawa either, but they are well-aware of Brett Ratner's ouvre. Some of them even went to film school -- and they were not only arrogant there but they also put down Kurosawa and Kubrick and the French New Wave. To them, movies begin and end with the front page of Variety.

 

Truth is that a large number of people on film crews these days DID spend some time in a film program somewhere. I think half my grip department did -- the best boy grips says he even taught some film production courses in Florida years ago. They all certainly know their stuff; I can't see any harm that their college years did to them!

 

I don't know, but it seems to me that the arrogant people I've met in the film industry cover both the film school graduates and the ones that didn't go to film school - thus I am of the opinion that the school itself is not to blame for their arrogance but that they brought it with them to school and left school with it intact.

[Mitch Gross]

Personally the ones I find to be the most arrogant are the people who just go to a Two-Day Film School seminar or read on Make-Your-Movie-For-$3-Like-I-Did-And-Win-Sundance book and then think they know everything they need to about making movies. I like to compare it to brain surgery--hey I can read a book about it and then crack open someone's skull. All I need is a sharp knife, right? I enjoy watching programs like This Old House or The New Yankee Workshop, because I like watching process in action and the technical/craftsman mentality behind it. It gels with the way I like to think. But the one thing I learn from watching these shows is if I want some really complicated capentry or home improvement work done I'm going to hire a professional who really knows what the hell he's doing.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

The value of film school for me was having access to so much equipment and able to shoot and experiment as much as we did. I was basically able to waste thousands of feet of film on trying different techniques that I cannot really try as much now.

Well, I can't say I shot thousands of feet of film in film school, since our alotments were small. We did have a cinematography class where we did quite a bit of shooting, at first on Plus X and then 7248 and some other stocks. We got to use studio lighting gear. We mostly shot on the Arri S.

 

That was THE most fun class I ever took at NYU, I got up enthusiastically every morning early (not something I like to do) and couldn't wait to get started and shoot footage, watch rushes...

 

But today I find that I can't experiment much. I can't afford film dailies so if I try something I won't really know what it will look like until I see my answer print. Video is obviously not very reliable for previewing final results. Sometimes I almost feel that I'm doing a documentary, I have enough cases where I can't control things as much as I'd like to, and just have to let some things go. But everytime I do let something go, I'm aware of that, and I understand the consequences and can then think whether or not they're acceptable. I think that's a very critical thing.

 

- G.

[GeorgeSelinsky]

David Watkin used to say that the only things that visibly affect the technical quality of the image are the lens and the film stock.  How big or heavy or loud your camera is falls into other categories, like convenience

I think one category outside of convenience is style. Shooting with a huge camera doesn't invite the same kind of shooting sometimes as a smaller camera. The French New Wave would never have worked with those huge Mitchells. I frankly hate sync sound, because of that we have these hugeass blimped cameras. Obviously they've gotten smaller (and for 16mm, cameras like the SR are a pleasure to use), but the introduction of sync really majorly affected the visual style of movies. Naturally with a budget you have a crew and equipment to handle the issues of bigger cameras, but I hate the idea of moving a beast around to get a shot. I just laugh when I see Sean Connery being filmed for a James Bond film in the water, and I see this hugeass BNCR on a wooden raft on the water with two AC's. I always wonder btw, who was it that would move such a heavy camera, the grips or would the poor AC's have to drag that mother around and set it up? I can't help but think that there were moments that such a big camera slowed down certain shots, made directors cut or modify their shot lists, encouraged putting on a longer lens to do a CU instead of moving in, etc.

 

Maybe I'm just spoiled as a still photographer or doc person. I do have to say though that I wanted to have a BNCR on the set one day just to get a picture with it and say I shot with it - those cameras do look awesome.

 

- G.

[David Mullen ASC]

A modern sync-sound camera is not significantly larger than a modern MOS camera (Arri-III or Arri-435) -- what makes them larger is usually the 1,000' mags that are put on top of them. And of course, an Arri-2C in a sound-proof blimp is not exactly the epitome of fast filmmaking.

 

But if you're advocating a return to shoot with non-sync cameras and looping entire movies, ala the Italians in the 1960's, I think it's a lost cause. And one could make an argument for the importance of capturing the performance INCLUDING their audio at the time of shooting.

 

If you want to work fast and light with a 35mm sync-sound camera, I don't think a Moviecam SL, for example, with 400' mags is such a beast. Or the Aaton 35-III. Even an Arri BL3 with a 400' mag isn't that big and awkward. In fact, I'd say it's actually easier to shoot with handheld than an Arri-2C. If you really had a lot of experience shooting with both sync-sound and MOS 35mm cameras, George, I really doubt you'd be saying that an Arri-2C is the easiest camera to work with in the widest variety of shooting situations, not compared to something with an orientable viewfinder.

 

You look at a movie like "Lost in Translation" and they seemed to have managed to shoot in a French New Wave style with 35mm sync-sound equipment.

 

In terms of American studio production, there was a loss of mobilty once sound was introduced in the 1930's but that was well before the French New Wave. After sound arrived, there really wasn't a period where the cameras got bigger, other than the large format systems of the 1950's.

 

And the question is whether a James Bond movie would be improved by being shot in a French New Wave style. I'm actually quite fond of any number of films shot on huge unwieldly cameras so I'm not sure if they would have been better had the cameras been smaller, although they certainly would have been easier to shoot.

 

For someone who has insisted on working with 35mm even though 16mm would have been lighter and more moble, plus been sync-sound and quiet, I'm not sure if you should be the one arguing for speed and efficiency over picture quality that a larger format offers. If movies could be better directed if they could be made with lighter equipment that required fewer people, then why not shoot with a DV camera instead of an Arri-2C? Clearly some things are worth putting up with.

[Mitch Gross]

I would just add to David's post that not all French New Wave films were photographed with lightweight handheld cameras. I have a lovely photograph of Truffaut shooting on the streets of Paris with an Eclair CM-3 stuffed inside a huge sound blimp and then shoved into the back of a stationwagon to act as an impromptu dolly. I can't imagine anything more unweildy or difficult to use. A Mitchell on a Western dolly would have been so much more civilized.