birth - Harris Savides

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Hey Rolfe,

I was there for only a few days of reshoots, so I can't really answer your questions too exactly. Also, by "infinity cove" do you mean a white cyc? Yeah, the interiors were studio sets, and the studio had a white cieling, but I don't know that they ever shot into the studio walls. As for the lanterns, I've seen china-balls moved around on walk and talks plenty of times; it's entirely possible he did that, I just didn't see it.

 

Anyway, it seemed that that incredibly soft top source was the main thing going, w/ a dimmed down china-ball added as a soft, motivated key. For all the 20K's shooting into the ceiling, there really wasn't alot of light on set. Also, it wasn't bleached muslin but painters' canvas (fire-proofed) that was stretched over the sets. (So, if you've got the budget, I guess there's something even heavier than muslin to tie to a 12x12!) Basically, the canvas diffusion took the place of the pipe grid that would normally hang over the set.

 

As for the windows, we blacked them out for some night shots, but rather than just put duvateen behind them, we spray mounted clear heat-shield gel to black foam-core, so the black had a bit of "sparkle" or crinkle in it. I don't think I'm giving away any secrets, since we did the same thing on "Melinda & Melinda."

I was around for just about that entire shoot, so I'll be more specific on that film when the time comes.

[Keith Mottram]

to create a similar look on location, would ceiling mounted kinos, diffused through mulin work?

 

Keith

[Jon Rosenbloom]

I guess if you "blanketed" the ceiling w/ kino's it might work. I think the point of the studio booklight was just to take the theory about an even source to its practical limit.

[Rolfe Klement]

I was really really impressed with "Birth" - it hasn't done hugely well in the UK (from what I can see) but I hope it becomes one of those timeless classics - I noticed what I thought was an art dept decision to make the time period indeterminate (except for the 04 tax sticker in the car window at the graveyard) and I had a continuity issue with the snow in the tunnel... but hey

 

It was an subtle, well crafted, actors movie

 

I think it is one of those movies - if you don't get it in the first 10 min then you won't - which as great as they are are not always finacially sucessful - I fell in love from the jogging scene - but I am sure many people who haven't seen "Gerry" - wouldn't dig it - (after watching Gerry - which my girlfriend walked out of! - I can handle long takes :-)

 

And considering the capabilites of Harris - I would very much doubt they made mistakes with exposure (as I have heard) - yeah some of it was very under - but it worked for me - and wether or not it was intended - I felt it helped the story

 

my 2 cents

 

Rolfe Klement

www.creativesunshine.com

[Max Jacoby]

And considering the capabilites of Harris - I would very much doubt they made mistakes with exposure (as I have heard) - yeah some of it was very under - but it worked for me - and wether or not it was intended - I felt it helped the story

 

I think he was on the edge all the time and sometimes he just went too far. Some scenes are excessively grainy and do not intercut well with the rest of the film. Talking about 'The Yards', which he also underexposed on purpose, Harris said that they had to reshoot some stuff because it had turned out too dark.

[Rolfe Klement]

I stand corrected :-)

 

Slightly off topic about Harris - I spoke to Mark R (name dropping) about some help I needed for a project I did and we were talking about the Rain Video by Madonna - and talking about Harris and his lighting (not that I know Harris at all) - I wanted the same effect as they had used in the Rain video where they are surrounded by the shells of light

 

 

and Mark was saying about how they had to go through a whole process of getting most of the lights built for that video -

 

So another thing Harris does is design great lights

 

 

Thanks

 

Rolfe Klement

www.creativesunshine.com

Edited December 3, 2004 by Rolfe Klement

[pierre elliott]

You can see that the film is underexposed and then printed up again. All in all a film that looked great, but only in parts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Hi there Audiris,

 

Thanks for your insight.

 

When you say the that the films stock was "underexposed and printed up again", does "printed up again" mean that it was underexposed and then push processed.

 

 

I just wanted to be sure that i fully understand your explanation.

 

 

Thanks again for your time.

 

 

 

Pierre

Edited February 1, 2005 by pierre elliott

[pierre elliott]

...I'm pretty sure he exposed two stops under, and then pulled the film two stops.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi there J-Ro,

 

thanks for your hands on post, it was very informative.

 

I just had a follow up question.

 

You surmise that the Savides exposed two stops under, and then pulled the film two stops.

 

What does "pulled the film two stops" mean?

 

Does it mean that it was pushed/force processed?

 

Can you please clarify?

 

 

Thanks again for your time.

 

 

 

Pierre

[Max Jacoby]

When you say the that the films stock was "underexposed and printed up again", does "printed up  again" mean that it was underexposed and then push processed.

I just wanted to be sure that i fully understand your explanation.

 

It means that the film was processed normally, but when they struck the print, they corrected for the underexposure by printing it a bit lighter.

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Hi there J-Ro,

 

 

What does "pulled the film two stops" mean?

 

Does it mean that it was pushed/force processed?

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey Pierre,

 

By "Pulling," I mean the opposite of pushing. The negative spends less time in the developer; colors come out less saturated, and the high values get "pulled" towards middle grey. (This info is very well explained in "The Negative" by Ansel Adams.) Personally, I've "pulled" on 2 of the 10 short films I've shot. The first was a "girls" film, and I did it to create a softer look. The colors and highlights are still there, but the image has a very gentle feel. (Adams writes about the "local contrast" evident in faces; pulling diminishes the local contrast.) It worked so well, the next director asked me to pull his film. If you do it, I suggest finding a lab that can pull (or push) in half-stop increments.

 

Also, I think Audiris might be correct about going over the edge w/ the under-exposure; they were reshoots that I worked on.

 

Best, J-Ro.

[David Mullen ASC]

I doubt he was underexposing by two stops and then PULLING by two stops -- he'd have a net underexposure of four stops, which is an awfully thin negative -- your printer lights would be in the single digits if you tried to print that to a normal brightness.

[Jon Rosenbloom]

I doubt he was underexposing by two stops and then PULLING by two stops -- he'd have a net underexposure of four stops, which is an awfully thin negative -- your printer lights would be in the single digits if you tried to print that to a normal brightness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sounds crazy, but I'm pretty sure that's what I heard. I can ask my boss and see if he remembers anything different.

[Quenell Jones]

actually, I was able to attend a screening of birth and afterwards q/a with Harris and that question came up....and yes he did under expose negative 4 stops.....he and his assistant coined the phrase...the toe nail of the curve was used.....i was surprised....Harris said he wanted to push the envelop a bit.....

 

quenell jones

camera assistant

[pierre elliott]

Hey Pierre,

 

By "Pulling," I mean the opposite of pushing. The negative spends less time in the developer; colors come out less saturated, and the high values get "pulled" towards middle grey. (This info is very well explained in "The Negative" by Ansel Adams.) Personally, I've "pulled" on 2 of the 10 short films I've shot. The first was a "girls" film, and I did it to create a softer look. The colors and highlights are still there, but the image has a very gentle feel. (Adams writes about the "local contrast" evident in faces; pulling diminishes the local contrast.) It worked so well, the next director asked me to pull his film. If you do it, I suggest finding a lab that can pull (or push) in half-stop increments.

 

Also, I think Audiris might be correct about going over the edge w/ the under-exposure; they were reshoots that I worked on.

 

Best, J-Ro.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

Thanks J-Ro.

 

I had understood that pulling was the opposite of pushing. But i couldn't figure out how it worked the context of the negative and the final print of the film . Now i understand thank you very much for your explanation and the tip. I'm assuming that you recommend finding a lab that can push or pull in half increments so that i can really get as specific a look as possible.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

Pierre

[pierre elliott]

actually, I was able to attend a screening of birth and afterwards q/a with Harris and that question came up....and yes he did under expose negative 4 stops.....he and his assistant coined the phrase...the toe nail of the curve was used.....i was surprised....Harris said he wanted to push the envelop a bit.....

 

quenell jones

camera assistant

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Hi Quenell,

 

Thank you very much for your first hand testimony.

 

This will serve as an excellent guide for the future.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

Pierre

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Thanks J-Ro.

 

I'm assuming that you recommend finding a lab that can push or pull in half increments so that i can really get as specific a look as possible.

Best regards,

Pierre

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, on the second pulled film, our chosen lab could only push or pull in full stop increments, and the effect (coupled w/ a really old Angenieux 12-120 lens) was a little too strong; the colors are just too desaturated. On the first film, (different lab) we pulled some shots 1.5 stops, but we had a much crisper lens so we got away w/ it. Last, I always start out overexposing a little to protect the lower values.

 

Best,

Jon.

[pierre elliott]

Yeah, on the second pulled film, our chosen lab could only push or pull in full stop increments, and the effect (coupled w/ a really old Angenieux 12-120 lens) was a little too strong; the colors are just too desaturated. On the first film, (different lab) we pulled some shots 1.5 stops, but we had a much crisper lens so we got away w/ it.  Last, I always start out overexposing a little to protect the lower values.

 

Best,

Jon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Just so that i get this straight.

 

The idea is to either expose the film normally (5277 at 320 asa) have the negative pulled. And then print it back up to key.

 

or as you said over expose the film by a bit (e.g. half a stop) have them pull it a stop or a stop and a half, then print it back up to key.

 

And if I'm understanding what was done on Birth, Savides underexposed the film 2 stops, then pulled it an additional 2 stops, then printed it up to the desired level.

 

 

So the idea is to have an extremely thin (underexposed) negative and make a "brighter" print from it.

 

 

Is my understanding of the process correct.

 

And thanks again, you've been a great help.

 

 

Best regards,

 

 

Pierre Elliott

 

 

p.s.

 

 

is there any way that i can see a copy of the shorts that you shot using the pulling technique. Of course I'd pay the material costs and the shipping fee.

 

 

Thanks again.

[Brent J. Craig]

I pulled focus for Harris Savides on some commercials a few years back. As the guy responsible for setting the stop, his underexposure really freaked me out.

 

I would see the display on his meter as he checked the key light, then he would tell me a shooting stop that wasn't even in the same ballpark as the key! I can't tell you how many times I checked and rechecked with him to be sure I was hearing him right!

 

I have never seen someone so confident and daring with underexposure. Most guys will take a reading, and knowing it can be fixed in telecine, will open up a bit for insurance. Harris was always pushing the envelope right there on the pinky toe of the curve.

 

We did a night exterior where he lit a city block with the edges of the beams of six 1K par cans, then he underexposed the key by at least 3 stops! By the time we started shooting those par cans were so precisely positioned that the poor electric in the lift wasn't allowed to come down for lunch! I think he got 12 hours of meal-penalty that day :D

[Jon Rosenbloom]

Just so that i get this straight.

 

The idea is to either expose the film normally (5277 at 320 asa) have the negative pulled. And then print it back up to key.

 

or as you said over expose the film by a bit (e.g. half a stop) have them pull it a stop or a stop and a half, then print it back up to key.

 

And if I'm understanding what was done on Birth, Savides underexposed the film 2 stops, then pulled it an additional 2 stops, then printed it up to the desired level.

So the idea is to have an extremely thin (underexposed) negative and make a "brighter" print from it.

Is my understanding of the process correct.

 

And thanks again, you've been a great help.

Best regards,

Pierre Elliott

p.s.

is there any way that i can see a copy of the shorts that you shot using the pulling technique. Of course I'd pay the material costs and the shipping fee.

Thanks again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wow, haven't read this thread in a while. What I really want to emphasize is to read Ansel Adams's book "The Negative," especially his discussion of local contrast. He explains it a lot better and more thoroughly than I could possibly do.

 

In general, your understanding of the process is correct. For myself, I wouldn't get hung up on "printing up to key." Your camera report should indicate some scene info (DAY-INT, NIGHT-INT) and the timer should print to that instruction regardless of how the neg is processed. (I only worry about that if, for example, I'm shooting a day exterior and the sun has set!) Also note, though, a very important part of the process is shooting tests. Harris shot tests for "Birth," and I - on my two student films - shot tests.

 

As far as seeing the samples: Sure, that's quite flatterring. I could send you my reel, which has some clips from both pulled films, as well as clips from normally processed s-16. Also, you would do well to just buy a few rolls of slide film and do some experiments on your own.

Best,

J

[Rolfe Klement]

I have been watching this film a couple of times recently and for all the plot holes about the boy I still think this is one of the best acted emotional arcs about love lost - Danny and Nicole are fantastic.

 

Such a pity this film did not do well - but in about 20 years it will be a classic

 

my 2 cents

 

Rolfe

[Sam Wells]

I have never seen someone so confident and daring with underexposure. Most guys will take a reading, and knowing it can be fixed in telecine, will open up a bit for insurance. Harris was always pushing the envelope right there on the pinky toe of the curve.

 

I'm *very* curious to see what he's done with the Viper......

 

-Sam

[chris descor]

I knew this was something special the moment I saw it.

Hope it gets a blu-ray release soon. the single layer DVD I have is severely badly done & of low quality.

there is a mention/link to a Savides interview in this thread, but its now gone.

can anyone possibly refind it again?

also, was there a Savides article in ACS mag about Birth when it came out ?

and lastly, in the book 'New Cinematographers', is there a section on Birth/Savides ?

[Steve Zimmerman]

in the book 'New Cinematographers', is there a section on Birth/Savides ?

 

Double checking my copy of New Cinematographers, there IS NO section on Birth. There are articles on The Game, The Yards, Gerry, and Elephant.

 

Someone with close ties to American Cinematographer magazine should get them to do one of their special, retrospective articles on Birth, since there is so much interest. There was a recent article on the cinematography of the 1977 cult horror film Suspiria recently, which is one of my favorites.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Steve Zimmerman

[CiraFelinaBollaDP]

Just came across this old post, years later....Re: BIRTH shot by Harris Savides. I shot a Second Unit on BIRTH for Jonathan Glazer after Principal Photography was completed. My sequence was a "Live Action Water Birth" this first to ever be captured on film, found in the opening sequence of the film. That aside, I recall BIRTH was shot 5218 KODAK as that was the stock I used as well.

Best regards,

CIRA

Cira Felina Bolla

cinematographer

www.cirafelinabolla.com

[Kemalettin Sert]

how did they achieve that opening shot?