Future without Cinematographers?

[bouncybabybucket]

This may sound stupid, but I work in television and I'm a tiny bit alarmed with the way things are going. Do any of you guys believe that with the introduction of HD video production for feature films and big budget television that crews will begin to get smaller and smaller? For instance I know now that some television companies (when covering news stories) now send only a reporter with a small camera ( eg PD170 ) and a tripod. Gone are the days when every news journalist had a camera and sound person. Things have to become more cost effective.

However I'm concerned that things may eventually go this way with feature film production. If a feature is being shot on HD and the studio doesn't have to worry about the cost of film stock, then is it possible they'll just hire a director and not a cinematographer?

I think this would be a travesty of course, but I could see it happening.

[David Mullen ASC]

No, I don't see any of that happening except at the lowest of the low-budget features. Certainly hasn't been a trend at the level of HD feature filmmaking that I've been working in -- HD hasn't caused any shrinkage of crews.

 

You'll have MORE of the ultra low-budget people doing movies with tiny crews -- they'll just be using consumer HD cameras instead of consumer DV cameras. Forty years ago they probably would have been using Bolexes...

 

But in the professional feature world, there will not be any shrinkage of crews due to HD cameras. On my earliest HD features, there was some idea that a 2nd AC wasn't needed but that notion quickly got dropped. The work has to get done on time; time is everything on a feature with any sort of budget. Trying to do the same amount of work with fewer people takes more time, which means longer schedules.

 

What drives the size of the crew is the style of the production, so as long as people want to see traditional narrative features with conventional coverage, dolly moves, decent lighting, etc. then the crews will be the size necessary to pull that off, regardless of the shooting format. Now if for some reason the general filmgoing masses suddenly want to mostly see handheld movies shot in available light, then perhaps we'd see crew sizes shrink, but I don't see that happening on any large scale.

 

>If a feature is being shot on HD and the studio doesn't have to worry about the cost of film stock, then is it possible they'll just hire a director and not a cinematographer?

 

This doesn't even make sense; very little of what the cinematographer does is tied to the cost of film stock. What about lighting, camera movement, composition, coverage, etc. -- there's a lot of work that the cinematographer does that isn't related to the particular recording format. A studio hires a cinematographer to make their movie look good, professional, make the leading actress look good, keep things on schedule, etc., many skills are involved that the director probably does not have nor has time to engage in. There are very few directors who want to eliminate the cinematographer's position, let alone studios.

[bouncybabybucket]

Well thats a relief!!

What I meant was a cinematographer is the artist who controls the image; makes sure the lighting, colour etc is correct in the shot.

[Rik Andino]

For instance I know now that some television companies (when covering news stories) now send only a reporter with a small camera ( eg PD170 ) and a tripod.  Gone are the days when every news journalist had a camera and sound person.  Things have to become more cost effective.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ENG and television news workflows are very different from a feature film.

The mentality of the news is just get the shot doesn't matter how it looks

So they can send a journalist with a PD150 to just get the shot

And no one will care because content not style is what sells in the news business.

 

However I do believe the News studio is still functioning

The same way it did 20 years ago--is it?

 

So what I'm saying here is it's very difficult to judge

The future of feature film production by looking at News Production

 

If you want a more accurate comparison

Try comparing Television Drama's and Feature Films

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> The mentality of the news is just get the shot doesn't matter how it looks

 

I've done ENG shoots with jimmy jib and steadicam. Think again.

 

Phil

[Riku Naskali]

But that's not very common, is it?

 

And by the, I really wish it's not only the style what sells in the feature business ;)

Edited March 31, 2005 by Riku Naskali

[Leon Rodriguez]

The last HD feature that I shot had the same size crew as a low budget indie of the same budget size. Instead of a loader we had a video tech tweaking the paintbox everything else was pretty much the same. I personally think there will be more jobs, the more electronic cinematography improves. It only makes sense to me that the more complex the capture technology the more insertion points for creative human intervention. This is the nature of an innovative creative process. The filmmaking culture allows for such collaborations. It's an exciting ascent. I just hope they never stop making filmstock in my lifetime, to offer that as a capture choice. It's still my favorite. The new stocks just keep getting better and better.

[Sam Wells]

I personally think there will be more jobs, the more electronic cinematography improves.  It only makes sense to me that the more complex the capture technology the more insertion points for creative human intervention.  This is the nature of an innovative creative process.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not so sure about this. For an industrial complex mode of production - Spiderman 6, for an (somewhat exaggerated) example/model whatever well then probably you're right.

 

For something more artisinal, I have some doubts as to the equation "improves" and

"MORE" people required. Takes more people to staff a Red Lobster franchise than a small restaurant, but that's my point.

 

I'm not only talking about the somewhat first person filmmaking I'm doing now either.

 

On another thread on this list, someon's asking how Robby Mueller acheived what he did on "Down By Law". It was not not not an army of look experts was it. A few people on camera and lab side who know a *relatively* simple craft, albeit one truly mastered.

 

I don't want to loose THAT kind of possibilty to digital.

 

I imagine (I sorta seriously expect this) a cin.com Thread circa 2015 about lookup tables and plugins like "Robby Mueller Down By Law Look - Help me get it"

 

-Sam (nothing against LUTs Plugins or more employment, but...)

[Matt Pacini]

A future without cinematographers, is about as likely as a future without actors, which has also been predicted (by people who have no idea how much time, effort and money it takes to do CG character animation, thinking you just have a "Tom Cruise" plugin or whatever, that can be summoned by hitting F4 on the keyboard).

 

I find both of these ridiculous predictions, just like some other predictions that never came to pass that I heard growing up:

 

1. Personal flying machines that will make cars obsolete (this was predicted in the 60's & 70's to have already happened by now).

2. Everyone is going to have video phones.

3. All sidewalks will be automated (like horizontal escalators) so nobody will have to walk anywhere.

4. A "paperless society" because of computers.

 

 

Matt Pacini

[Guest fstop]

One of the most significant areas you guys overlook (and I've NEVER seen it mentioned in this forum, concerningly) is VIRTUAL cinematography. The more CG is integrated into movies the greater the call out for CG lighting directors with expansive photographic knowledge, especially when integrating CG elements with the real world- hell most straight animation/toon shows like SHREK obide a decidedly photographic realisation with simulated lens selection, depth of field, lens flares and of course, most importantly, LIGHTING. Whatever you think of the results, just look at how much time Don Burgess and Robert Presley spent directing the lighting of POLAR EXPRESS.

 

Virtual cinematography even right now is an incredibly valid form of our art, as much so as miniature or process or second unit photography, as in live action movie cases it all has to blend SEAMLESSLY into the main unit footage.

 

I eagerly await a CG lighting guy to be admitted into an organisation such as the ASC, and I don't think we are that many years from that happening.

[Guest Tim van der Linden]

One of the most significant areas you guys overlook (and I've NEVER seen it mentioned in this forum, concerningly) is VIRTUAL cinematography. The more CG is integrated into movies the greater the call out for CG lighting directors with expansive photographic knowledge, especially when integrating CG elements with the real world- hell most straight animation/toon shows like SHREK obide a decidedly photographic realisation with simulated lens selection, depth of field, lens flares and of course, most importantly, LIGHTING. Whatever you think of the results, just look at how much time Don Burgess and Robert Presley spent directing the lighting of POLAR EXPRESS.

 

Virtual cinematography even right now is an incredibly valid form of our art, as much so as miniature or process or second unit photography, as in live action movie cases it all has to blend SEAMLESSLY into the main unit footage.

 

I eagerly await a CG lighting guy to be admitted into an organisation such as the ASC, and I don't think we are that many years from that happening.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't mean to challenge your point, because it is an excellent one, but Don Burgess and Robert Presley had absolutely nothing to do with the lighting on Polar Express. Don Burgess was essentially in charge of the motion capture process, and Robert Presley essentially functioned as a camera operator.

 

Someone correct me if my information on this part is wrong, but from what I understand the VFX Supervisors had developed a program in which prime lenses could be chosen and hooked up to a technocrane rig which was hooked up to a computer (sorry for my lack of incredibly technical terms, computers and I have a strange relationship) and Robert Presley basically operated the camera throughout an already established room/set/whatever.

 

The two VFX Supervisors, Jerome Chen and Ken Ralston, were the two men responsible for the lighting design of the film. I know this for a fact after sitting in on a lengthy interview with Jerome Chen. While both have a fairly extensive background in photography, it doesn't necessarily bode well for our argument here that the VFX supervisors designed the lighting for the film.

[Guest fstop]

Yunno what Tim, I myself am not totally clear on who did what, but someone who works at Imageworks said:

 

"Burgess contributed very little to Polar Express in production in my opinion. He was primarily involved in pre-production / production design with Rick Carter, Bob & Doug Chiang. The credit for the camera work should go to Robert Presley (Don Burgess' camera guy - who should be a full DP IMHO), Ken Ralston & Jerome Chen."

 

That's pretty ambiguous- I mean, during prep Burgess could have decided with Zemeckis on the simulated lens selection and then the pallette with Carter- the lighting execution might then of been done by Chen and Ralston, much like say a second unit conventionally would do the work for the main unit abiding by blueprints- one thing's for sure and that is that the show was hopelessly political!

 

Here's the ICG article, I'm sure you've all read it.

 

Northern Exposure

Don Burgess, ASC and Robert Presley,

SOC Take a Trip to the North Pole for

The Polar Express

By Bob Fisher

 

PROLOGUE: Don Burgess, ASC has two holiday gifts for children and the young-at-heart. In The Polar Express he mastered a different type of motion capture technology designed to give computer animation a human touch. Christmas with the Kranks is a live-action film that explores the premise that there is drama in comedy. Both are entertaining, feel-good movies that probe the meaning of the Christmas spirit. Both were imbued with extraordinary production values by the master cinematographer and his crew.

 

A young boy is lying in his moonlit bedroom on Christmas Eve. He is breathing silently, hardly moving, straining to hear Santa's sleigh bells. Just before midnight, a thunderous roar startles him. He gets out of bed and peers out the window. There he sees a magnificent steam train waiting to take him to meet Santa Claus at the North Pole.

 

The Polar Express is the cinematic interpretation of a classic story written by Chris Van Allsburg. Writer/ director Robert Zemeckis and writer William Broyles, Jr. crafted the screenplay in a world that the director describes as "waking space."

 

"It was an annual tradition to read the book to my son while he was growing up, and it never failed to fascinate him," Zemeckis says. "The imagery (in the movie) has an otherworldly quality, existing somewhere between dreams and reality."

 

The Polar Express is a computer-animated film featuring Tom Hanks as the conductor of a train that takes children on a magical journey. Hanks is more than a voice for an animated character. He is the heart and soul of the character, whose movements, body language and facial expressions are based on his live-action performances.

 

It was the first use of a new technology called Performance Capture, which blends traditional motion picture production techniques and aesthetics with computer animation. The performances of flesh and blood actors were photographed by Don Burgess, ASC with the aid of the new motion capture system designed to provide a roadmap for creating virtual characters with visceral, human-like qualities.

 

Burgess' connection to the project began with a phone call from Zemeckis, who asked if he was interested in working with him on a different type of film. Their previous collaborations included Forrest Gump, Contact, What Lies Beneath and Cast Away.

 

"Everything that Bob Zemeckis gets involved with is going to be original, different and challenging," Burgess says. "The idea of working with him on a film that is an interpretation of a Chris Van Allsburg children's book was irresistible. I was also intrigued by the motion capture system and figuring out how to make it work. That's part of the fun of filmmaking. It was a chance to solve problems and experiment with a new way of telling stories in order to get an interesting movie on the screen."

 

The Performance Capture system was conjured up at Sony Pictures Imageworks by visual effects experts Ken Ralston and Jerome Chen. Their goal was to use motion capture technology as a technique for recording performances by actors in a computer-readable format. Burgess and his crew used multiple video cameras to record the performances of actors from different angles and perspectives. The action was also covered by infrared cameras surrounding the stages.

 

"I had my regular grip crew, part of my lighting crew, two camera operators, Robert Presley, SOC and Patrick O'Brien, and assistant cameraman Steve Cueva working with the video cameras to capture nuances in body language and expressions," he says.

 

The actors wore form-fitting motion capture suits with 60 "markers" made of light-reflective material to provide points of reference for building three-dimensional CG images. They also had markers on their faces that were used to record subtleties in expressions. The infrared cameras recorded the frame-by-frame positions of the markers. They were set up and operated by a company that specializes in that type of data collection.

 

Ralston explains that the system is designed to capture every discernable movement and nuance in performances, including the fluttering of eyebrows. The positions of the markers on clothing and faces were used by the animators to plot movements and shape expressions of the virtual characters on virtual sets.

 

"They had done some tests with the system before I came on board," Burgess says. "There were storyboards, and some scenes had been pre-visualized with low resolution images. The production designer, Rick Carter, and I had previously done several films together. In fact, almost everyone on the crew had worked together on other films.

 

"It was like taking a giant puzzle that had been poured on the floor and putting all the pieces together," he continues. "This type of motion capture has been used to create characters in video games, but never with the details in facial expressions like we did on this movie. The technology was being designed and created as we were using it."

 

Burgess had six weeks for preproduction planning with Zemeckis, Carter and his co-production designer Doug Chiang, costume designer Joanna Johnston, Ralston and the motion capture technology team. Three stages at Culver City Studios were set up for motion capture cinematography. One stage included a 10X10-foot area reserved for shooting close-ups. The tracking markers on the actors' faces were used to plot expressions in the CG world. The other stages were used to capture other movements and body language during performances.

 

Burgess watched the actors rehearse and blocked coverage just like he would on a live-action movie. Before shooting the scene where the first boy gets on the train, they plotted grids and planned the actor's movements from one place to another. One big question was whether they needed to build a set for a train car, or just the steps leading up to it and something for the actor to sit on. They decided to make the steps and seat out of chicken wire sprayed with a gray, non-reflective paint.

 

"We avoided using solid objects that would have obscured points of view from different camera angles," Burgess says. "Before we shot a scene in a bedroom, we marked the positions of walls and places occupied by furniture with tape on the floor. That told everyone where all the objects in the room were and where you couldn't walk."

 

Burgess also discussed focal lengths with Zemeckis. The computer software used to create the virtual world enabled them to emulate the characteristics of different lenses. They decided to mimic Super 35 lenses, mainly in focal lenses ranging from 20 to 35 mm.

 

Burgess used as many as twelve video cameras to cover the action, including Canon XLs and GL2s. Most were locked down and a few had operators. The flat fluorescent lighting had to be set at a low level to allow the infrared cameras to track movements.

 

There was a video village with a monitor for each camera. "We would watch the cameras catching the performances and make sure we had all the information Bob (Zemeckis) needed in post," Burgess says.

 

Zemeckis began each day staging scenes with the actors while Burgess planned his blocking. One camera was always on a facial close-up that Zemeckis used to judge performances, and another was always on a master shot. The video cameras recorded time code, which enabled the director and editor to synchronize dialogue with the images.

 

"When we shot a performance that Bob liked, we could move on without retakes, because the actual shots were created in postproduction," Burgess says. "We'd wait about two weeks for the images to come back in a virtual environment."

 

While Burgess was on the set with Zemeckis, Presley was at a computer console finessing the virtual images and beginning to translate the raw data recorded during motion capture shots. The control module for a Libra head was adapted to interface with the computer, which enabled Presley to give the images a human touch by panning-and-tilting and moving a virtual camera through low-resolution virtual sets. There were no facial expressions at this point. The characters were referred to as Michelin Men.

 

"We'd show Bob (Zemeckis) those shots the next day," Burgess says. "Sometimes he was satisfied with what he saw, and other times he would ask for a refinement, like 'Can we make that move a little longer, with a close-up at the end?' After we made those fixes, he would do a rough cut of the scene with the editor to make sure it was working. The process was evolving all the while we were shooting."

 

Burgess shot 13 Going On 30, Radio and Christmas with the Kranks after completing production of The Polar Express. Presley stayed with the film for about another year through postproduction, finessing the images with Zemeckis.

 

"It took a lot longer than everyone anticipated," says Presley, "partially because of the time it took to process all the motion capture data. One of the great things about this process is the flexibility it gives you. I'm sure Stanley Kubrick would have loved it, because it is incredibly easy to reshoot a scene over and over again. Bob (Zemeckis) would look at a shot, get a new idea and ask me to shoot it again. This way we could really perfect how the story would be told in camera.

 

"After they finally put expressions on the faces, we saw things that would work for the story if we did a little additional tweaking," Presley adds. "I'm computer literate and into PhotoShop, but probably the best preparation I had for this project was the work I've done with Don (Burgess) and other cinematographers, getting the feeling of working with cameras on remote heads. I'm used to looking at a monitor and feeling the pacing of shots through the wheels. I think that's what prepared me to evaluate and improve shots. The camera is an active participant in all of Bob's (Zemeckis) movies. He didn't want to sacrifice that perspective or aesthetic just because it's an animated movie."

 

The Polar Express was completed during digital intermediate timing sessions at Imageworks, where it was timed for continuity and recorded onto intermediate film used as a master for release printing in both IMAX 3-D and 2.4:1 cinema formats.

 

About two months into a schedule that went for a total of 18 months, Zemeckis and the studio decided it was appropriate for Presley to share a cinematography credit with Burgess. He has worked on some twenty narrative projects as a camera and Steadicam operator, including four with Burgess with the latest being Radio. The Polar Express is his first credit as a cinematographer

 

The Polar Express was produced by Castle Rock Entertainment and distributed by Warner Bros. "It's all about storytelling," Burgess concludes. "You've got to be open to different ways of telling stories and be willing to try new ways of doing things. It looks and feels different than a normal animated movie. I believe you can tell that it was Tom Hanks who was driving the character of the conductor. This is just the beginning. I assume the next movie shot this way will be light years ahead of what we did."

[Guest Tim van der Linden]

I'm sure there is a fair amount of speculation on all sides, I'm just going on what was told to me by Jerome Chen himself and by what I read in the AC article