M Joel W

It's been exactly a year so if we refrigerate it now I figure it will still be good in a year, maybe? Or I can try to use it sooner. I'll get a snip test. I don't have a claim on this film yet, but if I get my hands on it it should be almost free for quite a lot of film, which is why I'm interested in the first place. Of course processing won't be free. It's the remains from a feature shot on 35mm and the studio couldn't sell it because it was left out. I might also have some Fuji 64D from a short made under similar circumstances, come to think of it.

You probably know more about this than I do, but I'm interested in the same subject so I'm posting to read others' replies. A few thoughts, anyway: What format are you shooting--I don't think dSLR or Red could handle the blown highlights and you might need more fill to compensate, whereas film or the Alexa could get there and you might need less fill. The flipside of which is that a less grainy medium will allow you to use power windows more aggressively and I find the Alexa and film have more texture in the midtones (whereas the Epic just has tons of noise in the shadows, worse for what it is but perceptually cleaner if you crush the blacks in post). I assume you're using some diffusion on camera, promist maybe? Matching LEDs to tungsten is an imperfect science from what I've seen, but I'm only worked with pretty low end LEDs. If you're lighting through heavy diff, anyway, such as half grid why would you use LEDs rather than fresnels or soft lights; the quality of the light will be impacted by the diff either way to a really significant extent and LEDs won't render color as well. Why not just use a book light if you're looking for a big, shadowless fill? I suppose you could fill selectively with an LED (it's not super hard, but it is easily controlled and directional, so it's got a unique quality of light), but diffusion would cancel that out. You could also just bring in more fill as needed for the CUs if faces don't need to read in the widest shots. The difference probably won't be that big a deal.

Thank you all. I'll see if I can refrigerate it until I use it.

I think it's more a matter of being able to articulate something with a particular voice and mastery of the form than coming up with something "new" and creative. This can mean different things to different directors; just as a great EDM producer might not be able to play guitar but he's still a talented musician, a great director might not work well with actors, might struggle at covering action, might be bad at comedy, might not be able to write well, etc. But that's what's so awesome about movies: their diversity. Spielberg's favorite directors are Lean and Ford. No surprise. Bay's favorite? The Coens. Crazy. Don't think about the movies in terms of concepts. Most of Fincher's best movies are based on books, none are written by Fincher, and they have a lot of traits in common (thematically, most are about a genius manipulator of sorts, be it a serial killer or CEO). This isn't because Fincher thought those would be good movies to make necessarily, but because the studio is more likely to green light pictures that are similar to previous financial successes from a given director. Who can blame them? Benjamin Button was unwatchable. A lot of the story aspects are the terrain of writers and producers. Rather than looking exclusively at what stories directors come up with (although this is very important), consider their other responsibilities: directing actors, blocking, working with the cinematographer, editor, and production designer to create a look and feel, placing the camera and picking lenses and camera motion, etc. This is where are are specific crafts that require a certain level of experience and genius to master--it's not just coming up with an idea, it's executing on it. The director isn't who comes up with the story most of the time, and a lot of narrative commonalities academics ascribe to auteur theory are actually just the work of studios and producers teaming stories up with directors, but the director IS the primary story teller--and any given story can be told a million different ways.

Thanks! If I might not use it for as long as a year, should I store it in a refrigerator or just leave it out in the same conditions? Thankfully this wouldn't be for a commercial project.

I might be able to get my hands on some 5230 and a 35mm camera for less money than they would usually cost to use, but my concern is that the film has been left out for a year in normal temperatures (an office that varies between 40ºF and 90ºF, but is usually more temperate, is my guess). Should I: a) Refrigerate the stock now and take it out when I'm ready to use it (hopefully within a year or two). B ) Not bother. c) Continue to leave it out in the same environment. and if I choose to use it should I: a) Rate it significantly slower (250ISO) and expect major color shifts or B ) Rate it the same and expect it will be very similar to how it was originally or c) Try it out and see what it's like Basically what I'm asking is--how bad will this film be and how should I treat it so it doesn't get worse? Thanks!

Thanks! Sorry for the horrible incoherent writing, btw; don't drink and post, I guess... The cinematography in this movie is really awesome. It looks a lot like the Classical "three point light" offside key look but what they did with it is great and motivated. Panaflasher and smoke to reduce contrast and then ENR to increase it? Amazing that they got this look before DIs. What kind of key:fill ratios are we talking here? Are these set ups actually fairly low contrast then boosted by the ENR? Two things really elude me, how did they achieve this level of contrast, get blue/green tints on the walls, and keep skin tones natural? Did they fill with green gelled lights, is it an art direction thing, a byproduct of ENR, the color of the smoke? And what kind of key lights could you use to get that much contrast while maintaining a soft shape in a bright room? The third frame grab down appears to be lit with a skirted soft source from above (mild raccoon eyes), but the skin tones are correct and the ambience of the room green. Surely these aren't white walls--they were painted off blue? Otherwise, how? Four shots down, is the practical also they key? The vertical kinoflo as a kicker seems like a great idea, but wouldn't it spill? And wouldn't the key spill, too? Most rooms seem to have pretty bright walls and none of the spaces look that big.

He's used this style elsewhere, I think, but I am a pretty big fan of Darius Khondji's technique in Seven... From what I can tell his technique for day exteriors is throwing up a lot off diff (more likely solids) over as much of the onscreen area as possible and using rain machines. I think the movie had a bleach bypass process. I'm more interested in how the interiors were art directed, lit, filmed, and processed. A few grabs (courtesy Brangelina forums): These are kind of shitty. The sickly green hue and rich blacks aren't apparent here. The movie has kind of a teal/warm look that I love (in this case) but I can't figure out how it was achieved. It seems Khondji dimmed the practicals so that they just barely blew out, then lit the talent with warn semi-soft offside keys and slightly cooler kickers. Looks great. Rooms seem to be fogged? Or did he use hazers? And how, then, does he keep the green tint on the rear walls while lighten the talents' skin naturalistically? Did he bounce a teal gelled light off the ceiling? And wouldn't this result in really flat lighting on the white walls, or did art design paint them sickly hues from the get go. The other rumor is that Khondji only uses bounced light. Which would make these set ups seem insane... HelP!

I don't shoot film because I can't afford to; don't be patronizing. My occupation is listed as student and even that's not really true. I took one intro class in school and public access video production and I still want to take more classes some day and hopefully make a living working in video production... Not pretending to be someone I'm not. A few friends of mine have recently shot features, shorts, etc. on film. With lab costs, telecine, etc. the cost was about $100,000 more for a feature on a similar scale to Halloween or something versus the budget for something shot digitally. A 10:1 shooting ratio on 5219 for a 100 minute feature puts you at $60,000 for raw stock as per Kodak's rate in America. Okay, you can get discounts, but then factor in the cost of camera rental, processing, telecine, dailies, timing/DI, etc... I'm sure profitable features have been shot on 35mm for under $100,000 but those are exceptions, not the rule. Particularly not in America where you need a star to sell your script to investors, let alone your movie to distributors. Assuming a normal shooting ratio, unless you're willing to pull in tons of favors to which a first-timer doesn't have access, $100,000 extra to shoot on film (versus cheap digital--high end digital would be somewhere in between) is a reasonable figure. How would set up times not be increased? You have, effectively, half the DoF at a given stop for anamorphic and film is a stop slower than popular digital alternatives; those extra lights don't set themselves up... Don't see why you need to feel like a big man and butt in about how you get to shoot on film--oh good for you. Your claims are still wrong and you have terrible grammar.

Hmm...yes, that would make a lot more sense.

I sent you a PM but you should really hire a producer and DP if you want substantive answers to these questions rather than just semi-anonymous opinions. The cost of additional gear for shooting film rather than video might be as little as $100,000, but the additional crew and potentially slower set up times will mean you'll need a higher budget. Thus the figure I gave above for a very low budget indie shot on 35mm. If you've got the money to shoot film and you love the look, go for it. But you should hire a producer and, eventually, a DP before even thinking about gear. Gear won't be your biggest expense, nor should it be your top priority.

Panavision is willing to rent some of its gear very affordably now that demand for it has decreased. Get a few quotes from local rental houses (NYC or LA, you can google the major ones) and see what's cheapest, bid them against each other. You should be able to get a camera package and grip package for next to nothing if you negotiate smartly. Many DPs will reduce their rate if it means the chance to shoot on film, but then you still need a full cast and crew (and locations) in addition to your DP's fee. If you're set on shooting 35mm film, anamorphic, etc. and want a full good non-union crew, my guess is you're looking at $200,000 if you pull in tons of favors to a million.

If you can seal up the edges to entrances and exits (and don't have any pesky skylights) it can be simple: Cover the windows (from the outside) with duvy or even a couple layers of trash bags. Have art pull the shades or blinds to cover as much of the windows as possible. Light as you want.

Very interesting...I talked with an extremely talented landscape photographer who eschews the use of 85 filters, too. He shoots 4x5 velvia with no filtration. Not even polarizers. Pretty amazing, actually. Similar beautiful greens and lush tonality to Tree of Life in his work, but more contrast and saturation. Curious that Lubezki would use polarizers at all given their deleterious effect on skin tone and wonky tendencies when used with wide lenses and camera movement. I read the online portion of the ASC article (should have done this in the first place, didn't know it was available) and they did some interesting stuff. I found their anti-"light sandwich" dictum (negative fill, as you mentioned) surprising...sculptural lighting is generally something to strive toward and for exteriors you've got one light source so how often do you really get this? And yet it seemed like a major concern. I wish I could identify when this was used. And I don't believe Lubezki when he claims they wanted to avoid lens flares and use deep focus. The movie was full of lens flares and shallow focus photography, to the extent that I bet they were using NDs to achieve it. The sunstars and bokeh were gorgeous, of course. The overexposure and DI process seemed to have a lot to do with the look. I read that they wanted to time photochemically but couldn't because current print stocks are too contrasty. I don't think this look would have been possible without the DI. Anyhow, the result is incredible and Kodak should use this to advertise film, except of course that the footage shot on red looked just as good... I might have to upgrade from my dSLR for the exteriors in my next short...I just don't believe this look is technically possible with cheap digital, even with the best lighting conditions.

Never used it. Always thought it was for putting a small fixture above a closed door or something.

Days of Heaven looked amazing, but its technical magic was entirely different from Tree of Life's. If I remember, Days of Heaven got its look by Almendros pushing two stops, shooting with a t1.1 lens, shooting everything backlit at magic hour or blue hour, not using an 85 filter at blue hour, etc. It looked amazing and of course pulling those kinds of things off is an incredible achievement, but I don't think they had the technology to achieve some of the photography in Tree of Life in the 1970s or else it would have looked different. Days of Heaven is a soft, grainy movie and while it looks great, Tree of Life is a technical marvel in a whole different category. (Aesthetically they're both pretty incredible but very different stylistically, imo.) I also don't think "why" is the right question, to be perfectly honest. Why shoot blue hour it like that? Because it looks great is a good enough reason. How do you retain that much highlight detail or light faces so attractively without reflectors or overheads (when shooting with wide angle lenses)? That's a harder question to answer. My best guess is careful grading, compressing the highlights in the DI. Maybe waiting for overcast days that have thin enough clouds where light is still directional and even then shooting backlit. But those are rare conditions. I'm still a total beginner and for me it's easy to see this movie and be wowed by it, aesthetically and technically, but it would be very difficult for me to shoot footage like this (particularly on my little t2i). "Why" is easy for me--I love natural light, wide lenses, the interplay between green and skin tones in a frame, and dramatic landscape photography in general, but I am not a fan of the HDR look, polarizers, or grads. How is my concern right now. I've gone outside in nice light and tried to photograph like this, it's not happening; I don't have the skills (or possibly the gear--again, shooting with a dSLR). It might just be a matter of me being inept, but I want to know "how."

I don't want to argue about the merits of this film or its cinematography since I think that discussion has been had ad nauseum, rather I'd like some insight into how this technical marvel was actually made... IMDb claims the film was shot on a mix of 5217, 5219, red, and IMAX with master prime and ultra primes. I've read the film was shot almost entirely with natural light and, for once, I'll believe it (the night interiors obviously had practicals chosen specifically for how they would throw light and the set design--lots of windows and blue/green walls--was specifically tailer for contrast, color, and light, and I imagine they took something out of the truck everyone once in a while for interiors in particular, but still, wow). Looking in the eyes during day exteriors, I never saw a beadboard, 12x frame, anything at all--sometimes to the detriment of a particular shot that might have benefited from a bit more fill or an eye light imo, but overall this is the best cinematography of the year by far and the best natural light cinematography I've seen. Which begs the question--how? The basic tricks were all there--backlit late day photography, blue hour photography, etc. but the look is like nothing I've seen. I've rarely seen overcast days where light was quite that contrasty or directional and the lack of raccoon eyes during overcast exteriors (and the surprisingly lush palette) is impressive. A lot of the day exteriors shot with direct sun have much less contrast than I'd expect, too. Does anyone know what the DI process was like for this film? The light and contrast is breathtaking. The overcast photography looks too good to be real, the direct sun photography too soft and low contrast to truly be unfilled (and yet where are the reflections in the eyes from reflectors--there never were any that I could see)? The blue hour stuff looks too good to be real, too. When I shoot during blue hour the contrast between the sky and foreground is simply too much for a camera to handle. And yet the contrast is just perfect with no evidence of grad filters or polarizers in sight. Furthermore, the day interior photography looked appropriately exposed and absolutely gorgeous. And yet soft light through the window rarely provides a bright enough key. Maybe the wide lenses let them shoot almost wide open? Did this movie undergo a crazy DI or was it simply the strength of the photography? The DI must have been quite good. I can usually tell when scenes switch between IMAX and 35mm--the grain structure and contrast changes. But here it was seamless. And the red and film must have been graded together seamlessly, too, since it all looked great to me, quite an accomplishment since I think red rarely handles greens and skin tones as well as film. Also, how did they do the creation of the universe stuff? Incredible effects. I want to emulate those for a short I'm doing. Anyone have any insight? I did catch one rack aperture...

Just used those on a shoot this weekend because we couldn't afford kinos and I've used the 3500K variant lots before as practicals. Good output, flicker totally dependent on ballast (but even $10 housings usually have electronic ballasts and thus no flicker these days), and good color rendering considering the price. If you have the ability to time out a minor green spike (which might not even be a problem at all) you'll be all set with these lights. With 1/50 you may not see flickering until it's too late, especially with dSLRs. So try out some outlandish fast shutter speeds to see if the lights flicker at all. If they don't, you're good, it's an electronic ballast (which won't flicker until you get to ridiculous speeds). If they do flicker, shoot at 1/60, which should be safe unless they're malfunctioning. Sure kinoflos would be better but these will have more output and just slightly worse color.

That's why I decided to go with the first generation--no use waiting when I'll have a few projects to shoot with it before the new one is released. The CA really isn't that bad, just worse than I'd like and hard to avoid. For stills it's a problem but you can fix it if you shoot raw. For video it hasn't been a big issue so far, but it will show up in high contrast areas. The new revision should hopefully fix this, but don't think of it as a deal breaker. The lens flares are more prominent than average, but they're very pretty looking. For landscapes this is irritating, for music videos and action movies I like it a lot. I also forgot to mention that the minimum focusing distance is a bit long for an ultra wide. This is a very dynamic focal length range for macro style work and Michael Bay style inserts but you can't do that with the lens. The front element is quite small given the 77mm (I think) threads so you can probably use filters on it, though, which is convenient! I recommend it, but also would recommend considering the 10-22mm Canon, which has less CA, is considerably wider, and is only half a stop slower at wide angle. Haven't used it, but I've heard great things. Or just rent!

Just got a Tokina 11-16mm. It's okay but like many lenses seems overpriced for what it does. Good contrast wide open and more than sharp enough for video at f2.8, flares a bit more than most lenses but the flares are pretty aesthetic. Bokeh is fine. Build quality is quite good. Distortion seems minor, but linear perspective distortion is dramatic with an ultra-wide and kind of hides it. The focus ring is smooth and has hard stops and a throw of about 90º, which is sufficient for a lens this wide, imo. But I don't mind AF lenses so long as they have an okay throw; if you do, well, this is one... So far so good, but... It's not nearly as wide as a 14mm lens on full frame. Not even the same feeling. The chromatic aberration is really out of control, not that this will matter that often, but it's true even stopped down. Even the venerable 17-55mm IS has bad CA, so it could be worse, but should be a lot better. You won't see it in video that often is my guess, but it's pretty bad. The zoom range feels almost pointless. There's a difference between 11mm and 16mm for sure, but if you're going for ultra wide why would you zoom in to slightly less ultra wide? It's good, but not great. My guess is the second generation model, coming in the next few months, will correct for some of these shortcomings. Pretty useful, though, really a dynamic focal length at 11mm.

1/4 CTO should eat almost no light. I think 3/4 CTO (which brings HMIs to 3200K) eats maybe 2/3 stop? Way less than CTB. If you're lighting ONLY with HMIs, this seems like something you could do in post very easily. There are other colors you could use, too. I forget what they used in Pan's Labyrinth but I think it was some sort of green/teal gel? Could be totally wrong but that looked great. HMIs vary pretty significantly in color temperature so you could easily have one at 6000K+ and another around 5000K. So some might need more CTO (and possibly some minus green) than others.

Thanks, both of these replies are very helpful. Glad I won't need to hire a leko for this shot only. Can you rent insecticide sprayers, though? Or would one of the small ones from home depot work as well? I have seen glycerine, but not for this, and that's a clever trick. I have a couple 2k location fresnels I could use for this and I can see if the lens is removable, too. So I'll put my 1/2 CTS/1/2 CTO cocktail on that and maybe expose at key or a bit under. For CUs I'll fill from the same direction at a 3/4 angle with a small soft box with the same cocktail, dimmed down so that it reads primarily as an eyesight? Other than that maybe two kinoflo fat men (surf and turf) with half green through the windows as mercury vapor ambient light, two stops under? I'm excited to try this set up...and it even begs to be graded orange/teal, which is convenient.

Tried ultra flat. Didn't like it. Have shot neutral since. The tonality is much better and there's less posterization after grading. Just meter and light correctly in the first place.

I'm likely trying an 11-16mm zoom soon and will probably buy it. I haven't tried the Samyang but I'll tell you how the Tokina compares with the 14mm f2.8 L on the 5D (which is wonderful--the lack of distortion is remarkable). My guess is that the Tokina is probably the right choice for APS-C. It's also much wider than the 14mm on a crop body. And much less wide than the 14mm on a 36X24mm body. The 17-55mm f2.8 IS is kind of useable for video, even if I wished it had different ergonomics, and pulling focus is less horrible with ultra wides, so I'm not that worried about ergonomics.

Thank you, that's very helpful. And it gives me an excuse to watch/rewatch some good movies. Since I'll be cropping to 2.35:1 (or maybe 2:1) I'd want to go even wider than the equivalences you've indicated, I think? So maybe super wide isn't crazy anymore. The human vision thing is a ridiculous argument to get into, but I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a good reason why my favorite lenses (28mm or 35mm on Super35, 135mm on 4x5, 35mm on 135) hover around the same focal length as the diagonal of the format. I've tried directing and any shot that's longer than 50mm and isn't meant to feel distanced feels...weird too tight or too alienating for the most part.