Saul Pincus

"Sugarland" is also filled to the brim with funky "70s zooms" - very unusual in the Spielberg canon. I wonder how much of that was Zsigmond's influence. Saul

Landon, in your lifetime isn't when Spielberg really made his mark. His best, most influential work was evident in the then-new level of science fiction, fantasy, action, horror and immesurably influential and inspired cinematic technique he brought to movies starting in the early 1970's. And you'll find his seminal work in this regard runs from around 1975-1982. These days, Spielberg's impact as a director is identified mainly with historical subject matter, light and fluffy star-driven character studies, and the odd science fiction excursion. But that's not the meat on which he made his name. Saul

I caught a midnight DLP screening of this last night, and for the first time in the prequel trilogy, I actually felt a sense of unity and art with regard to the look of the film. I'm still not sure whether to thank David Tattersall or ILM for this, but the results of their efforts, combined with those of the production and costume designers, really went far in accurately conveying the melancholy as the story line reached its inevitable twilight. As for a review of the film itself, I found it "satifying enough." It's the only film of the prequel trilogy to cook along at a vintage Star Wars pace, and it is so filled with purpose you don't have the time to get swept in its flaws. In comparison, it really just amplifies my feelings that The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were warm-ups, and ultimately a waste of this Star Wars fan's time! Saul.

True, but either way you're paying for more time in the suite to produce another version. I just think we're in the overkill phase right now as far as delivery formats are concerned. But these days that applies to audio as well as picture, I suppose. Saul.

Yes, we're winning battles...but losing the war! <_< The odd thing here is that it would be cheaper for everyone involved just to deliver one pan and scan version (the 4:3), or none. Saul Pincus.

Barry Sonnenfeld started out in porn, too, from what I recall. Saul.

Other than Lightworks, Avid's interface has it hands down over Final Cut for dramatic work. Forget about producers and production managers. Many, many editors believe this, and it's one reason Avid remains popular. They will almost all tell you that the single greatest flaw with Final Cut (even version 4.5 HD) is still it's trim tool - and that based on a comfortable workflow, they would rather use Avid. Saul.

Wouldn't this have been Sonnenfeld's only anamorphic picture? Saul.

I think the biggest change since computer-based non-linear editing arrived isn't so much the speed (though that's a big one) but the fact that the process itself became socialized. Prior to this, the cutting room was really the domain of the dedicated few (director, editor, assistants) whose job it was to deliver a real movie to the outside world (producers, exec producers, studio executives and/or investors), but it wasn't necessarity considered by those "outsiders" to be a cool place to hang out. By comparison, the reality of today's cutting room is akin to a coffee shop. And because it's such a quiet, thoughtful art that increasingly requires less and less specialized gear and can be done virtually anywhere you can park your laptop, the mystery - and some of the respect - has also vanished. The speed offered by the technology creates the kind of access that creates a sense of pressure more akin to the shooting process. In reality, editing is more like writing, and since the writer is often given time alone to think, why has it become such an imposition to expect the same for the editor? (Apologies for the rant.) Saul.

"Beat" cutting is common in television, as many television producers come from writing. Intentionally or subconsciously, television shows driven by writer/producers tend to build visual beats in symmetry with script beats. Saul.

But it'a not a lot of time if you need HD deliverables, which more and more features must deliver alongside their IP. HD vs. SD telecine time is pricey. Saul.

I'd second that, but add that if at all possible, try and roto the blur edge as close to his face and hair as you can. I realize that's a bit of nightmare since he (and his hair) move quite a lot, but it would help. However, I don't think there's enough blur for my taste. My brain could tell this wasn't 35mm, mainly because I don't believe your subject's face would be perfectly sharp edge to edge. There would be just a bit of falloff towards his ears, if you know what I mean. Saul Pincus.

"Looking good" is the ultimate relative term. It's always a question of what you're looking to achieve, and what tools you need to get there. There are a number of styles that are in vogue right now where using a DI can allow the filmmakers to get a film print looking a certain way - though not necessarily the way they intended it to be seen when they shot it. Sometimes it helps, sometimes not. In terms of films with lots of visual effects, where quite a bit of screen time originates in the digital realm, then it can just make economic sense to take a full DI path. DIs are still the newest toy in the box, so we're bound to see more judicious use of the process in the coming years. Saul Pincus.

Imaging, color quality, chip sensistivity, accuracy, resolution...you name it. I would have expected the Nikons to win hands down, but they just don't. At this point, they're significantly older techonology (by a year or more) to Canon's Digital Rebel (a new 8.3 megapixel model was announced just yesterday, in fact) and EOS 20D. Digital cameras have a lot in common with computer technology that way, and Moore's law definitely applies. In the last few months, I've done quite a bit of research into the Canons (the Rebel, EOS 10D and EOS 20D) and Nikons (D70 and D100) and shot a lot of stills. It's not just my opinion. Do a google search for yourself and check out sources on the web. Saul.

Another thing you could do is spend the tiniest amount of cash and rent a smoke machine and a couple of small fans. Blowing occasional, light wafts of smoke past the windshield of your picture car is another way to help poor man's process. The smoke machine itself can be fairly small, as you're not trying to maintain a constant look - just create a sense of forward motion. Subtly done, it works everytime. Saul Pincus.

You'll find the Canon Digital Rebel and the Canon EOS 20D to be far, far superior to the Nikon D70 and D100. Saul Pincus.

I think it's important to note that a DI is useful when you take into account deliverables and versions (PAL, NTSC, HD, 4:3, 16:9 etc.), it's just that not all distribution agreements require a great deal of deliverables. I've been involved with a number of films where we've done the math and after the fact wished we'd done a DI. On others, as much as it would have given us a more flexible toolset artistically, it wasn't absolutely essential, and the cost was just too high. At this point in time DIs are still a very pricey way to go, and even once you've factored in your deliverables, it may still cost and additional $25-$60,000 more than finishing photochemically. So it's really a project and distribution agreement specific issue. Finally, the biggest question: if you're originating in 35mm anamorphic, which method of DI are you planning to use? It had better be something greater than 2K and 8-bit with the kind of rich detail the anamorphic format is capable of rendering. Saul Pincus.

There is also a set of anamorphics designed for 16mm use by Joe Dunton. This was about a year ago, and also appeared in an article in Kodak's IN CAMERA. But I'm not sure if they were intended for Super 16 use - I don't recall their compression ratios. Saul.

Michael Kahn took over from Ric Fields (Verna's son) as editor of Poltergeist well into production. Poltergeist was to be Ric Fields' break as editor, but as you point out, Spielberg became quickly dissatisfied with how things were proceeding and one result was firing the editor. Some of it's scheduling, but not all of it. I beg to differ. Also, don't lump Verna Fields in with Carol Littleton. Both female, both editors, both talented, but did Littleton hire a publicist to promote the notion that she'd "saved E.T."? Verna Fields did exactly that on "Jaws," a move that arguably cost Spielberg a best director nomination on that film. Saul.

Does anyone recall that way back in 1981, when Steven Spielberg was making E.T., he hired Carol Littleton to cut it rather than use his regular collaborator Michael Kahn? At the time, he said he did so because he wanted the film to have "a woman's touch." Given the chance to, would Mike Kahn, who's cut everything he's done since, have not been able to deliver? Couldn't he "channel" the right feel? It's an interesting question. So yes, there's precedent. And it's not just a male/female issue. The point is, it's up to the director to pick his/her crew. There will always be a bias there, because the director is often looking beyond the skill level to what the individuals themselves can bring to the mix. Occasionally that hiring practice can be full of poop, but more often than not it's a natural, justifiable part of the collaborative process, IMO. Saul.

Most prosumer-grade editing systems like Final Cut Pro will allow you to set a custom mask for the material you're cutting. It's very simple. Saul.

Well, I'm not David, but regarding the FX shots looking "different" in ST:TMP, you have at least two major factors. One, the effects houses were not ILM, but Doug Trumbull's outift and Dykstra's Apogee. And two, the bulk of the Enterprise shots were not shot bluescreen as they would later be by ILM (and even Bran Ferren's outfit for STV:TFF). Trumbull used the frontlight/backlight technique (see also EEG's work on Blade Runner) and not worrying about things like blue spill allowed him and his crew to light the models more naturalistically. Dykstra employed bluescreen, but managed to match his stuff very well with Trumbull's, IMO. I suppose the dupe stock might have been a factor also (CRI anyone?) To my knowledge, all Treks up to #6 employed 5247 for their motion control work. I recall that ILM got their hands on some 5295 for one or two shots in #4 (the Klingon bird of prey lifting off from Vulcan), but the results weren't to their liking. Saul.

That's it. Come this May, for the first time since the early 70's, there'll be nothing called "Star Trek" in production for television or the big screen. Not a bad thing, if you ask me. But I really do like where they've taken the HD format this year, lighting-wise. Saul.

I believe you can really do anything kind of short you want to - or for that matter, a feature - as long as the end result proves it's reason for that particular approach. All craft or art is about the fact that it's really a proof of concept situation. Saul.

In principle, yes, but shorts tend to work best as a kind of "big middle" with a quick, punch ending. There's obviously little time to set things up so my experience has taught me it's best that the setup be sort of folded into the central conflict of the narrative, as if when the film starts we're watching something already in motion. Saul.