Saul Pincus

Back in 2001, I was co-supervising post production on a Super 35 feature that I had also edited. We started answer printing the flat negative (prior to blowing it up anamorphically via optical printing) and noticed a major daylight sequence riddled with very noticable scratches; approximately 20-30 shots were affected. Liquid gating didn't help, and by now the neg was cut, so with a 9-day deadline looming, we made the decision to do the fix digitally on the entire section of the film (about 1.5 minutes of screen time.) The plan was to do this particularly complex scratch removal assignment without altering the color balance or density of the digital files in any way. We scanned the cut neg section at 2K (10-bit log), and I had about 8 Shake artists tackle it. Once the fixes were complete we recorded the entire section back to film at 2K and cut this new section into the surrounding original neg. I swear it looked great. I was shocked, as I expected reduction in sharpness, contrast - basically everything you associated with film records of the time. I attribute this to the fact that, aside from the cloning and paint work done to affect the scratch removals, the neg went in and out clean. (And incidentally, after we anamorphosized our neg, you still couldn't tell the difference. Honest.) Saul.

Go see the film. The AC article's illustration of 2 strip Tech isn't very good and doesn't really represent it's impact on celluloid. Saul.

You don't indicate whether you're on a Mac or PC, but there could be several issues. First off, what's the format of the media you're cutting with? DV? Avid Meridian media? Is your media double or single field? Your 700mb estimate for encoding a feature at average quality (let's assume 90 mins.) is way off, though. Triple that number. Your best bet is to post on the forums at http://www.creativecow.net/ ? nothing beats their knowledge base on issues such as this. Saul.

David, The smearing artifacts you're referring to have been a unfortunate "trademark" of Technicolor's DI's since Fincher's "Panic Room" - their first DI effort. I'm sure you've kept track of this also. What I can't understand is why you don't hear DPs talk about this a bit more openly. Granted the selection of lab is always more of a studio/producing decision than a DP's, but you would expect than in a town of incredible motion picture engineering capability and after some years of trail and error, Tech would get around to solving this rather consistent problem of theirs. Saul

On a feature, an editor worth his or her salt can seriously alter what does and doesn't get shot, from inserts all the way up to complete sequences. Editors will also help break down scenes with major coverage with the director when asked - as I have been. Editors will also shoot second unit. Not to mention driving the post-production creatively, from music to the sound mix. Not every situation is like this, but it would be foolhardy to assume an editor's work begins and ends at the cutting room door. Saul

Hi Tim, I would agree with Phil that space taken up with discussion of NLEs, hard drives and other editorial tech stuff is not for this forum. There are already plenty of places on the net to go for information like that. It would be wonderful to have a section not so much about post, but about the convergence that often occurs between cinematographers and visual effects artists. Depending on the director's or producer's wishes, a cinematographer can find himself/herself imaging a project through a camera, a telecine, or 3D or compositing software. Increasingly, visual effects people are recognizing the advantages of direct collaboration with the DP. ("Polar Express" being just one example.) Thanks again Tim for creating and continuing to sustain such a fabulous web resource! Saul Pincus

Arnold has been a fine, even wonderful addition to Bond (TND, and most of TWINE, IMHO). But has a tendency to use the rumble of full orchestra a bit much to underscore not-so-deserving moments ? thus competing with sound effects ? and nowhere is this more prevalent than in DAD. Barry's orchestral style was a much leaner, often allowing melody and minimal counterpoint to carry a moment alone. That said, the entire approach to Bond in terms of sound is very, very different from the Barry days. Back then, sound effects would dominate until they could up the emotional ante no more, at which point music would kick in and all but key SFX would drop back. As I've intimated, it's a more confident approach to creating a soundtrack that's not in sync with the wall-of-sound approach in vogue in action films today. (Goldeneye was perhaps the last Bond that trusted Barry's approach.) Incidentally, this exactly what pissed off noted composer Jerry Goldsmith when he was alive, as he favored a lean approach too, preferring to have his music featured as little as possible so as to avoid creating mulch in place of artistry for an audience's ears. IMHO, Bond is about streamlined elegance, and you don't get that effect from mulch, which one reason is why today's Bond seems more and more like every other action film. Saul.

The irony of your statement re: Wagner is that MGM loved his work so much, they've talked more than once about holding onto him for another Bond. Don't get me started on the editorial style of the recent Bonds. Wasn't it Bond vet director/editor who said that there is only one place for a camera for every key action beat? He was talking about economy of style, not just resources. Saul Pincus Editor & Filmmaker.

If you expect the final piece will cut frequently between your various angles and sizes, then try to do a few takes using every camera at your disposal. That is, a three-camera set up. Then, have your performer repeat the action over many takes as you move in to cover him with a single camera from every conceivable angle you can think of. I have cut so many action sequences of this type, I can tell you that there are only two ways to do it: storyboard and shoot precisely or shoot every angle you can think of. And if you have enough time, do both! The bottom line with this type of "action" is that most moves only work well (i.e. look good) at agiven moment from one specific angle. The essence of a good movie slugfest applies equally to the martial arts. Think of it as a ballet, and be in the right place for every move. Saul Pincus

David's correct on the issue of extra delivery requirements. It's an area of fine print that gets overlooked more often than you'd expect, and it can run you up to several hundred thousand dollars over and above. This is significant because the profit margins of many pre-sold direct-to-DVD features are fairly slim for the producing entities, and contracts are not structured in a way so as to feed profit points back in the direction of said producers to any significant degree. Which means that you know going in that unless you have certain A-list talent attached and/or the film turns out to be truly something special, you had better stay on or under budget because you've sold the film for what is basically a fixed amount. Saul Pincus

Thanks, Christian. Saul

You're correct, Phil. Daniel, perspective-wise a 75mm anamorphic lens is about half way between a "normal" lens and telephoto one. There is distortion inherent in the glass ? particularly noticeable on close-ups of actor's faces ? but it isn't of the "wide angle" variety. Saul

A little while ago I had the opportunity to shoot some tests with a 75mm Ultrascope anamorphic prime. I did these tests at night racking from an actor in the foreground to the city background and back again. I was looking for anamorphic artifacts while closely focused and sure got them! I was just wondering about the vintage of this lens. Does anyone have any experience with them, or any knowledge they would be willing to share? Thanks in advance. Saul Pincus

OK. Arriscopes? Saul Pincus

I shot a lot of Super 8 using an Elmoscope 2x anamorphic adapter (originally designed for unsqueezing 16mm scope prints) on a Nizo 6056 during the 1980's, mostly on Kodachrome 40. I loved it for the anamorphic artifacts I could get, particularly at a time when 35mm anamorphic shoots were at an all time low. Using the K-40 I could get pretty sharp images, if I had managed to adjust the focus ring on the adapter with any degree of accuracy (it wasn't designed for this). The only real drawback was the fact that like most (if not all) Super 8 cameras, the front element of the Nizo's lens barrel would rotate, so not only were focus pulls out of the question, but you also had to line up the anamorphic adapter *perfectly* every time you refocused or you'd most definitely see what's become known as "mesmerizer" distortion on projection. Fine if you wanted the effect, but however wishful my thinking, I longed for a simple, integrated anamorphic optic for Super 8 use. I even hoped someone would come up with an eyepiece de-squeezer; of course, now someone has, but for 16x9 anamorphic video. Saul Pincus

To promote the release, I believe Gallo actually did an interview with Ebert (where, as I understand it, they at least publicly buried the hatchet) this past summer. As an actor, Gallo's quite compelling. I edited a feature starring him, Jennifer Tilly (and others) a few years ago in which he shared most of his scenes with Tilly. The dailies were always a blast, improvised and full of inventiveness. And his approach to "finding" the scene through repetition and adjustment of performance as the camera rolls really works for him. Saul Pincus

Thomas, I'm new to posting here but I'm a long-time lurker. Your best idea is to use a 16x9 native camera and affix the 16:9 anamorphic attachment on top of that. Once you squeeze it all back into shape, you'll get something closer to 2.66, but the vertical resolution will be considerably improved. Saul Pincus Director/Cinematographer/Editor Splice Heist Inc.