Rajavel Olhiveeran

hi all

was there for the Kodak launch presentation in my country and happened to see the test footage..or the company showreel of that

stock....absolutely gorgeous. the way it compares with the prev stock was also fantastic.....in terms of grain structure and

how well it handles the under exposure....and the 1 stop under and 1 stop push process.....cool!!

but one thing i didnt understand was what they had mentioned as 'optimized for India'...for contrast and saturation....which seemed

like a 'sales talk'.......!! how can u optimise a stock for a country...so if i take the same stock to Europe ..wat happens!!

regards,

Karl..i wasnt offended...was worried for the guys whom u called A** H****S.......

well Karl...its pretty coarse and profane in here where i work too.....thats how film sets have to be i guess....forget that!

i totally agree with u that it has to be beautiful....if cigarette butts could be made to look beautiful...why cant the 'grain'...dirt....scratch ...also look beautiful.....

more than the visual beauty.....i think its the feeling of beauty (emotion) that gets triggered by the strong visuals...cig butts or slum......

are'nt the following two sentences u mentioned are in a way contradicting each other.....???

___Technical competence that fits the story doesn't fit into my own personal definition of best cinematography.

____Honestly, I think BWP is more award-worthy than Slumdog because it was totally new and creative with the use of an alternative format.

...i believe.....best cinematography is that which manages to spark of 'that' emotion in the audience.......irrespective of format..or other tech details.

and morever i would lv to see that cig butts image u talking about....i am passionate about still photography too.....

thanks...cheers!

I don't care what it was shot on; it looked like SH**.

 

The 5D though, I have to say, looked quite decent.

 

As far as winning a best cinematography award on Slumdog Millionaire, honestly, chalk it up to bleeding-heart liberals trying to appear pantheistic and awarding the best cinematography award to the best low-budget motion picture as some sort of consolation prize.

 

butts. . .

.....if u have to shoot slum sh**....it will look like sh** only...obviously it Wont look like a Chocolate Ad shot in Switzerland......guess the cinematographer did a great job in catering to the needs of the Director ...based on the requirement of the script. .. .

people can have opinions ...but am shocked to see such foul language on a site like this from such a senior....

respect ur experience though...

cheers!

Hi Rajavel,

 

What format you shoot on is totally dependent on the story and as emotion is a vital ingredient in a story, I would go as far as to say that it is important.

In relation to Slumdog....unfortunately I can't comment as I'm one of the very few that hasn't seen it yet.

 

But somehow I can't think that either Harry Potter or Iron Man will shoot the whole film on the Canon 5d MrkII.

The banding problems and endless dof would just be a nightmare to deal with in these scenarios.

You are absolutely right.....what i meant was that if that film...harry potter.....requires an effect that could be satisfied by the 5D..then they might use it right......

but as u said i doubt they using it for the entire film....must be rumor....

thanks

The 5D2 was not used on Slumdog. It wasn't even out yet. I believe they used a 1D Mark III, for some undercranked shots.

 

The only reason to use the 5D2 on Iron Man or Potter would be for extreme low-light shots. The 5D2 has remarkable ISO/ASA sensitivity. With super-fast lenses, you can practically shoot in the dark.

 

Or maybe if they needed tiny cams for cramped angles in a car or something.

Ya Tom...it was Canon

EOS-D1 Mark III stills camera,

which can shoot bursts of up to 30

RAW images per second........and not 5D2

hi all

if the oscar winner ..slumdog millionare....managed couple of scenes on this camera....then anything is possible.....

when did the format ever matter to communicate emotions.......in story telling......

cheers...

actually sometimes...it is the last assistant director who gives the clap.......

hi all

there is a Gaffer on big budget films......and .....there are very talented lightmen who mimick the work of a gaffer in low budget films....

i have worked both ways....it gets lot easier with a gaffer ofcourse...

thanks

I get the distinct impression from you and other Indian posters that this is a matter of national pride. I honestly don't know why. I am evaluating what I saw solely in terms of Cinematography; as this is a discussion of the Cinematographic aspects only, maybe you should too?

 

 

As for not caring what lens film stock, camera etc, I actually think all those things are secondary too. Primary things I judge are lighting, composition, camera movement, etc.

But to totally discount image quality, and even worse, *lighting* (which, AGAIN, was actually not that bad in this movie; my initial complaints were based on accounts that they hadn't bothered to use supplemental lighting) for a cinematography award would be idiotic. The cinematography award is not, or at least shouldn't be a consolation prize.

Karl i am very much aware that this is a discussion of the Cinematographic aspects only.....and i believe thats all i am doing here too!

Dear Karl u have got the wrong impression of me atleast . This Oscar for Cinematography or for Best picture or for Best director and so

on cannot be a matter of National pride at all (according to me)....how can it be when none of them are Indian nationals. But i take immense pride for Oscar for Music going to A.R Rahman because of him being an Indian and that i am just short of working with him.

But Karl...i take immense pride as a Cinematographer (not as an Indian) that Anthony Dod has created an imagery for his director to suit his and his script needs and thereby creating good cinema ...which thereby touches the audience at various levels. only we in this forum are talking about filmstock....lighting...composition...camera movement....But the audience is happy to be soaked by the emotion they are experiencing after watching good Cinema! ......and we all are craving to achieve that emotion in audience using the various technology as "TOOLS"...

Tools are just the means ..not the end by itself

See!what do u mean by 'totally discount image quality'......(my opinion they havent).....but Boss the required emotion is been achieved and what more do u want out of cinema.....see the bigger picture called 'cinema' not just an ingredient called 'cinematography'.....

Ingredients like in cooking have to be right , not more not less, to feel a good taste . . . .

sorry if i hit ur pride. didnt mean to...common man arent we all one nation?! Nation of cinematographers toiling for Great Cinema!

cheers!

This forum has not only taught me so much of Cinematography and other elements of Filmmaking........but also humbleness and Patience.

especially after seeing seniors like David Mullen patiently replying to .........'Stuck up' thoughts!!

thanks

Ultimately Cinema is about storytelling.....and how the human mind absorbs or gets affected by the storytelling thro images....

how does it matter what tools...or equipment.....

if u can create great cinema without those advanced tools and equipment.......Thats Great Filmmaking!

thanks.

well the most deserved ...... got it.

the cinematography for 'SDM' was so organic . . . in the sense the shooting format was selected based on

what the script required and not on the budget.

the film was initially planned 70% film and 30% digital...but later interchanged the percentage

based on the requirement of the script....70% in digital!

the challenge for Great Cinematography is in working for the script no matter what the format is...

they infact have used a Canon still camera for few sequences in the film. Now..Isnt that path breaking

in the mainstream feature film.....and also Breaking the mind barriers of cinematography!

not praising for the heck of it ... but how fantastically that technique worked subliminally for those scenes......

isnt that the crux of great cinematography!.......rather than just to achieve good looking images!

thanks.

hi all visual artists!

was looking at this 'i am like a bird' by nelly furtado .....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxiYBcJi8y4

there is this image of her in mid air...a round trolley shot.....with sun flares and trees moving in the BG...wondering how

they have shot this...... ofcourse with string s attached but...was it IN REAL LIVE LOCATION OR IN THE SETS........

IS IT A COMPOSITE SHOT? can that be done without a Motion Control camera??

if any one has any...any tips on how this was excuted please share......any WEBSITE ? i could browse for that kind

of shot MAKING.........

many thanks !

this depends on the format of final projection also i guess. if u gonna plan to blow it to 35 mm for final

projection on theatre..then sharper ur first negative stock ..better it is!

As Mr.David says the with the latest kodak stocks nothing can go wrong with any of the stocks....but

take care extreme care in not to UNDER EXPOSE in 16 mm...because if u are gonna blow it to 35mm

the grain will exagrte to great extent....and might be little crude on a big screen!

cheers!

love this visual artist.....Christopher doyle.....a very organic cinematographer! one among the many best!

cheers!

I strongly believe 'Slumdog millioinaire'......Dod Anthony will get the Oscar!

this is not yielding to the hype around it.......but truly the Cinematography

is fantastic ....

if u read the personal letters that th director has sent to Dod right from

the pro-prod stages.....u will tend to feel that the cinematographer should share this oscar

with his Director... to such level was the contribution from the director for

cinematography of this film.....technically as well as organically!

refer December issue of AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER....it was

absolutely brilliant to read where and how it all started!!

thanks to those wonderful technicians...and american cinematographer mag!

looks good! release in wat format...projection!?

cheers!

thats really cool.

the recent 'slumdog millionaire' shot by Dod anthony has also some sequences shot with the same canon still camera!

really a fantastic idea! cheers!

the best thing is to cut off all the technical thinking first and imagine what is that image u are looking for.....if u are clear

of what image u want then...u can take the next step of ...how to achieve that.....

your late afternoon can have different treatments...depending on the location.

everyhting from...whether ur window is gonna be open or not....whether the interior

practicals are on or not....and thngs like that...the list is numerous.

u would have seen so many late afternoons...at ur home.... or any other place...try to

remind urself of that...then do the necessary dtails to get that.....

its always intersting to cast a beam of warm sunlight from outside thro the window...remember

the angle of the beam....it has to low angle....according to the angle of sun at that point of time.......

anyway....get a look in ur visual mind....and just execute it!!

CinemaScope is nothing for no budget. But what do you mean by rustic?

well rustic.....rural..village subject....

budget!? in comparison to with or without DI.......DI is still expensive!

hi all

just finished a film on super 35 with DI.....scheduled for release in april...

planning my next feature film. the script requires a rustic look...which ofcourse can be created in various ways.

wat would be ur idea on..to go with 35mm or....shoot it on 16mm and DI the same.....ofcourse no budget for 35mm and DI!

would shooting on 16mm and DI the same....will it save any money...or more orelse hit the same cost as 35mm.....which one would

anyone suggest......

if the cost is the same....is it a gamble to go the 16mm - DI way?

this will be for theatrical projection on scope ...finally

thanks!

rajavel

hi all

i have attached two images from the recently done test shoot for my forthcoming

feature film. super 35 format, arri 435, ultra prime lens, DI. the first image is without 85 correction and second image

is with 85 correction.

one of the test shoot objective was to decide on a look for a portion

of the film. i want a cool look for a certain section...for which i have used 5217 200 T stock

for out door...with and without 85 correction.

there is a nice cooler rendition for the shot without 85 correction...I loved it

when i tried the image with 85 correction for a cooler look on the post...the effect was messing

up the image and not very good as done on the stock itself.

so I had decided to use the tundsten stock even for the day exterior...without 85 correction.

this test was done two months back....during the winter...rainy cloudy day. The ideal condition.

----------now the qn is......principal photography is gonna happen during the hot sunny summer days becos of the

unavoidable delay of the project.....now

if i still want to maintain the cool look for the image.......what do i do.....can i go ahead with the same

tungsten stock without 85 correcn........HOW will the direct sunlight ......affect the cooler look if i follow the

same....or is this a risk am taking. should i shoot with 85 correction and later handle the look on DI.

-----------can u give some movie examples of an interesting bluish cooler rendition film done without a DI.

-------------can i shoot day interiors with tungsten stock without correction for the cooler look

--------------how do i bring a cooler look for a night interior with tungsten lighting (referrence willl be great)

thanks. regards.

rajavel

Yes David. i got wat u mean. i had recently done a test shoot in the exact location where i am going to be shooting my film. its a hill station...amd the season is generally cold, misty and cloudy. but when the sun opens it is reasonably harsh in that altitude. i had tested on 250 D and 200 T kodak. i could take only two stcoks...free!! for testing. so couldnt test the low speed stocks. now i am thinking if i should go for the sharpest stcks possible...as u said. at the same time i shouldnt get stuck in the misty woods or cloudy ..drizzzling times. Is the 250 D sharp enough incomparison to 50 D for the DI purpose.?

i am gona be shooting on super 35. arri 435. zeiss ultra prime lens 16, 24, 32, 50, 85, HR zoom. Doing DI.

i have been plannng to change the look of the film gradually as the script moves forward. so i want the first 40% to be warm (may be i will shoot with 50 D for day ext and 250 D for day Int).......and then slowwly reduce the warmth and increase the cool tone and gradually make it stark at the end of the film.....(may be i will shoot 100 T 5212 without filter for Day ext and 200 T 5274 without filter for Day interior) for the cool look. but use 5218 for all night scenes throughout the film......

please give me ur feedback on my plan of action......Actuallly i am trying to follow the tone pattern as of the "The Portrait of a lady'..wonder what stocks they had used for their emotional storytelling....

Thanks a zillion.

THANKS DAVID. going by ur ranking.....which of the stocks follow that ranking...if u may suggest from ur experience. becos i know kodak 50 D is sharp and the least grain...will it work well for cloudy...rainy location or does it work best in the bright light conditioons as the brand promotes.

thanks again

Hi all

am gona be doing DI for my next feature.

> Does it make economical sense for me to shoot with kodak Vision 1 series (cheaper than Vision 2). 5274/5278 than 5217/5218. OR even can i go for fuji (even cheaper) but without loosing an opportunity to get the best image output.

> how much of this stock selection will affect my output in the DI.

thanks. eagerly awaiting ur guidance!