Michael Most

No, not really. When Renny (Harlin) was hired to re-make the picture, a number of us who were hired for Paul's movie were let go. Renny wanted his own visual effects supervisor, prosthetic team, and editor. He didn't get any of his first choices, but he didn't want anyone who had worked with Paul, either. I was on Paul's picture for almost 9 months, though, so I'm not complaining.

C'mon, enough already. If there was any such artifacting it seemed to only be noticeable and bothersome to an audience of one, namely you. The rest of us had no problem with the image quality of the picture. If you have a gripe with Bob Richardson's work, say it. But get off this personal crusade of yours, it's getting kind of old.

Once again, I would be very wary of giving a director of photography the ability to control exposure via gain. Exposure control should always be via control of physical parameters, such as lighting and aperture (or shutter, although on many video cameras this doesn't really affect exposure, as a physical shutter does on a film camera). Once you get into electronics you really need someone who is very conversant in and intimately familiar with electronic signal manipulation if you want to avoid unrecoverable problems. In the vast, vast majority of cases that person isn't the director of photography.

Personally, I think a "DP remote" should have the following: Iris control. That's it. All of the other things you mentioned belong in the hands of a DIT or a VC operator. Give these things to the DP and you're just about guaranteed to get the most technically atrocious video images possible. None of those parameters should normally be changed in-shot anyway.

That's true. In fact, I don't recall ever seeing a prime lens on the camera during "Exorcist" when the camera was on a dolly.

Well, I'd like to drive an Aston Martin but I can't. And in the end, it really doesn't matter because I still get where I need to go. If you turn out to be that good, eventuallly you'll get to make your masterpiece on any format you want. Until that time, you should stop thinking about things like the "the public's best possible viewing experience" and concentrate on things like script, cast, and basic production. In other words: stop reading industry magazines and Internet forums, and instead go do something creative. On any format that's available.

If that's really true, here's a thought. Why not take that $250,000 and put it where it really matters - on the screen, or for better above the line talent. Nobody "needs" a 4K DI (or a DI of any sort, for that matter) in order to finish a picture. That kind of money goes a long way towards buying more production days, more production value (by way of locations, set dec, talent, etc, etc) and, in general, things that are far more important to the final product than your insistence on being a tech geek rather than a creative director or storyteller. I hinted at it in earlier posts, but you really need to get a sense of purpose and a sense of your own true interests. If you really want to be a director, let go of all of this tech crap, stop worrying about things like DI post paths and technology that doesn't exist yet, and instead concentrate on storytelling and relating to actors. Take some acting classes. Take some theater directing classes. Learn the craft to which you say you aspire. That craft has little to nothing to do with tech issues. If the tech stuff is what really interests you, admit it to yourself and go down that path. Look into editing, cinematography, or post production as a career path. In other words, make up your mind as to what you want to be. If you're as mature as you constantly try to convince us you are, that should be something you can understand and be capable of doing.

No, at 2K it would be twice the storage of HD. An HD frame is about 6 MB. A 2K frame in 10 bit Cineon format is about 12 MB. For reference, a 4K frame is about 48 MB. You need to be much more educated before making this kind of educated guess. Stop listening to buzzwords. The only pictures doing 4K today are very, very large studio pictures that are spending upwards of $350,000 for their DI work. I'm just making an "educated guess" here, but I think that's just a bit out of your price range. Just where do you think technology is today, anyway?

No, Vittorio shot both pictures (Paul's version and Renny's version), using noticeably different photographic styles for each (Renny's was much darker, in more ways than one). We did work 10 hour days (STRICTLY 10 hour days), but that is very common in Italy - and throughout continental Europe, according to what I've been told. It seems the Italians have a very strange notion about there being more to life than work - something we Americans just don't seem to comprehend. We shot Paul's picture completely at Cinecitta (no locations, at least while we were in Rome), which is not a long drive from Vittorio's home.

As David knows, I worked with Vittorio on the first (Paul Schrader) version of "Exorcist the Beginning." I didn't really find him egotistical in the classic sense at all. I found him very collaborative, open, and creative. And surprisingly fast. He is quite opinionated, though, as I think someone in his position is entitled to be. The only thing that might smack of egotism to some is his failure to understand why his methods (in particular, his heavy reliance on and use of a dimmer board) haven't been adopted by everyone else. To some, that is. Not necessarily to me.

This is where experience and maturity is the best teacher. A great movie comes from a great script, a great cast, and a great director. It is not about car explosions or even glossy production values. It is about a great story told well, by both the cast and the director - and there is an inexorable connecton between those things. A great director is one who can inspire the cast (a cast chosen by that director, and chosen carerfully) in ways that help them to bring the characters in that great script to life in ways not possible without that collaboration. The director uses a knowledge of human nature, a deep understanding of character and story, a unique vision in terms of visual storytelling, and, yes, a lot of life experience and psychology to help lift those around him/her to do their best work and to see things in the script that are not obvious. Directing is about nuance and knowing how to push the right buttons in terms of audience response. It is about knowing exactly the right tone to hit in each and every line of each and every scene, and knowing enough about human response and, in particular, the specific responses of the actors, to be able to achieve that tone. It is about knowing how to get the actor to become that character and bring their own talents to giving it life, and being able to collaborate with them so that their questions, and even more importantly, their fears, are answered and addressed. It is, above all, providing a "safe" environment in which those actors (and the crew) can do what they must at all times. Notice that nowhere in the preceding paragraph did I say anything about film, video, technical expertise, age, money, or any of the things that you always seem to mention here as being your primary concerns. The upside of being 16 years old is that you have an entire life ahead of you, and that you happen to live at a time when tools are available to do things I couldn't do when I was 16. The downside is that you think you know a lot of things that you simply don't know, and that you believe that technical expertise and knowledge of new tools is the key to success. Except in very, very, very rare cases, it is simply not possible for a person of your age to have enough life experience, or the maturity it takes to have true understanding of human nature, to do all of what I outlined in the above paragraph particularly well, regardless of whatever technical acumen you may or may not have. If you have the talent and vision, you will find outlets for it. But this will come in the natural order of things. Life itself is the best instructor, and rather than trying so hard to convince the adult world that you're smarter than they are, you'd be much better off observing and attempting to understand the motivations of those around you - how people basically work. That's what being a director is all about, that's what storytelling is all about. If what you really want is to direct, at your age, I would strongly suggest that you try to move into directing theater first, because quite frankly, that doesn't require the money you seem to think you need, and it will give you valuable experience and feedback into directing actors, which is something you really need to develop. You'll also begin to realize that transporting an audience into a character's story doesn't necessarily require cameras, locations, editing software, or anything else. It requires a great script, a great cast, and a great director. Does that sound familiar? It should.

Usually such "insiders" are either grips or special FX technicians who were not involved in the planning stages (and thus have no knowledge of the thought process that led to that particular solution), and are not directly responsible for having it perform what the director has asked for. Nor are they usually responsible for safety issues. If they quoted the special effects coordinator, I would take that comment a bit more seriously. There are politics involved in every aspect of every industry all the time. It sounds to me like you're looking for conspiracies. There aren't any. There are simply different opinions on how to solve a problem, and ultimately one or two people who decide on which approach to take, given all the input. It doens't mean that every decision always turns out to be the right one, but there are always sensible reasons why those decisions are made. Vendors usually get on a project because they've proven themselves to the particular production team on other projects. Some would call this politics. I call it normal business.

You don't know that he doesn't share my opinion. I happen to very much support the use of miniatures and in camera tricks, and use them whenever I can. However, the reality is that when a director asks for certain camera moves, or certain effects, they simply can't be done practically. I'm all for the realism of photographed practical elements, but the cost of doing that correctly is not always in the budget, especially for television, and the time is not given for construction or production using the proper methods. Everyone has their own view based on their own area of expertise and the prejudice that comes with that. I don't know Peter Tyler, but if he is a visual effects cameraman, that alone brings with it a bit of a grudge against CGI oriented post effects approaches. However, visual effects today is a smorgasbord of potential methods. In almost all cases, all approaches are offered, discussed, and chosen based on a consensus between the director, the visual effects supervisor, the cameraman, the producers, and the various other departments involved (stunts, special effects, construction, 2nd unit director, 2nd unit DP, even wardrobe). It starts with the script, it progresses with the director's vision of that script, and it gets decided upon after all the facts are on the table. Everyone (including potential outside vendors) offers their own solutions and the visual effects supervisor, along with the director, chooses which ones to use based on all the needs of the production - budget, production time, post production turnaround time, level of difficulty inherent in each approach, appropriateness to the storytelling - and decides which has the best chance of success in each individual case. Often a shot is a combination of many techniques - in fact, in most of the bigger productions these days that is almost always the case. I'm not trying to knock down what you're saying, but you seem to have a simplistic view of all this that basically says photography is good, CGI is bad, and the rise of CGI is solely due to some sort of mystical influence that CGI companies have over productions that allows them to justify their multimillion dollar CGI infrastructures and get rich in the process. As with most simplistic views of a more complex situation, there is a lot more to this than you seem to grasp.

Because directors are asking for shots that can't be done any other way, at least not to the level of perfection required or with the specific actions along the way that they request. But Magic Camera ***didn't*** do the picture, so everything you are saying is simply conjecture. It happens that I've talked to Rob Legato about some of the shots in that movie (quite a while ago) and for what they were asked to do, the approaches taken were very appropriate. None of it was done to "pay off overheads and tick off quotas," no matter how much you seem to want to believe it was. There was also quite a bit of miniature work on the movie - it wasn't all CG, you know. And unless you were involved in the concept meetings or the creative decision making, you have no way of knowing what approaches might have been considered or rejected.

I don't know where or under what conditions you viewed "The Aviator," but I'm convinced I didn't see the same movie you did. The one I saw looked very unique and pretty darned good. If there were noise reduction artifacts, they weren't anywhere near the level that you seem to think they were, and they didn't affect my enjoyment of the picture one iota. In fact, I really don't recall even noticing such artifacts at all. If anything, my only criticism would be that I didn't feel it was necessary to maintain the "Technicolor look" for the entire picture, but that's a creative decision I can live with. Do you work in the film or post production industry? If not, you seem to believe you know a lot more about all of these processes than those who invent, maintain, and use them for a living.

We live in a soulless, corporate world. We should get used to it. If you want to believe that, I can't stop you. It just doesn't happen to be true. No shot is "forced" into a picture if the director doesn't want it there, unless the picture has been taken over by the studio, the director fired, and desperation set in. This is rarely the case. No effects company "holds up" a production for more expensive shots, not even ILM. A shot is requested, it is bid, and it either stays in the picture or it doesn't. There is no back room dealing to up the shot count. Shot counts go up because of what's done in editorial, by editors and directors, not because of starving effects companies. Well, here's a flash: that's how it works. When the principal talents behind a picture are involved in a service company, that service company usually gets the bulk of the work on their projects. That's the basis on which the service company was formed. DD was also the lead house on Titanic because Jim Cameron was one of the principles, and nearly lost their shirt on it because Jim added a zillion shots and changed every one of them 100 times. But he did this because he could - and he couldn't have gotten what he wanted with any other supplier. He took advantage of his ownership position to accomplish something he desperately wanted to accomplish. That's why he got himself into an ownership position in the first place. When George Lucas does a Star Wars movie (or anything else), ILM does all the effects work. Not because they're the best (although they might well be), but because he owns it. Why is this any different? I'm assuming that you live in the UK, but here in the US the first Spiderman picture was far from "slaughtered" on any level. It got rave reviews for every aspect of the production, from casting to direction to production design to, yes, visual effects. I don't know why you would call it "abominable" on any level.

Just for the record, they are the lead house on the upcoming "Superman" picture - a Warner Bros. production. While it's true that Imageworks probably has an inside line on Sony productions, they compete on a very high level for pictures from other studios. Loyalty in the effects business is primarily engendered by relationships with producers, directors and effects supervisors based on past performace of either the particular facility or the supervisor, not necessarily studio execs.

I don't disagree that noise/grain reduction needs to be applied very carefully and at times, very gingerly. However, everything is a tradeoff, and especially in television, excessive noise or grain can be more objectionable to some viewers (and some producers) than a bit of image softening or even minor smearing on fast motion. While many cameramen may like film grain, most viewers don't. And, in my experience, neither do most producers, post executives, or network QC people.

Applying a degree of grain reduction can and does soften the image by removing artificial sharpness induced by seeing the grain edges more clearly. Grain reduction can be applied with threshold controls, thus limiting it to the bright areas if desired, which would have the effect of softening the flesh tone highlights. Touching up is not always about color adjustments, it's about any post image manipulation, including post filtration effects - all part of the DI process. Grain reduction is usually applied and controlled as part of the color correction process. In telecine, it is usually a downstream box that is controlled by the color correction system (i.e., DaVinci, Pogle, etc.). In DI, it is sometimes part of the color correction system itself, or is applied by and controlled by the DI colorist from a separate device. Either way, it is very much part of the color correction step in an electronic environment.

Phil, I really have no idea what you're so angry about, but continuation of this "discussion" is pointless, so I'm bowing out. I do hope that you eventually find that collaboration with others who are talented in areas that are not your direct expertise can help to make your projects better than you had envisioned. Editors, lab timers, colorists - all of these people are here to help to accomplish just that, if you'll let them. I hope you do.

You're entitled to your opinion. However, there's a big stretch between expressing an opinion and calling the effects supervisor talentless because you didn't happen to agree with some of the creative decisions. It's very easy to post on an Internet forum statements such as "Imageworks have never done any good work," but it's simply not true. There's no reason to personalize any criticism of creative intent just because you didn't happen to like the result. And clearly there were many who didn't happen to see it the way you did (I'm one of them), or the picture would not have an armful of Academy Award nominations.

Here's a way to shake it. Look at the reality of what the job is. A colorist's job in film or television post production is a lot more than tinting one frame in Photoshop. It requires an understanding of continuity, the ability to effectively match material shot out of sequence and occasionally in different conditions. It requires an understanding of film and video limitations, and how to achieve what is asked for within those limitations. In the case of the best colorists, it requires a knowledge of storytelling, and an ability to draw the viewer's focus towards a desired part of the frame. It requires technical knowledge in terms of framing, multiple formats, and multiple color systems. Above all, it requires the ability to work with and hopefully complement the work of the cinematographer and the director and turn out a product that satisfies both creative and technical desires. And do all of this under time constraints that are often severe. This is a pretty high degree of responsibility, and **that** is what people get paid for. Not necessarily talent. Not even artistry. Responsibility. I don't see any worship going on. I simply see supply and demand, and an appreciation of the talent of those who have it. As for compressionists, no, they're not doing the same thing you are. They're going through material scene by scene (same as a colorist, by the way) and coming up with parameters for each one that will allow for the smallest file size with the fewest artifacts, based on parameters such as motion and color. This is far different than calling up a preset in Compressor and burning away. Once again, it requires knowledge and experience that those who don't do it for a living simply don't have. Even if you can make a DVD, you can't turn out files for a commercial feature DVD that have almost no playback flaws in spite of their severe data compression. That's what the job is. I would remind you that ego massaging and people skills are always part of the job - even more so when those clients are paying a lot of money and expect a lot in return. As for creative choices, those choices, particularly on features, are almost always those of the director and the cameraman. The colorist is more a facilitator, helping to bring about those choices. The look of a picture like "Underworld" (which I happen to think looked great, by the way) was not created in the mind of a DI colorist. It was created by the cameraman and the director. If you don't like it, they're the ones to talk to. I was one of those telecine operators, and yes, I do find this pretty insulting. With the change in tools, a lot of other things have changed, among them client expectations. When we were "telecine operators" there were generally just three joysticks, and the only thing you could do was primary levels and balance. Today, you can take a picture apart and put it back together, piece by piece. The level of perfection that is expected and thus required is miles beyond what was expected and required 15 years ago. The job 15 years ago was to take a finished picture (usually from a print or an IP) and transfer it to video, maintaining the look as much as possible. Today, the job is taking the raw material (usually directly from the original negative) and creating that look under the direction of the creative parties involved. It is far more of a "front end" job than it ever used to be. With this control and repositioning comes a hell of a lot more (and here comes that word again) responsibility. If you can't see this, you're not looking closely enough.

I'll be sure to pass that on to Rob Legato (visual effects supervisor on Star Trek TNG, Interview With the Vampire, Titanic, Apollo 13, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone......... and The Aviator) next time I see him. I guess Imageworks work on Contact, Starship Troopers, Stuart Little, Hollow Man, Harry Potter, and both Spider Man pictures (not to mention Polar Express) doesn't count as "good" to you (in spite of their Academy Award nominations and enormous respect from those of us in the visual effects end of the industry). If this is the case, I'd like to know what you consider "good."

No effects shot in any major motion picture is done without the complete support and approval of the director. An effects supervisor (and animators, and compositors.....) is doing what the director has asked for, in all cases. If you have a problem with it, your problem is not with the "effects people" but with the director who initiated the storyboards, approved the concepts, gave notes on the shots, and approved the final versions.

Well, it certainly fooled you. There was very little CGI in that sequence. It was almost exclusively miniatures.