Luke Allein

fu** that, Bringing Out the Dead is one of my favorite films of the 90s. Everbody poop on it, it might be one of Scrosese's most underrated films. If you read the book, I'm sure it will give you a different perspective on it and the film probably doesn't compare. Richardson's work is unbelievable in it, it's practically another character in the story by how much it lends to the ambience and effect of the film. One of the greatest nights of my life I got hammered with Paul Schrader and by the end of the conversation I *ALMOST* felt I was turning him around on B.O.T.D, man does he hate that movie. He was like "Yeah, it def. has it's good points, maybe you're right." I felt like I was campaigning for the damn thing or something.

Thanks so much, it's all coming back to me now. I sort of remembered what had to go on but forgot the specifics and the format, but now I got it. You guys rock!

Y'know, like the piece of tape that annotates what stock, the name of the production, the mag #? I haven't done it in a while and I don't have one in front of me. Does anyone have a picture maybe? I'll be loading this weekend for the first time in a while. I know it sounds silly, but I want the tape to be in the correct format. It's on 35mm with Panavision cameras, a Platinum I believe. Or a GII. I don't think it's any kind of crazy stocks, it's only a commercial but this camera crew are like my heroes and I don't want to let them down. (The DP is the great Dan Mindel) Any pointers or better yet jpegs of the actual tape would be MUCH appreciated! Thanks. Luke

They shoot horses.....don't they? *Good thing you guys didn't pull a '3:10 to Yuma'.

I shot something recently on 35mm and used super speeds, which looked great. However, our big seller are of course the Primo lenses. ( "You can have any lenses you want, but if you touch the Primos I'll kill ya...", said the VP of Marketing) Someone explained to me very quickly what indeed made them so "primo", but it was kind of hard to follow and I didn't want to look like a simpleton, so I just said "oh" and walked away. I thought to myself "I'll ask the boys at cinematography.com later on." Hell, I'm still trying to get an exact handle on spherical and anamorphic and why people decide to go with one or another. But what exactly do Primos do and why are they so superior? Also, one more question, and as a rookie camera assistant I should know this and am ashamed that I don't: What situations call for these huge lenses like 12:1 and 3:1 lenses? I'm thinking they're for extreme clarity in close up situations, right? My brain tells me that the bigger the lens, the farther away the subject would be and still be in focus, hence the mammoth size required to have such power. But I noticed we used them almost constantly on Mission Impossible III, and I watch that and about 85% of that movie is close ups. (Which bugs the hell out of me, but that's another thread...) So is my assessment of their girth wrong? And one sub-question of this topic: What does the ratio "3:1" stand for? What's it comparing to? Thanks, hopefully someone will give me a well-informed answer so that when someone asks me about lens properties I can sound smarter than I really am.

I noticed Mr Libatique employed the "Richardson effect" quite effectively in "Inside Man", Spike Lee's film from earlier this year, most notably in the interrogation scenes. MAN, I loved "Inside" when it first came out on opening weekend. But watching this for the 2nd time now on DVD, I'm absolutely floored by it. The cinematography and direction is so meticulous and impacting, it's such a huge part of the movie. I have to get the back issue of ICQ and def. re read the interview with Matt Libatique, what outstanding work. Might be my favorite movie of '06, definitely in my top 5 at least.

Wow, I never even realized he shot "Platoon". That gives me something else to look for next time I watch it. Thanks Dave! Thanks for all the info, it's fascinating to learn this stuff.

Thanks! I love learning all this crap on here, this website rules. Wow, so it was just a zoom motor? That's so funny, I thought it was some like exclusive cutting edge thing they designed just for that.

2 Questions: 1. The process that started out this conversation, is that what they used in the shot in "Road To Perdition" where they first show Jude Law's character? He's walking down an alley under an L train towards the camera, and the background is shrinking and moving away but he's coming closer. It almost looks more complicated than just the thing they used in "Vertigo", but I could be wrong. 2. I know I read how they did it somewhere, but the opening shot of "the Godfather", when Bonissera is telling the story, I could have sworn they used some cutting edge new thing to make that extremely slow zoom out, like it was computerized or something? Does anybody know what I'm talking about, or am I nuts? Maybe Coppola said it on the commentary track, I can't remember. But I could have sworn it was some crazy process they used to achieve that effect.

Get as many interesting angles and as much footage as you can. Think about the editing, think about the style of music videos. A lot of rapid cutting, nobody wants to sit there and watch a straight on shot for 3 minutes. You have to keep it dynamic and keep people's attention. Thanks to MTV, most of our attention spans are about as long as a chipmunk's on speed.

I forgot Bringing Out the Dead too, good call. That's another fantastic looking movie. (That just about everyone hated; it might be one of my favorite films Marty ever did, I love it) I still can't believe, newbie that I am, that a filter can have that much effect. How did Richardson come to find that look, I wonder. Just experimenting? I mean it seems a little risky to have such a unique look, do you think directors in the beginning were like "You're crazy?" That's a ballsy move to have such a signature style to your photography, I would think.

Thanks! Wow, a pro mist filter can have that much effect? I had no idea. Thanks for the breakdown, it's pretty cool. Why can't we have nicknames in this forum? I really hate that. I hate my last name, I dont want it as my username.

I watched "Casino" again the other day. This may sound ridiculous, but when I saw that in 1997, I can honestly say it's one of the movies that changed my life. I always had a few movies I was obssessed with growing up, had seen them hundreds of times but never gave any thought about production or the craft and artistic process that went into making a film. But when I saw Casino for the first time...it just floored me. I remember I sat there for like 20 minutes and couldn't believe what an impact it had on me. The editing, the acting, the directing, the look (cinematography), everything. I had never been so overwhelmed by so many aspects of a movie, particularly ones that I never really paid attention to. Hell, I never even considered the impact a "director" had on a film. It never occured to me that this movie was so good because one person's vision made it that way. The next week I rented everything I could find that had the names "Scorsese" and "De Niro" involved, and that was it. I changed my major in college to "Film study", and the rest is film geek history. Every time I watch that movie, I notice something else. These years later when I've become much more interested in cinematography and now worked in the field and had some experience, I still can't get over how technical the camera is in this. I checked the credits, and there were three steadicam operators on this! Of course the great Colin Anderson was involved too. (I'm so honored to have been able to work with that guy so early in my career) But what really gets me, after all this digression, is Richardson's cinematography. There's no way you can watch a single picture he's worked on and NOT known within five minutes it's him. What does he do to achieve that hazy, fuzzy look with the light? I noticed in a lot of scenes in "Casino", they'll be sitting around a table and it almost looks like the light is coming from underneath the table, that the table is the key light source. It seems like he uses a lot of harsh, direct light but somehow softens it up so it glows. There's a shot in the famous scene where Ace takes the two cheaters in the back room and smashed the guy's hand with a hammer. When the other culprit is brought in, De Niro, on the line: "Now I'm gonna give you a choice; you can have the money and the hammer, or you can just walk out of here. Ya can't have both." He walks to his mark, and at the end of the line he's standin there and this crazy harsh, glowing light is right on his hands where he's holding his cigarette and on the top of his head. It's just crazy looking (in a good way), and I was thinking "What is the aesthetic motivation to have him stop in that spot and have such an exclusive light on his hand?" It really stands out, and I've never really seen anyone else utilize this effect. One of the scenes it stands out the most is towards the end, after Nicky and Ace have their argument in the desert and are kind of on the outs. Ace and his entourage walk into a night club/restaurant area in the Casino where Nicky and his crew are also sitting in a table across the room. Ace sits down and doesn't even acknowledge Nicky, much to Nicky's ire. (The shot starts out with "Whip It" from Devo on the soundtrack, and a gorgeous overhead tracking shot follows Ace and his people walking with an undercrank effect) The light in this scene is just super, super hazy and glowing. Now, does Richardson do this in the development process, or is it a certain stock of film that he uses for this effect, or both, or is it lenses? What?? I'm just wondering how the hell he pulls that off. After shooting my own short film on 35 (mostly 5218 Kodak stock, I directed and had a DP) and then seeing in post, I'm fascinated on how to make certain effects on what stocks and with what light. Problem is, it's all very complicated and technical and I'm quite a neophyte in this area. I'm a director and a rookie 2nd AC, if I want to go for a certain look I need to know how to achieve it. It's like painting on a pallette with different kinds of paint, only instead of a pallette it's a film frame and instead of paint it's film stock and processing. I figure if I look into how to get such a blatant effect, like the stuff Richardson does, it'll pave the way to figure out how to get my own crazy looks and styles on film. So if anyone can tell me what he does to pull this off, I'd be much obliged.

Last month an entire Preston case disappeared from one of the prep rooms. I asked one of the techs about it, and basically had the attitude of "These things happen....". I said "Are you gonna check the security cameras? They said "No", and to this day I'm not sure if that Preston ever resurfaced or if they bothered to check on it. I was pretty surprised to see everyon so kind of blase about it. (I work at Panavision)

Pamela Anderson was in on it, but no one else knew what was going to happen. Jesus, NO BODY can have any fun anymore.

I saw it just the other day. Yeah, the cinematography is ridiculous. Really brought out the oranges and the desert colors. I liked it a lot, but honestly I expected a little more after hearing so much hype about it. Maybe I have to see it again, it's been in my head for two days already which is usually a good sign that I'm gonna really like a movie. I recommend as well. Ray Winstone is so good in just about everything.

Right before I started working on sets, I was a mailman for six months walking about 7 miles a day on average. Get some really good, higher end running shoes. New Balance or Aasic in particular. They'll last a good while, and they're damn worth the price. If they start giving out, get some Dr Scholl's reinforcement. They never fail me, and I'm TERRIBLE at standing. I have big and freakishly high-arched feet, these are the best shoes to get I'm tellin ya.

"My Wife Is Retarded" might be the best title for a movie since David Oderkirk's movie "The fu** Up" two years ago. (I dont even know if it got distributed). I would go see it, sight unseen, based on title alone.

HURRY UP before Halloween is over, you can get a pretty damn good fog machine WITH a timer/remote switch from Party City or any Halloween store in town right now. (I was in Party City last night waiting in line for three goddamn hours trying to get a mask for a halloween party, so I had ample time to check them out.) A friend of mine picked one up from Wal Mart earlier this month for only $14 and used it on his project, it looked really friggin good. They sell all the fog fluid that's totally safe and non toxic. Check it out, you probably only have a couple more days. You could probably even buy a few of them with remotes and keep em' forever for well under $100. Did I mention "hurry"?

Wow, Dave I didnt know you were the DP for that show! Im happy to say I get to be the guy that brings you a lot of your camera gear throughout the week, I work for Panavision. Maybe next time I pop in if you're not too busy I can say 'hi'. (I got to hang out and watch that scene last week where they were having the barbeque out by their pool at night, it looked really good, btw. I like the way you guys light that swimming pool) And to the other guy that posted about the location, that WHOLE house, complete with a swimming pool built right into the stage floor and a front a back yard is built to scale on that set, it's pretty amazing. I dont really watch that show, my girlfriend LOVES it and I must say it looks fantastic, HBO puts such production value into all their programming, I love it. But I still havent gotten to see Harry Dean Stanton yet. :(

I think it was Tuesday, this new film "3:10 To Yuma" directed by James Mangold and starring Christian Bale and Russell Crowe, started off with a bang. First day, first SHOT of the entire movie, scene one, take one: A horse ran into the techno crane and fu**ing destroyed a Panavision camera beyond repair, dont even ask what size lens was on it. What's worse....the horse had to be put down, it's injuries were so bad. I heard they even shot it. Way to start off a movie, huh? *And not to sound callous, but....the horse was killed, ok. Dont you think they should have at least shot it on film when they put it down? They could have even scripted another scene where someone has to shoot an injured horse, like they did with the water buffalo sacrifice in 'Apocalypse Now'. I mean at least the horsey wouldnt just die for nothing, it could have been an amazing scene out of it. I dont know, maybe it's just me.

I guess that's what I meant by "pain in the ass". Not so much like he's a mean dude, but I've heard he likes to screw around sometimes and inadvertantly or not get other crew members in trouble kind of thing. -The story I heard, without naming names is a fellow who was pulling focus for him on "AI". There's a scene where Jude Law is running out of a town or something, and all the people are throwing things at him. The AD's gave the audience these big bean bags to throw, and some of them made the shot and others I think were just a digital reference for later. Either way, they were pretty damn big and heavy. One of the focus pullers during the shot (which was tricky to pull on) got clobbered by a sand bag that Janusz threw at him as a joke. The guy said it kind of hurt, and it f'd up his pull. When Spielberg said "Ok, we got that one?" Janusz says "Yeah", and they move on. The 1st is like "Wait wait wait, I didnt get the pull, that bean bag distracted me." Janusz says "Don't worry about it", it was the 10th take or something like that "If Steven asks what went wrong, I'll cover for you, he'll get a kick out of it anyways, it's fine." The 1st really wanted to do one more, Janusz said forget about it. The next morning they're all in dailies. Guess which take Spielberg wants? So the camera guys and whoever are in the screening room, and Spielberg turns around and says "What the fu** happened, why is that shot so out of focus??" and was pretty pissed off. Waiting for the cover from Janusz, the 1st got none and had to make up an excuse which didnt please ol' Steve too much so in the end it made him look bad. (I hear Spielberg is pretty impersonable and not the best to work for either, but that's another post) So this guy is a very repsected pro in the field, a very qualified 1st and he was kind of hung out to dry in front of Spielberg by Janusz. I guess things along that line happened a couple of other times, but that's the story I was told. That was the quote the fellow used to desrcibe Jansuz, "Kind of a pain in the ass." He said he was a pretty nice guy, just tough to work with at times. Either way, short of setting some kittens on fire, I dont know if any story could dissuade me from a shot at working with Mr Kaminski, he's ridiculously talented and one of my favorite DP's. I guess he's just a bit mischevious at times. But who isnt.

There's a couple that really stand out that made me realize, as a burgeoning film nerd, that there's this thing called "cinematography" that can greatly influence a film. I think the first time I really picked up on it was in Casino, by Robert Richardson. I was thinking "Why do all the lights have that hazy, surreal look to it?" Especially everything that falls out of focus or into the background turns into this fuzzy sort of haze, it looked incredible. I was at film school at the time and I asked my teacher about it, he really broke it down how much of an impact cinematography can have on a film and the effect it has on story and mood and characters and the like. After that, it really became apparent to me and I watched for it. (I think that was around 97-98) Another film that just knocks me on my ass is Apocalypse Now shot by Vittorio Storraro. All the weird colors and stuff he uses, how he makes the greens and some of the really vibrant colors stand out makes it seem surreal and dreamlike, which is obviously the effect Coppola is going for. One of my favorite scenes is when Chef and Willard are in the jungle looking for mangos and they encounter the tiger. The way he brought out all the vibrant colors on those huge plants and juxtaposed the muted color of the characters and some of the background against it made it seem like they were on another planet. Gordon Willis' work in the (first two) Godfather films is ridiculous too, the way he has everything so dark and contrasty and brings out all the blacks and browns really sets a nice color palatte. His extreme overexposure makes the film very dark and really compliments the tone of the characters and the dark nature of the film as well. I guess those were some of the biggest and clearest examples that really got me interested in motion picture photography and continue to amaze me every time I see them. What say ye? What are some of your guys' best examples?

What makes some American Hollywood movies "stale looking"? I noticed "Dont Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead" looks really washed out and like crap, like all the colors are faded. Also, the print for the original "Die Hard" looks rough as well as "Ghostbusters". I mean Die hard and "Babysitter" arent even that old, what's up with that?

You can log into imdbpro.com for a free two week trial. (Just make sure you cancel your free trial before the expiration date) Find Jack Cardiff's information, sometimes you get lucky and get his personal contact info even, but for the big guys you at least get their agent's contact info. Send a very heartfelt and professional fax or email expaining what you're looking for, and most of the time the agent will pass along the info. (Or at least they claim to) I've tried this a couple times when I was an AC trying to get some bigger movies, I got hold of Wally Pfister even to try to get on the Prestige. (They were crewed up, damn it.) Give that a shot.