Angeliki Makraki

I bought the third edition unsigned on Amazon. When he writes the new Digital Edition, it will be even better.

Thanks for explaining all this in a clear way. I think, I get it now.

I'm not sure what Mavromates means by "lifted blacks". If you see the trailer (on your laptop), rather than the projected movie, you can move the screen back and forth to see an image that has more contrast. Maybe they were doing dailies on the computer and didn't see how they would look projected in the movie theatre. I don't know. I will have to see the French Connection and Dirty Harry this weekend so that I can compare the 70's look and see if they succeed in that respect. I would not call Zodiac enjoyable but I did find it absorbing. ( The first time , anyway, before I started reading all these bad things here on this Forum.) Digital does have more depth of field than film. We have to find a way to solve that problem. How would you create less depth with the Viper ?

I agree that without the music, Elephant would be a vapid film. If you want to see an inviting or enjoyable film why not see Avenue Montaigne ? Zodiac is about an investigation of a killer, obviously not very pleasant, but very absorbing.

Why do you say that Robert, what was bad ?

He fooled me with Zodiac !

Maybe not in intent, but in reality, perhaps Van Sant and Savides can't escape their past in advertising. The whole look and feel of Elephant was like an AD, (I don't know for what !) from the students that were like models to the Americana snapshot style photography. The whole thing left me with a cold feeling. I thought that Van Sant could have been more experimental, he dabbled a little bit in the time warps, but they didn't really make a point. The music was a little more interesting. As far as camera movement goes, I would much rather watch Bela Tarr. His cinematography is beautiful even though the subject matter is depressing.

I did sit up in my chair when I saw the cinematography in "Birth" at a movie theatre in Athens. Since it starred Nicole Kidman I was expecting some bland Hollywood photography. When the film was over, I checked out the credits and saw Savides name. I also liked the low-key style of Zodiac, although I'd like to check it out in a few different theatres, it seemed to have an uneven print quality and flickered at one theatre.

I think that the desaturated brownish look is Harris Savides "effect". He likes detailed blacks and underexposing regular film stock. But maybe he can answer himself.

I was never a big "Elephant" fan except for the continuity ( too commercial for me) and I only saw the Yards on dvd, so it was hard to tell. I think Savides forte is the dark and his smooth traveling shots. I didn't see in the article if he uses a glidecam or steadycam or whatever.

Zodiac is really well done. Not at all slick or commercial. It could have easily gone to three hours. It seemed like some things that were neccesary were cut out, in the cinematography and characters relationships. It's the best cinematography Harris Savides has ever done. Congratulations, Harris.

Thanks, I'll run out and get it. March 1rst I guess.

I read three good reasons to see this movie in the Village Voice. http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0709,lee,75891,20.html/1 It would even be better if they wrote about how they did these shots in American Cinematographer. Camera movement is so much more interesting than all the other tech talk.... All of us Pisces out there have to watch out !

I don't think that he is pretentious. He is more cultured and talented than most cinematographers. It would be more interesting to talk about his colour theories than his titles.

and how do you suppose they got there ?

Here is a photo I took of Vittorio Storaro on the Acropolis looking like a DP ! ( It's the suit and tie that does it )

Why not ?

EXACTLY...then why do most big productions only have one stillman ?

I noticed that in the new Anthony Minghella film, Breaking and Entering, there were three still photographers. One guy, one woman and a Special Still photographer. Now how do you suppose this came about ? I try to get on films with one stills photographer without any luck.

why do you ask ? why do you ask ?

Is that the same as a timed still ?

So I had about seven hours to go through the whole movie and make timing adjustments, which meant I couldn't really go through every shot make changes -- a few scenes I just made an overall shift to every shot. Luckily what the colorist had done over the week was pretty close to finished. Anyway, the quality of 3-perf Super-35, at least when projected on a 2K DLP projector in 2.35, is pretty impressive. I still think that anamorphic is superior for achieving 2.35, but since this movie had so much night exterior work shot at T/2, anamorphic seemed more like a liability than an advantage. The director will get a chance this week to see the timing and I'm curious to get his feedback because when timing night exterior scenes lit by "moonlight" it's always unclear just how dark to make them -- timed too bright and they look "lit" and timed too dark and you're straining to see the actors' expressions. What do you mean by timing adjustments ? Are these timed stills ? Please explain. Thanks.

I saw Red Road last week. It has really interesting up close and personal photography. Hand-held. Really cool. I never heard of the cinematographer Robbie Ryan, before, but he has filmed over 30 movies. Highly recommend it for the camera work. Much more interesting than the big Hollywood movies, where everything is slick and superficial.

David, please tell me what these timed stills are ? Who shoots them, the stills photographer or camera assistant ?