Tenolian Bell

I looked up Huffman encoding, the description was too technical for me. Is their are an explination at the beginner level?

Obviously from someone who hasn't been to New York in awhile. Harlem is drastically changing. I have a lot of friends who live there, and its not bad at all. You can still find a lot of space at an ok price in Harlem, but that is quickly changing as gentrification is taking over.

Oh the other thing you can do. Is to do one pass on the film colored the way they like, and a second pass on the film colored the way you like, and say we have two options. But this takes more time and will cost more money. So if its in the budget this is an option.

Yeah that's a tough situation. The only place I've had these same problems is shooting on digital and the director and editor decide to make some color changes that I didn't approve or disagree with. There was nothing I can do about, and if its bad enough have my name removed from the project. In telecine I've remained king largely. It's still a process of give and take with the director and producer. A couple of times I've had to take the negative back and retelecine some things for my reel because I didn't like what was done. Mostly what I can tell you is if the producer and director have a vastly different vision than you there is nothing you can do. But the colorist grandstanding, you do have power over that, because you are his/her client and you can choose to never work with them, bring them any work, or recommend them to any one. The colorist should be in collaberation with you, not working against you. Next time you go to the tape house ask for the colorist you feel most comfortable with, and tell them not to give you the person you don't like.

Phil Why do you think Sony is going down this MPEG route with future formats? I don't know any one who understands it, everyone's scratching thier heads and saying mpeg is a horrible codec for shooting on. Digital cable in this country has gone mpeg and they promote it crystal clear when in reality it looks worse than if you recieved the channel with a regular antena. What is Sony saying that justifies mpeg?

There are those people who claim that one day we will stand over films' grave recording the funeral with an HD camera. I myself prefer shooting film. But I think it best if we stick with the facts and the truth of our experiences and leave out the propaganda from both sides.

I would think once you compress you no longer have full bandwidth. Then you run into having to process and sharpen and interpolate to make up for the loss of information.

I like the idea of XDCAM. For one thing Sony is finally introducing a new media format but didn't introduce an entirely new codec that has nothing to do with the previous codecs. Second is I really like the idea of doing away with tape, and recording on a supped up DVD. One advantage I'm looking forward is the ability to load HD footage on the XDCAM disks. Hopefully not too long into the future it will be feasible to dub HDCAM to an XDCAM disk. Have an XDCAM player with firewire and be able to load that into a Mac G5. So we can cut our show reels in HD.

Just to let you know this type of zealousness doesn't go over too well on this forum.

My question would be since the Viper records 10 bit uncompressed at 2Gbps to achieve full bandwidth 4:4:4. How is Sony doing the same with 880 Mbps, and compression?

Also the reps said to expect Vision 2 daylight stocks sometime within the year.

Funny how time changes things. I remember back in the mid 90's when Kodak came out with the Vision stocks, many DP's complained about the heavy contrast and saturated colors. I guess we got used to it, even though through the years I've still heard some DP's complain of the contrast of 79. I've heard some say they prefer the softer tones of Fuji stocks. Looks as though these complaints are what Kodak is addressing with Vision 2. Which are met with "you can see into the blacks", "the colors are too soft." I agree that Kodak should keep the option of a contrasty stock. But I'm sure the softer stocks will gain their appreciation. It's easier to add contrast than take it away. Color saturation can always be added with lighting, wardrobe, production design, and color correction. I actually appreciate the ability to see into the blacks more. A lot of times I'm working with bare bones lighting gear. So having the freedom to not bounce into every shadow to make sure their's something there will be appreciated. As far as the presentation. They qualified it early by saying it went through a DI but did nothing extra to it, then show us this absolutely grainless print. I was like yeah we did nothing to it. That didn't go over well at all with the DP's in LA. I agree with David the content of the presentation was really flat and colorless. I suppose that was to emphasis the contrast and saturation difference but that didn't go over to well either. It was good to meet David Mullen and Wendell Green. They help to dispell some of the notions we have in NY about LA. When I heard they were holding the NY presentation at the Sony IMAX theater I thought that was a bad idea. It's too big. I can imagine during the question and answer, who ever was up front looked like miniscule infront of the two story screen. In LA it was held at the Academy of Arts and Sciences which was far more opulent than some of the shady spots Kodak has held events in NY. Maybe they're trying to figure out the best place to hold events in NY. Why not just use the MOMA theater on 23rd street somewhere like that. It's spacious but comfortable. Not somwhere massive like an IMAX theater.

More from Tenolian's misadventurtes in LA. It's really interesting to see the differnces in attitudes between LA and NY. The stereotypcial differences are there but its more complex than the general sum of the differnces. This is an example of too much gear being a henderance on the production. I'm amazed by this story because this just wouldn't happen in NY. I met a recent graduate of the LA Film school. An aspiring DP he told me for thier thesis film they were able to get an anamorphic package from Panavision. I asked how did he get that, he said the guys at Panavision asked them a lot of questions he didn't really know the answers to. And somehow they said the right thing to get the package. I don't even think PANY carries anamorphic lens', so it may not have even been an option to ask them for any. I asked how did the film turn out. He said it had some of it came out good some of it had problems. My first guess was focus problems? They said yeah they had some real focus problems. Ultimately it sounded like they had Panavision C or E ananorphics, they didn't really know what they were doing. Shooting on anamorphic sounded cool so they talked themselves into a package and the film itself suffered for it. In this case I would agree students should start with very basic kits. If they want to add production value they should be left to figure out how to do it without the latest gear. I think those experiences are very valuable. When I was in film school we built a car mount out of speed rail and used rachet belts and hooks to tie the whole thing down. We took lengths of PVC pipe punched different size holes in it, screwed two garden hoses to both sides, and made rain down the side of a house. I do agree starting like this builds you so you don't become a complete slave to equipment. You have enough confidence in what can be done to use ingenuity, inseatd of counting on the latest probe lens. But still even with that, 90% of the time a wheel chair is not a better replacement for a chapman dolly. Having the proper gear does make a difference.

And I?ve said quite a few times that equipment without talent means nothing. Equipment does not equal talent. You can improvise and figure out ways adding production value, I?ve done it many times myself. One time we stole (I mean temporarily borrowed) a shopping cart from a near by grocery store for a small dolly move. It?s nice to be able to think back and smile for being so clever with so little money, and no one would ever know the camera was in a shopping cart. I?ve stood on a ladder, and faked a small vertical move, as though the camera were on a jib arm. It?s nice to exercise your brain and practice your problem solving skills. But at the same time, I could?ve done so much more with a real dolly or a real jib arm.

?You're the cinematographer; it's YOUR responsibility to create those images for the story; you're the final gatekeeper of every image;?..? I believe this statement in general, but at times experience can show you different. I agree that incompetence is inexcusable, I repeat incompetence is inexcusable. But what can end up finally on the screen may not be what even the most competent DP intended. I?ve had to have my name removed from a couple of DV films because the final product was not my work. On one film after shooting I reviewed the original camera footage and it was fine. But after editing; the final picture had every type of digital problem you could imagine, jaggy lines, aliasing. A mix of the worst digital problems. I asked the director and editor what the hell did you do to this. They claimed to have done nothing to it, I argued they did something, and told them not to put my name in the credits. A music video I shot in HD on the Varicam. Again the original camera footage was fine. But after editing the final product the colors bled all over the top of each other, and their was serious aliasing in the primary colors. It turned out the director wanted to saturate the colors more but pushed it beyond video limits. I strongly suggested they recut with original camera footage and I would help them saturate the colors. The director didn?t want to because he?d paid for the editing and color correction. So I told them not to tell any one I was the DP because that was not my work.

I went to film school also. I guess you can look at it in a glass half empty half full scenario. There was some benefit to going to film school, but I can understand when people describe film school as a joke. It?s not totally bad, but its not totally good either. The value of film school for me was having access to so much equipment and able to shoot and experiment as much as we did. I was basically able to waste thousands of feet of film on trying different techniques that I cannot really try as much now. Most of the directors I work with to this day are from film school, or people I?ve met through film school. My film school actually had some pretty good equipment. We complained about it as all film students do, but looking back it wasn?t that bad. The bad part of film school in my experience is the arrogance that permeates the air. Many of the students are arrogant, some of the professors can be arrogant and unsupportive. I?ve seen students fresh outta? film school walk onto professional sets with that film school swagger. They?ve seen all of the French New Wave films versed in Kurosawa and Kubrick. But generally extremely little actual on set experience. Which then is met with scorn from people who have worked in film for years and may have never gone school. I?ve seen some who couldn?t deal with the arrogance and unsupportive nature that can foster in film school, and I?ve seen some who were so driven and determined that they fought through it.

"The actors were not given scripts. Instead a scene would be described and they were told their characters' intentions. Then they would improvise, and what was good was used in the film." Interesting this is how the director of City of God described the process of making the film. Amazingly enough they were not professional actors and they improvised on while rolling super 16.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying unless I have a Panaflex I'm not going to take a job. My point is even in being a talented and skilled DP, the tools still make a difference. I've taken a wind up bolex and garage lights and made magic with them also. I agree its a beautful thing. But at the same time skill and genious mixed with better hardware would produce a better image.

I agree with this in general and in a certain context. But in another context.... I agree with Mitch, the rules of good cinematography change and blur. Largely its based on perception and taste of the time. With that in mind, an image created with a PD-150 and a basic Arri kit, vs an image created with a Panaflex and 10 tons of grip and electric. A skilled cameraman may have created both images, but generally people will pick the later as great cinematograpy. Theoretically both could be considered good work, but comparatively the later will be chosen as the better work, you will recieve awards for the later, and get more jobs from the later. Not to say that that is should be the ultimate goal, but it is the reality.

I meant the artist and his/ her tools. Ignore one of these some how I post twice. Maybe subconsciously trying to add more posts and gain my advances membership. ;)

I'm currently in LA working on some projects, and recently met up with some friends from AFI. We had the discussion about differences between NY and LA. What is being taught in film school vs real set experience. We largely agreed on most points but one that we stood on opposite sides of. It seems that in the art of cinematography AFI really instills that their is no excuse for bad photography, I thought whoa that's a pretty broad statement. What happens with the image isn't always in the cinematographer's control. Along with that instilled is the lesson that its not the tools you work with but skill of the DP, which is true to a degree, but not totally true. We discussed the DP's we really liked and I asked them what do those DP's generally have in common. Everyone talked about lighting and compositional differences but no one could agree on what they had in common. I said the most obvious is they have access and work with the best tools. I argued if the tools don't matter why bother going through the trouble of flying a 40' by 40' solid and back lighting half a city block with a musco, camera flying in on a Technocrane. Can you imagine Janusz Kaminski rolling up with a PD-150 and a basic Arri lighting kit planning to shoot "Catch Me If You Can."? Of course its a totally rediculous notion. I did agree however that even if you have every toy in the toybox that does not replace raw skill and talent, without doubt is needed. But if you shoot a scene on a bright sunny day (in HD) with a dark skinned actor. Brightly colored housesin the background frontlit by the sun and about 6 stops over the actors skin tone. You have a set of mirror boards and reflectors but the sun is at too odd an angle to catch very well, and their is no time to wait later in the day when the sun is in a more favorable place. If you have to shoot this scene does that mean you lack skill as a DP?

I'm currently in LA working on some projects, and recently met up with some friends from AFI. We had the discussion about differences between NY and LA. What is being taught in film school vs real set experience. We largely agreed on most points but one that we stood on opposite sides of. It seems that in the art of cinematography AFI really instills that their is no excuse for bad photography, I thought whoa that's a pretty broad statement. What happens with the image isn't always in the cinematographer's control. Along with that instilled is the lesson that its not the tools you work with but skill of the DP, which is true to a degree, but not totally true. We discussed the DP's we really liked and I asked them what do those DP's generally have in common. Everyone talked about lighting and compositional differences but no one could agree on what they had in common. I said the most obvious is they have access and work with the best tools. I argued if the tools don't matter why bother going through the trouble of flying a 40' by 40' solid and back lighting half a city block with a musco, camera flying in on a Technocrane. Can you imagine Janusz Kaminski rolling up with a PD-150 and a basic Arri lighting kit planning to shoot "Catch Me If You Can."? Of course its a totally rediculous notion. I did agree however that even if you have every toy in the toybox that does not replace raw skill and talent, without doubt is needed. But if you shoot a scene on a bright sunny day (in HD) with a dark skinned actor. Brightly colored housesin the background frontlit by the sun and about 6 stops over the actors skin tone. You have a set of mirror boards and reflectors but the sun is at too odd an angle to catch very well, and their is no time to wait later in the day when the sun is in a more favorable place. If you have to shoot this scene does that mean you lack skill as a DP?

It's a bit unfair to pick on Pi for its photography. For one it was shot on 16mm black and white reversal which is an extremely difficult film to shoot. Some scenes were obviously shot run and gun with a very harsh, contrasty, and unforgiving film stock. Two the way Pi was shot was an artistic choice. Many of the daylight scenes I thought were quite beautiful. Like the scene in the cafe where the sunlight was spilling in. To shoot reversal may not be the same choice others of us would make, but it was what they decided to do. In this case you are mistaking artistic style for bad 16mm photography.

It seems that what Matt explained is what the guy at the rental house meant. The producer did expalin it to me the way the guy explained it to him, but the producer didn't really understand what the guy was talking about. I think the way the guy explained it was a bit of an over simplification which confused even me. He was trying to talk the producer out of using longer lens' telling him they double in focal length. As in 25 is normal in 16mm and 50 is normal in 35mm. But of course me being the cinematographer already know this and picked the longer focal lengths for a reason. Knowledge the guy in the rental house didn't have, which is the problem with him trying to talk the producer out of the lens' I'd chosen.

Thanks Mitch The shoot is in LA. The producer called me and told me this is what a guy at the rental house was telling him. I've never even heard this before, so I was really thrown off by it. We can't put this one on NY, this is an LA guy.