andrew heggli

Couldn't find anything that really showed how it looked in the movie but this is at least the scene i was talking about: http://www.darkhorizons.com/2006/casino/royale69.php http://www.darkhorizons.com/2006/casino/royale51.php I'll check out the mag as soon as i get time, thanks for the tip!

I also liked Hero, interesting use of colour, though i felt it could be a bit much at times.

Theres a scene in the newest Bond movie where Bond and (sorry can't remember her name) are having dinner. Bonds skin appears to be a rich golden colour, with the rest of the picture in black or darker colours (like vesper(?)s red lipstick). I have two questions for this: 1. Some people seem to dislike everything thats not "natural" skin colour, but i thought this effect looked pretty good, am i just a confused amateur or are there other more professional cinematographers that also like this lighting? 2. How was this done? As i said, i am an amateur (at least compared to alot of people on this site...), and lighting is one of the aspects of cinematography i have had least opportunity to work hard on. So if this lighting setting is very simple, please excuse me. Andrew

I can also understand what you mean when you say it was too beautiful, but i think that could also help the story in that even though everything on the outside is perfect, they had real problems on the inside, and though one of the geisha (Li Gong), hatsumomo, was beautiful her beauty was the opposite of her personality. I haven't seen Snow Falling on Cedars, but I will make sure I see it very soon! In Scarface (though its ages since I've seen it) I think the colours were also pastels and soft because of the clothes they wore at that time. I havne't seen Waiting either, but i will make sure i see it! Thanks for the replies!

Which movie in the past couple of years do you personally think is the most beautiful? in other words eye-pleasing? I am stuck between two movies that i really loved (both storywise and especially when it comes to the cinematography), I know they (storywise) might not be up everyones alley, but i think everyone (more or less) would agree that the cinematography is inspiring! The two movies I'm talking about are "Perfume: The story of a murderer" and "Memoirs of a geisha". The lighting in these movies, the colours, the camera movement and angles were all brilliant in my opinion. Just two movies that stuck in my mind. Well, how about everybody else? Which movie pleased your eyes? Andrew

I also loved the cinematography in this movie, and would love to have a similar style. That being said, I would also love to be able to have a similar style to Beebe (memoirs of a geisha to be completely spot on). Hwo do you think these to would blend? (yes, i am an amateur, so excuse me for any lack of info or any "newbie" qualities i possess :rolleyes: "

well, what there is to not understand about the story can be e.g. where is the place he has come to? why did he get there? is this heaven or hell maybe? abit of both? I'm not saying it was complete rubbish (gave it a 4,5 out of ten, it could have been much worse). Again, i don't see cinema as "mindless entertainment" (therefore i wrote: "if they get you to think, thats great"). "If there are people who like a film that you don't like, it is very likely that they see something in it which you don't. It's really as simple as that." I agree, but thats what i was trying to do, trying to understand what you saw in this movie? I understood the story quite well i thought, though the questions like, where is the place where he sticks his hand into at the end? the place he gets a bun or something, where they hear children and music and stuff, i don't think anybody has one simple answer to. Thinking back on it btw, the movie wasn't that bad (saw it a while ago), I'll raise its grade to 5,5. Though i may have put it wrong, i was trying to ask what you see in the movie that makes it so great?

you know... I've read a few of your posts and at first sight (though I know this is not true) it seems like you don't like any movies at all. and with you saying this movie is wonderful... wow... i just, don't know what to say. The movie in my eyes was a 4,5 out of ten. The cinematography (again IMO) was not anything special... but it did suite the film well. The story it self however did NOTHING at all for me. It was kind of boring actually. The usual "i'll make a film almost nobody (including myself) understands and hope everybody is so confused they are too afraid to say its rubbish". I didn't think this movie was a movie that made you think at all really. (btw I'm norwegian so I didn't have to read any subtitles or anything, saw the movie in its completely raw version). and also btw this movie was based on a radiodrama. but yeah, basically a boring movie. I really do not understand your taste in movies. Movies are for me (and apparently 98% of all other movie-goers) entertainment, if they get you to think, thats great, but really, it seems like you deliberatly like everything everybody else DOESN'T like. but just to check, did you like memoirs of a geisha? (this is btw no means of disrespect to the movies you like, just never met/heard of/seen a person with such.... unique taste)

I agree its a bit strange that their putting out this movie so soon after the Beowulf and Grendel movie, but maybe thats why the movie is animated. Haven't seen the movie with "the 300 guy" aka Gerald Butler yet, but was it that great? I hadn't even heard about it till i heard about the new Beowulf movie

Again, didn't really know where to put this so ended up here. Anyways, am I the only one who thinks that Beowulf actually looks cool and not just like another "final fantasy-like" movie? I think the graphics are wonderful and a milestone (? is that what its called :blink: ) in animation. For the first 20 seconds of the trailer i was wondering why the hell it looked so... wrong, but still very right. It looked good, but different, but then i realized it was animated! Even though, yes, the first 20 seconds are fadein fadeout shots, still, if a trailer can trick you into thinking its real, they've done SOMETHING right, haven't they? Seen discussion on other sites (mainly imdb.com), and people seem to be bashing the movie for some reason... Am i the only one looking forward to this movie? and btw, if anyone has a link to where i can see the trailer in HD that would be great! or maybe its just my pc that won't play the links on http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/beowulf/ for those who want to see the trailer for themselves! Peace Andrew

you could try downloading a windows update made for adobe premiere pro. Just google "premiere pro windows update" or something and I'm sure the problem will be fixed. Other than that it might be a problem with the dvd disks. I had a similar problem but that was when i was exporting my project to a harddrive. The problem was that the hardrive was not formatted properly. Peace Andrew

thank you for the reply john and i will be sending you an email very soon!

I very much agree with that statement.

David: Thank you for the reply, it was very easy to understand. I've seen a few posts of yours on the forum and you seem to be a serious (do not mean lack of humor though) cinematographer. Btw David, I'd love to hear what your views on angles/lighting/lens choices etc. are. Which you think really brings out the movie. Eric: Thank you for your replies as well. I think I might have written it a bit wrong. What i meant wasn't that angles are the only artistic or creative decision made that determens whether or not the DP is a good one, what I meant was that so many movies today look great in terms of colour and how crisp it looks, but what really (for me, as I said in the PS just opinions) seperates great cinematographers from eachother or the cinematography aspect of movies I should say, is angles. Though thinking back on what you said lighting is a very important part of cinematography as well. I am NOT a professional cinematographer, there are probably loads of things I don't know that are really important when filming, but from what i can SEE, angles seems very important. Like the 1.61 rule. To make a "beautiful" picture the item in focus should be in the smaller area of the screen (can't explain this too well, google it if anyone is interested, its the so called "golden rule" of composing pictures").

Hi I've been reading alot of posts of this site lately and "D.I" always seems to come up. What does this stand for? I also have read a few posts about movie on the silver screen and peoples opinions. Its seems that they usually base their opinions on technical stuff (lighting, choice of camera etc.). Thats all well and good, but for me I think that a movie that has the right camera angles and movement is rare. Therefore my question is, who is it that decides this? Is it the DP? or the Director? Both maybe? I am becoming a cinematographer (very slowly though... will pick up pace in a few weeks when i start a university course for film and television). I would really be dissappointed if the only decisions a DP can make are technical. You can have all the technical skill you want, for me, if you can't understand angles, your "talent" isn't really worth that much, it basically means you've read alot. Am I the only one with this opinion? Peace (Ps: not sure whether this is the right place to post this but i couldn't see it fitting in anywhere else. and remember! the comment above is just about my opinions, you are entitled to yours as well without making to much of a fuss about this stuff.)

not bad, but could put some different music to it and like Olariu said, pick up the pace a little bit. Only thing i can reaaly pick on is one shot... the shot with the car driving down a long straight road. I don't know whether it was you who choose the angle, or whether maybe the mountain made it difficult to get another shot, but you missed out on a wonderful symetric picture. The perfect shot there would have been with the car and the lane right in the middle of the picture with the lawn and the hedges on the sides. Anyways, as i said, not bad, but try to pick up the pace a little.

you have to be an Australian citizen... ok... well... thats my lifes dream down the drain... why would it be a shame to open up for paid attendees. If they have 90% Australian students and just a few select very inspired/talented/hardworking foreigers i don't see how that would hurt the school? a btw, could i ask you (or e-mail with you if you would prefer that), how you got to where you are? I would like to be in a similar position in about three years time.

thanks!

Hi I recently got into a course in "film and television studies". It might be fun... but it will be mostly theory. My idea though is that I apply for a course that specifies in cinematography after i am finished with this course. Is this an ok patch to walk down? Seems like a long road to me if i don't get into any good school after this course (if i do six years of studying and still theres noone that wants to hire me as a cinematographer then... hmm... not sure what i'll do then. Back to the grocerystore job? hehe) Peace PS: btw, alot of people that apparently are learning are advised or say that they are taking jobs as "PA's" does this stand for personal assistent? If so, what exactly do you do on the set? make people coffee? take out the garbage? help bring equipment in? load cameras? (that probably streching a bit far...)

Not sure what the school was called but it was in Australia, two Oscar winning cinematographers have gone there (and hopefully i will someday too). Like i said, can't remember the name, but if you look up on stuff about Andrew (he has my name =D ) leslie i think he was called (the guy who shot King Kong and LOTR), you'll find the school. Another guy who went to the same school as him also won an Oscar for "Memoirs of a Geisha" (beautiful movie imo, wonderful cinematography), so if you find which school he went to, leslie went to the same one. Peace