John Allen

Hey everyone,

I know this is very subjective, but when it comes to camera movement, what are your favorite films (or scenes)?

Keira Knightley is very well known. The other two were well on their way up when shooting commenced.

I definitely agree, but I remember seeing/reading somewhere (and I'll post it if I can find it) where it was apparently Kazuo Ishiguro and Mark Romanek's original intension to find actors who were perfect for the roles, without their individual name getting in the way of the performance. In other words, they definitely didn't want to use the stars to push the film's credibility, because of course it would take away from the story.

Also, I believe that when Romanek decided to cast Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield, they were still fairly young in the public eye. I think Mulligan was just finishing up on shooting An Education and Garfield had a minor role in The Other Boleyn Girl. We must remember that Romanek had been discussing this with Ishiguro long before they began preproduction. So even though Knightly is a very prestigious actress, the point was that they were not casting with the intention to use the stars fame to help boost the reputation of the film. This was the point I was making, and I wanted to commend Romanek and Ishiguro for doing it in this manner.

No "Never Let Me Go"?

I agree, Never Let Me Go seems to deserve something for cinematography. I guess it wasn't anything spectacular, but for a low budget film, I really felt it's deserving of recognition. :)

Thanks David, that is a great list! Let Me In looks especially good, but I have yet to see it. I will need to do that ASAP! How did you like it apart from cinematography?

Hey everyone, I haven't posted here for quite awhile, but I thought I'd show you all a simple little mood piece I did recently for a clothing company. I used the 7D with a helios (a great russian lens I found) and just used all natural light (something I'm growing more and more fond of). Anywho, there you have it. I hope you enjoy it, and if you don't, well then I'm sorry. lol Cheers!

http://vimeo.com/17962035

Hey I was just wondering if anyone else has seen Never Let Me Go yet and what did you think of it? I saw the film about a week ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. Adam Kimmel's cinematography was perfect for the story I thought; beautiful, but helped add to the story rather than take away from it.

As for the story, I loved it! It's a story that doesn't come around very often, though it's a tale about things we've heard before. Among other elements, it's a story about love and the fear of change.

Another thing about this film that really intrigued me was just the fact that when Mark Romanek (Director) and Kazuo Ishiguro (Author) decided to make the film they agreed that they would make it on a very low budget, and choose actors who were younger and less commonly known. I love this about the film just because I'm afraid directors (or perhaps the producers) too often pick actors with bigger names, and in the end it really hurts the film as a whole. I feel choosing to make the film on a low budget forces the filmmakers to base their decisions on the sake of the story, and I greatly admire that in a filmmaker.

Let the discussion begin!

Dude you can! That's awesome. Thanks for sharing. :)

Oh no. I not only can now get 'writers block' but I can get 'lighters block' as well. The next thing that will haunt me will probably be something like 'sketchers block.'

It is like a doctor prescribing meds when all the patient has conveyed is that they don't feel well.... that would be called malpractice.

Great metaphor David! I can't think of any better way of putting it.

But yes. It is all about the story folks! Story, story, story, story! Without it, you're lost. You gotta ask yourself, "why am I a cinematographer? Why do I want to make films?" If the answer is that you want to change a persons emotion through light and shadows, then you know that you HAVE to read the script. Memorize the script(I'm exaggerating a bit here). You've got to dive into that story and live it for yourself. That's the only way you're going to take that story and put it up there on the screen and tell it visually the way the writer told it through written word. It's our art. Our art is not just recording any old pretty image onto the camera; we are the story tellers. We're the ones that will create the emotion. And so I stress again(as do many of the others), story, story, story! Read the story, and pull out the hidden qualities it holds for you. Have fun! :)

Alright, I hope you don't misunderstand what I'm about to say, because I'm not disagreeing with you. But, I have to point out that light is not always the best. What I mean to say is, you don't always have to see everything. Maybe a window light would be good, but maybe it wouldn't. Maybe it would be best to have only one light. Maybe you should only see the glimmer of his eyes. I just want to evoke the thought that adding lights isn't always a good thing. Darkness is your friend. I am a strong believer in the idea of having a room smothered in darkness with one single lamp silhouetting the character against the background. I like that image much better than having more lights than you really need.

As most great DPs say, "it's not about what lights you can add, it's about what lights you can take away...that usually gets you a better image." As Gordon Willis said, "No is a very good word. Yes is a very bad word." What I think he's trying to say here is that keeping it to minimal is the best. The more you add light, the worse it's gonna look(most of the time that's the case).

Again, I want to clarify that I am not disagreeing with you Oscar, I very much agree with having layers of light. I was merely afraid that he might get the impression that you need lots of light...when you really don't.

Just got back from seeing the film. I thought it was really pretty solid. I thought that the trailers looked kind of corny, so I went thinking it was going to be corny. I have to admit, there were a few scenes that were a little corny, but I think those were intended. Overall I thought it was pretty good.

Also, I thought it was cool how the DP let all the lights in the room flare off the lens. I think it gave it more of a "futuristic" or "sense of speed" look, which might have not been accomplished as well if he had avoided it.

Haha, that was hilarious David. Thanks for sharing.

Am I excited? Let's see -- I bought the new Blu-Ray box set of Season One of the Original Series and have been watching an episode each night, I'm reading a Star Trek novel right now, I just bought the soundtrack CD, and I'm disappointed that there seems to be no "Making Of" books planned... and on my desk at home, I have a replica phaser and communicator, plus a model of the original Enterprise.

 

So you could say I'm mildly interested.

So from the sound of it I'm guessing if they asked you to shoot the new Star Trek film, I bet you'd be glad to shoot it for free? :D

It is double the WATTAGE, not double the output. The output of a 1.2K HMI Par can exceed 5 times the power of a 650w (I've seen data higher than this) HMIs are a more efficient (but not necessarily better). This is why a 400W joker outguns a 1K Fresnel. I agree, I like the quality of the tungsten fresnel units as well, but I'm not sure if a tweenie is enough. If you're going to go tungsten, I would recommend something with more power, like a 2K fresnel or a 1k Par. A tweenie might work, but only when the sunlight is low enough. I think tungsten would be a good way to go if the sunset is ultra warm. You may even have to add cto to the tungsten units. The reason I think it would be good to have a bigger unit is you can drop scrims in it as the sun goes down to stay consistent.

Yeah you make a good point there. Sorry, I didn't phrase myself well, and I shall try and do better next time. I didn't necessarily mean that just because the WATTAGE is double, then it would be double the output. But yes I know I phrased myself that way, and so I understand the missunderstanding. I was basically trying to emphasize that since the HMI is more efficiant, then it would be at LEAST double the output. I am sorry for my lack in clearification. Anyway yes, I agree with you 100%.

A 1.2 HMI with full CTO still has a tremendously higher output than a 650w fresnel, but it might not be a bad idea to bring an additional tungsten source. I would suggest a 1K Par. They about 10-15 bucks a day and have very high output. You could bounce the HMI Par and the tungsten Par into a beadboard. This will mix the color temp and bring it down, but certainly not down to 3200. You could bring it down further with partial CTO (1/2, 1/4, whatever you need) If the sun is low enough, the tungsten par alone could be enough.

Well yeah of course the 1.2 HMI is going to have more light, it's double the output. But what I meant to say is that I think a tweenie would be all the light you'd need. Yeah, that's another advantage; it's cheaper to rent tungsten fixtures rather than HMIs. Either way, you could do both. I personally like the quality you get from the quartz lamps more than the HMIs, that is, when you are going for 3,200k.

Wow great work!

That guy looks like he's the new Bruce Lee. :D

Hey,

 

I'm interested in getting a meter that will display in F/C's. I have a sekonic 558, and it's great on set, no problem there. This is more out of my curiosity to learn more about the relationship between Footcandles and F/stops hands on. I've looked at the old:

 

Sekonic Studio Deluxe III CAT L-398A

 

as well as several newer "all in one" meters. However, I don't need a new all in one meter. I already have that. Any thoughts on the old Sekonic, or any other old F/C meters out there would be great and most appreciated. Thanks!

I have the Studio Deluxe, and I can say that it works great. It's a good ole' analog meter, which in my mind, are more dependable than the electronic meters(not to say that I wouldn't use one). Storaro used the analog type, and he got along just fine.

Alright, what I would do is shoot the long shots either before 10 am or after 3 pm, because the sun will be more at an angle rather than being at the highest point which will make your image very flat. Then for the CU's you can shoot between 10 am to 3 pm, cause then you can use a scrim. Put the scrim just over the actor to soften the light, and then you could even use a small 1x1 bathroom mirror to bounce some light for a nice kicker. I once built a really nice little overhead scrim by using just a few 6x6 PVC pipes and a bed sheet. It worked great and might have only cost me $10.

Do ya have any pictures or diagrams of the bathroom? And I also agree with David in that you need to know the feel of the shot first. We can't help you if we don't know the feel of the scene. Sure you can put a light here or there, but if it doesn't fit the script then you might as well burn the footage. It's all about the story, and without that, there's no way we can give our ideas.

So you say a little boy is crying because his parents are fighting? Hmmm, well what you might want to do is look at different colors for the mood. Now I'd probably go with more of a white tone. I would try and give the impression that he is very cold and isolated. The feeling of isolation could be caused by the darkness around him in the frame. The cold feeling is usually accomplished by a bluish tone, though I wouldn't go with a bluish color, because you said that there are no windows, and bathrooms look more realistic with tungsten or florescent lighting.

So what I think I would do is create the essence of darkness by turning off all the lights within the bathroom. As though the only light(5600k or 3200k, depending on the time of the day) is coming from the crack of the door. But again, I'm just punching at the dark, cause I haven't read the script and thus I have no idea what it calls for.

Maybe someone already suggested this, but it almost looks as though a net was used to cut some of the light off of the bottom half of the guy.

Also, I might suggest that instead of going with the 1.2 HMI w/ CTO, maybe you could use a tweenie(650w tungsten fresnel). That way it's already 3,200k, and you don't lose any light from the CTO. You could even bounce the light off of a showcard to make it a tad softer(though remember, this will be less directional and will make it hard to control it).

If the sun's still peaking over those hills and coming in strong through the clouds, don't you guys think a reflector or mirrorboard would still suffice?

I agree, I think that could work as long as the sun has not yet dipped fully behind the hills, but it would be much less controllable and as the sun goes down(which will be fast depending on your latitude) and you'll have to continually move it. So going with a light is going to be much more controllable and will allow cutting to be much easier.

Anyway, there's my two bits. :)

I have to agree with the second reply. I give these filmmakers credit because they know how to make a product using cheap cameras and pull it off. I read a interview with them and they are complete digital tech-heads and make their own rigs, etc. The stories are not deep, just crazy camera work that works.

 

As for out of focus shots, I see ALOT of those on these big Hollywood movies. But a hey, nothing is perfect.

Hey kev, you really need to change your screen name to your 'Full Name.' It's the sites rule. I'm only telling you cause if you don't, one of the admins are gonna get on to you about it. So just trying to help ya out man. Cheers dude! :)

Yeah, in my mind, twitter's just kind of over doing it. I remember when I was like 13 and it was xanga that all my friends were raving about. Then it was myspace. Then facebook, and now twitter. The next thing is probably going to be coming along any day now.

I think facebook is a bit of a time waster. But I will say that I like it a lot, cause it is a great way to show my friends all my artistic photos and such, so I get a lot of feedback. And since a lot of my friends live farther away, facebook allows me to do this quite easily. The same goes with keeping in touch with them. Also, since a director that I work with lives in Chicago, a lot of times we'll just talk about pre-production stuff on there, and save the cost of talking on the phone. So it's kind of a love-hate situation for me.

Very nice Alex. The images look great! :)

he light the party scene with just this light

Are you sure it was the party scene? I may have misunderstood you, but he used it for the "living room scene," where they were unpacking stuff. Now maybe that's what you meant to say, but I don't recall any "party" that took place in the living room. Anyway, I guess it doesn't matter a whole lot, other than a reference for others to know where to look when they watch the film.

But yes, I agree. Roger Deakins is a master at simple lighting. Which, in my opinion, simple is always better.