Jack Williamson

Fair enough, but I urge you to take a look at the shot where the two cars are a driving along a cliff. I would say computer monitor and all there is simply some realism being lost with some of these visuals. My problem is there are a lot of shots in the trailer that have that fake feel to me. The first half of the trailer is footage from the old movies and you can see a difference the second it cuts to the American Flag shot, and then the over the head shot, and the hat on the ground etc. I can't put my finger on it but once the new footage starts it's like you get a sense that lights are everywhere in a lot of the shots (not all shots, for instance the american flag crane shot is actually promising and I think looks natural like the original films). And this sourcey feeling goes in comparison to a lot of films, not just the original trilogy. There is a sense of naturalism that is lacking. Even though Slocombe and a ton of DPs use light out doors I am noticing it in the case of the Indy 4 trailer. I am also noticing the exteriors that were done on a sound stage and lit to be daytime. And if that is not the case, the REAL exteriors were so lit they feel like a sound stage that was lit to look like day. This is just my interpretation of the visuals, but I don't see whey a digital grade for an online trailer would cause such a misinterpretation. I have watched a lot of HD trailers and thousands of movies on TV and DVD and to tell you the truth they pretty much accurately represent the movie. Sure there are always some contrast and color difference, but you are essentially watching things how you saw them in theater. Stuff doesn't change that much in my opinion. A movie like The Bourne Ultimatum looked gritty and realistic and sure enough in theater that is what I felt as well. That shot where Indy picks up his hat and puts it on in silhouette looks like a huge gelled HMI. Now if it they really used sunlight there and shot at Magic Hour I would say the transfer they did for the trailer IS terrible because it makes a real sunlight shot seem artificial, but my gut tells me it's a big bright light. It looks sourcey. I have watched all 3 original films recently and I agree there are a lot of subtle differences between the movies. The Last Crusade for instance looks the most modern, mainly I feel due to the latitude and make-up of the stocks used for shooting and release prints though. The lighting style, especially the interiors were very very similar in feel. Of course that is easy when you are Doug Slocombe and you are just being yourself. I don't expect the films to look just like the originals for all the reasons suggested. I wish they did! But I don't think the filmmakers should have been doing impersonations of past filmmakers. So maybe my original post where I wine about that is just plain wrong and not given enough thought. If I thought it looked fine though I would not have started thinking about this stuff. I just feel like if Indy 4 had no predecessors and I didn't have the originals to compare it to, I still would have gotten the same artificial feeling during some moments in the trailer. That's all. I know it is only a minute of footage in a teaser, but it simply jumped out at me. Perhaps my assesment on stocks and lenses are way off, as you have made me realize what an old school guy Kaminski is. So maybe it was all lighting technique, Production Design, and Computer Graphic Effect shots. I don't know. Perhaps my computer monitor is really that misleading, but I don't think so. I just watched the Batman Trailer and it looked great. I will probably thoroughly enjoy Indy 4 and the more I watch the trailer the more I get excited to see more because what makes the films so great is the story telling in the end. Just voicing my concerns. I do apologize if my first couple posts were not well thought out and jumping to conclusions. I assumed to much when trying to decipher what makes it look different. Thanks everyone who posted, especially Tim Partridge and his Slocombe essay! Much appreciated. Jack

I am not criticizing Kaminski here, at least that is not my intention. I just feel like he has enormous shoes to fill when it comes to Doug Slocombe because I loved his work. If you notice the post was mainly to learn what Slocombe did. I am pretty sure a 720p HD trailer on my apple cinema display is enough to judge the visuals by the way. It doesn't look like it's part of the same family to me. And it definitely is not Kaminski's fault that there are so many digital effects. It feels different visually than the original trilogy. On its own it might be great, but in comparison to the older 3 it might not match which of course is always the problem with making sequels 20 years later. Regardless of all this, I am really just not necessarily into a "perfect" image which is what I was also saying about modern movies. Master Primes kind of make me sick in some ways just like Vision12 Stocks which is probably where we are headed. But that is a whole nother debate. Whatever, Kaminski is a great cinematographer. Douglas Slocombe did masterful work on the original trilogy. I just like the look of older films sometimes and I don't know what it is. There is a lot of warmth in the Indiana Jones movies. Does anyone know if that is from the stock, or the use of all Tungsten lighting. It looks like he used really bright lights for a lot of outdoor stuff. Thanks David for the information and everyone else, Jack

Thanks very much. So I would say a large portion of what gives the film its classic look is probably the older stocks then? And of course the lighting style... If the new Indiana Jones is being shot on the same lenses, yet looks so different (again based on the trailer) it must come down to stocks and lighting style. And of course a lot of digital work. I wish they still made older stocks. I wonder if Kodak would have if Spielberg and Kimainski asked them to. They must still have all the formulas, right? Jack

Hey everyone, With the release of the Indiana Jones 4 teaser trailer I went back and have been watching the original trilogy. My feelings with the new film from what I have seen in the teaser it looks like they missed the mark visually. So I went back and watched Dougie Slocombe's Indy work and it's some of the best stuff I have ever seen. I never really watched the movies and paid extremely close attention to the visuals. I always felt they looked great, but I am really in awe of how superb everything looked upon a close inspection. I was wondering a few things. Anyone know what Anamorphic lenses they used for the films particularly Raiders and Temple? Anyone know what stocks? Anyone have an idea of Douglas Slocombe's techniques? It would appear he used a lot of hard light and stopped down a bit, right? Was it all tungsten? Did they have HMIs in the early and mid 80s? I am really curious about the lenses and the stocks though. I just feel like cinematography doesn't get much better. It's so romantic and naturalistic at the same time. Sometimes I wonder if new lenses and new film stocks matter at all. There have been a lot of big budget adventure films since Indiana Jones and nothing even comes close. I would go as far as saying they get progressively worse. Look at derivatives like the recent National Treasure films. It's amazing how much has been lost through CGI, DIs, Perfect Lenses, Low Grain Stocks, etc. Sometimes I don't get the point of it all. I saw Bridge on the River Kwai in 70mm. It was life changing. I miss the old stuff, and I'm 23 so I never even really got to experience it. I was 5 when Last Crusade came out. Anyone else feel like besides a few great living cinematographers a lot of stuff is getting so artificial looking? Look at the first Die Hard and then look at the most recent. Everything looks like vivid HD glossy crapola now. Now, the other thing I am wondering is how much LUcasfilm toyed with the original trilogy in post. How much grain reduction and contrast adjustment? I think it looks great regardless, but I didn't see it in theater in the 80s and I am wondering if anyone can remember that experience and compare it to the new DVD transfers. Thanks and sorry about all the tangents, Jack

I am not sure you read my posts. Obviously this is not what I am saying. Good luck. Jack

So if you were directing There Will Be Blood, a 3 Hour epic about a greedy and brutal oil man, and Robert Elswit looked over and said "let's go we are ready to shoot, this "high noon" light looks perfect for what we are trying to achieve here", you would stop him? "Hey Bob lets go over to the church now or a read a book until 4 or 5 because I don't like the light, it's not pretty enough right now." And then Daniel Day Lewis tells you he is ready, and Paul Dano is ready. There performances can't nearly be as important as amber sunlight on their cheeks 4 hours later when they are less focused and feeling fatigued. "Just keep rehearsing." Elswit, Lewis and Dano are just as much artists as Paul Thomas Anderson, and I think they, especially Elswit, would fight with you a great deal about your reasonings to make the film more pleasant to the eye for the simple reason that they read the script and understand the story. What you are describing s Michael Bay theory. Every shot could stand alone, every shot is a trailer shot, a still photograph, a 3 hour trailer. There are higher things at work here. Beside the logistics of a gigantic production, and other things like budget, the simple fact is the story called for harsh visual imagery. Good luck directing a DP on such a high level. I would imagine people like Elswit don't just listen to orders without a lengthy discussion that answers the artistic motivation behind such strict rules. Motivations that simply serve the story. Any great DP I have ever heard talk, always say they are their to serve the story. I am sure David Mullen would agree he would not do something he doesn't believe works for the story just because the director wants it to look pretty, at least without a long discussion and a fight. I have worked on student films where I have seen big conflicts between the DP and the Director about lighting and composition, let alone a 60 million dollar movie. When people's careers are on the line and their artistic reputation, they should and do have a say. Jack

The stuff that stands out in my mind as far as photography in Blood, my favorite stuff is: The opening in the mine shaft. And above ground. The first community interior where everyone is in chaos and Plainview ends up leaving. Then the the tracking shot when he leaves. It's night and the oil is spilling down the road and everyone is trying to grab it in buckets. His office when he is visited by Paul Sunday. The interiors of the church, especially when it is made bigger and Plainview is forced to scream about his son. The Sunday Ranch interior when Eli attacks his father. The bowling alley at the end. The oil explosion sequence. One shot in particular with Plainview and the Ciaran Hinds Character in the foreground and all the oil workers in the background silouetted. This is just my favorite stuff though. I really loved all of it, and found it all to be incredibly appropriate for the story. Anyway, I am sure you are able to enjoy all types of cinematography or why else would you be here. I just felt some of your comments were not cinematography related about Blood. It really doesn't matter. I just feel strongly about the film and I like to defend films I love. P.S. I might have not seen a dog chase like that one, but I sure as hell have seen a lot of dog chases, which was my point initially. How many Citizen Kane crumbling tycoons have we seen yelling "A bastard in a basket!" to his def son before Blood? Zero. Both films are extremely original and worth the price of multiple admissions. If they didn't build on common archetypes, events and stories that have come before, then they probably wouldn't be accessible to audiences. It would be avant garde I suppose. That is why I did not get your Citizen Kane/Howad Hughes comment. The last thing on my mind when watching that portion of the film was "I have seen this before." Jack

Obviously your taste leans more toward romantic photography and sunsets, for example, you suggest Lust, Caution before Blood for nominations and that speaks volumes. As far as the sequence goes, I don't feel like it was a continuity nightmare at all, and I won't take offense because I did not make the film. Deakins dawn sequence was great, but what Elswit did in their will be blood was more powerful to me. Both illustrate the passing of time in an a slightly unrealistic manner, after all it is a movie. I don't see how the oil tower burning for a while could be so bothersome. I don't know how that all works as I have never been around a wooden oil tower that catches fire. I would imagine the fire was busy burning the oil and the wood was just a bystander could be a way to explain it. Houses have burned badly for hours and hours and not collapsed. Again, that doesn't matter much, as it is a movie in the end, and not a documentary. I would not call it a continuity nightmare, as it was a deliberate choice that I feel works. Also your description of the end of the film slipping into Citizen Kane, Howard Hughes mode is odd. I didn't know that was a type of photography. Again, more like a story point that you did not enjoy. Saying it is stuff you have seen in movies before doesn't make much sense to me either. That is a statement you can say just about every film. How about No Country. How many times is someone going to find a bundle of dirty money in a film? A lot more than rich Tycoons lose their minds and live in isolation. And what about the photography? We have all seen dawn sequences, and deserts, and dark hotel rooms, etc. Deakins did not invent these situations, just like anyone who makes films nowadays. But we can still appreciate his work. A "Citizen Kane/Howard Hughes moment" would not have much to do with Elswit anyway, but he certainly lit it well. I didn't find the story point tired at all by the way. Also, I have seen romantic photography everywhere in the cinema, that doesn't mean Lust, Caution loses any of its quality of photography. But this is all a matter of taste. So maybe you just didn't like There Will Be Blood, and I can respect that, but if that is the case dismissing the cinematography should be separate from dismissing the story. I think it was a perfect film, not in the sense that everyone should love it, but the filmmakers set out to do something, and they achieved their goals. It's not a matter of finding the film's flaws, because there aren't any. It's just a matter of reacting. Much like No Country which I also found to be flawless as well. Jack

I would be satisified if Deakins won too, and I would say he should win for "No Country" but Jesse James was great work as well. But he will win for No Country because it is the higher profile movie. I think he will win again too in the coming years as he only seems to be getting better with age like Connie Hall, and only works with great directors it seems. He should have won for Jarhead, just for the night desert scenes, in my opinion. The academy awards matter, but they don't at the same time. So many victories are just plain frustrating, like Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls, which was based on pure hype and "cinderella story". She wasn't bad in the film, but I think that is as far as you can take it. Meanwhile it took Martin Scorsese until last year to win. Kubrick never won, only for special effects for 2001 not direction. Hitchcock never won, only a lifetime achievement award. They are two of the greatest directors of all time and their combined cinematic influence is everywhere. And they never won. However, it helps those who win and are nominated to get more opportunities to participate in the creation of films. Or in the case of Deakins, will validate his talent in a public forum, but we all know he is one of the greatest living cinematographers. I am not sure it will change his career much. He will still be offered the DP job on great projects again and again. What we need is David Mullen to get a high profile project like No Country because that is about 75% of the battle to DP greatness. Then he will have to change his screen name to: Academy Award Winner M. David Mullen, ASC Jack

The photography in There Will Be Blood is brilliant. I feel like you missed the boat here. Describing anything about that film as un-cinematic is laughable in my opinion. Is magic hour the only cinematic time? Not every film can be Days of Heaven. I believe the film was shot at many different times of day, and upon another viewing I think you will see a constantly changing quality of light between scenes. How about the brilliance of the oil explosion scene? It starts during harsh sunlight and the sun slowly sets during its frenetic progression. Until we are in total darkness and Daniel Day Lewis is just a face being lit by fire light in the midst of the dark desert. That change in light over such a big scene was probably extremely difficult to achieve and it works flawlessly, certainly CINEMATIC. And all achieved without a DI. I liked the music too, but how could you miss it? I personally like films with cinematography that does not draw attention to itself. I think Elswit really knows how to do this, but also make things cinematic, and natural/gorgeous upon further analysis. There Will Be Blood is a masterwork. Must things be "pretty" to be good? The fact of the matter is his work is one with the story, and I don't see how it could have been shot any better to tell the story. There were so many phenomenal shots in that film. Take another look. I don't think it is being overhyped. I have heard a lot more about the music and Daniel Day Lewis. However, if memory serves me right, Elswit already won an Oscar and it would be nice to see Deakins win. Still, There Will Be Blood is the best shot film of the year in my opinion. So if you want to ignore people getting their dues, I would say Elswit should win. Jack

Hello, I can't seem to find the information on their website anywhere. I even attempted to check out with a Red Camera in the store on the site and there doesn't seem to be any information on how long it would take or what serial number they are delivering/what serial number I will be getting. Anyone know, if I reserved today how long it would take to get the Red One? Also, what about the accessories, do they come separate or with the camera and your whole order? Thanks, Jack

Yeah I have done a lot more reading on the matter. I thank you guys for all your help. I am just going to look into still picture lenses for an alternative to affordable quality lenses. I have all the video lenses for shooting film I need at this point. Jack

Hello again, I did some more research and it appears the only lenses that are guaranteed to work through the whole range are 1 inch video lenses everything else, especially 1/2 inch would most likely vignette. I have one Canon 17-102mm zoom and it covers the super 16mm frame with flying colors. I am guess it is a 1 inch video lens. Great images too, I recommend it if anyone is looking for a zoom on the cheap that is better than an angenieux in my opinion. Jack

Hello, I am looking into getting a 1/2 inch video zoom to test with super 16mm. I have used a lot of "TV Lenses" in c-mount with great results. The 1/2 inch broadcast zooms look like they would be fun to use. Anyone know if they will cover super 16mm? I know the 1/2 inch format is measured at 6.4mm by 4.8mm and the super 16mm negative is 12.52mm by 7.41mm but I doubt the video lenses will only cover the 1/2 inch sensor. In my experience video lenses seem to cover more than they are rated to. I have used the smallest c-mount lenses and to my surprise they always seem to cover super 16mm well beyond the frame. Anyone have any experience trying the 1/2 inch video lenses? Or event he 2/3 inch? I am positive 1 inch video always covers. Any thoughts? Jack