Ben Brahem Ziryab

DEAR CINEMATOGRAPHERS The shot in "Skyfall" where Daniel Craig is in his car, and the scene is lit only in the color blue. What is the technique behind it? How did he do it? Is it purely lighting, changing color temperature or a combination between lighting and filtration? I am the cinematographer for a film where we will have similar shots. I need to connect each of our characters with only a single color to help paint their pathology. I don't mind renting speciality lights if that's what it takes. Link to a screenshot: http://evanerichards.com/wp-content/gallery/skyfall/skyfall238c.jpg

New Trailer: Cinematography looks phenomenal. What does everyone think?

I think what Mr. Sierkowski means is Anamorphic Lenses ($$) and well-done FX ($$$$$$$$$$...) advice for a beginner? Keep shooting and don't be afraid to experiment (cliche advice, but very true)

I think the tendency is directors moving on to shoot their own films--that is not to say lighting them. While many directors have a clear vision of how they want the film to look like and the camera movements within that, they generally tend not to be qualified enough of judging color palettes and lighting design. In those cases where director's also shoot their films, they will operate the camera themselves and hereby decide the lens, the stop and filtration to put on the camera. The remaining work, they will leave mainly to the gaffer and the production designer. And I do think it's generally a bad idea if they take credit for DP'ing a film, while leaving crucial DP work for other people to work on. For instance, in the case of a film like Casino, Martin Scorsese actually sketched out every single shot in the film without consulting the DP first. However, Robert Richardson got to work on the lighting on the film, was still credited as the DP, and the film still looks utterly brilliant. In other cases, like with Soderbergh, directors will decide their shots, operate the camera and leave the rest to the gaffer while giving themselves the DP credit. Finally, I think it depends on the sheer size of the production--you won't find many directors who manages to direct and shoot major Hollywood blockbuster. While other productions such as small independent films and commercials, it's quite possible and common to see director/cameramen doing all the work.

Allen Daviau, A.S.C -- he said so himself.

Hi, Here's a teaser for a project I made for school: The feature film is set to release 2013. https://vimeo.com/40433098 What is your opinion? Any ideas in terms of cinematography, concept or whatever. Thank you

I already ordered it. 400ft for one shot is more than enough. I might get a couple of 1000ft rolls for a short film, if I like what I see.

I called them and got the deal before I even saw your post. Oh the irony :D. Thanks though,

The 5230 has a wonderful quality to it and might very well be the right stock for the shot. I just can't find a good deal on it. Kodak charges like 230 dollars for 400ft of film (being used for one shot only). I do get 30% discount from Kodak as a student, but it's still little too pricy. The 5218 recanned will run me 60 dollars + shipping for 400ft. Any ideas where I can get short end's of the 5230? Maybe call Kodak or Fotokem and ask them if they have some?

Hey all! What are your thoughts on 500T in Vision2 5218 vs. Vision3 5219? I will be doing a single shot in a church and thus I require a lot of overall contrast and deep blacks. The chapel inside the church is quite big and it will be lit with a few Xenon or PAR's blasting through haze. Without having readings taken I know that I will be limited with illumination, so 500 ASA film stock is a necessity. The 5218 is cheaper, but obviously slightly grainier. I am not too concerned about grain and no DI or direct 35mm print will be involved. It'll be a standard telecine transfer in Fotokem in L.A. What are your thoughts?

Yes, and even parts of Inception were shot on HD. Am I the only one astonished over the fact that, in the last three years, the Academy Awards for Best Cinematography has been given to films with heavy visual effects work?

But then how much green spike (reading with a color meter) would you recommend for the cool white tubes? And how would you approach this with, for instance, HMI fixtures instead of KinoFlo tubes?

I don't think Jeff Cronenweth is referring to an assembly of exposures from the different cameras, but rather combining all three images into a panorama composite for a wider field of view. Also the "sky" you're talking about is not really the "sky", but north light or something else in the background illuminating portions of the sky. It's really a simply matter of underexposing slightly and, of course, a lot of noise in the sky area had to be cleaned up.

unskilled workers say whaaat? There's a lot of skills that goes into a good, professional film crew all the way from a PA to the DP. An "unskilled worker" unfamiliar with the filming process, norms and discipline of a professional film crew is not worth hiring.

Thank you Jake and Tadeusz. This is what I was looking for. And yes, orange and cyan color contrast is the new trend in Hollywood.

Well the app basically works the same way as a regular director's viewfinder. I even believe it has better functionality and you can even take pictures to send out to producers or help create your storyboard. I'd say that the iPhone app is sufficient for most film students. I guess I'm playing old fashion with my Alan Gordon's viewfinder trying to look cool. Seriously though, its holding a smart phone versus looking through a tool of a professional filmmaker. It feels good in your hands and the zoom ring can be adjusted easily while you'r watching the scene. Also the fact that there is no abstraction between the location/set and what you'r seeing through the viewfinder allows your mind to focus merely on the framing of the shot, as opposed to seeing recorded imagery on an iPhone. At least that's how I feel about it! Either way, have fun!

http://c750466.r66.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/patrick-meme-car-shots.jpg Obviously the funniest and most true in my experience.

Hey Jerry, I'' defiantly recommend getting the Alan Gordon Director's Viewfinder. As a student, I had mine for a while and I do find it useful. I don't believe it's worth getting the Mark Vb over the IV. It's essentially the same housing, but the Mark Vb has a more extensive aspect ratio ring, in addition to a different barrel (I believe it has a Super16 setting, better zoom-range and barrel colors are different). I assure you it's not worth paying 400 dollars extra for the Mark Vb over the IV. There are other good director's viewfinder such as the Tewe Director's Viewfinder, but honestly you can't beat Alan Gordon. More affordable alternatives includes Mini Director Viewfinder's (alan gordon makes one) or the Panavision app for iPhone. One thing I'd recommend getting though is getting the wide-angle attachment. You can buy it off Alan Gordon directly and cost 125 dollars (or buy a viewfinder that comes with it). The wide-angle attachment can really make a difference in some situations (although you might not need as a start). Best of Luck

Looking at many films today, I've noticed that many of the darker, more moody one's has a cyan shift to their color palette. This is especially true to films shot on film. I've always felt it added to richness to the whole piece in that it manages to elicit another layer of texture. Here's an example: . Notice the cyan color shift to the left and on Tommy Lee Jones' hat. The film "Biutiful" is a good example of the cyan shift in combination with green. As well as the movie Blade Runner: I know much of this effect is a done in the D.I process, but what can one do in lighting to get the effect in-camera? Is it simply Kino's with Cool Whites with a green spike to them or perhaps HMI's with 1/2 CTB...5600K with-3 green ?

I'd have to agree there. Money and politics is not the problem. It's after all the filmmakers nominating and deciding what to win. It's just seems like the Academy have been voting the most visual stunning film (of course, discredits locations and production design) for Best Cinematography instead of paying attention to how the cinematography adds to the storytelling. But even in the case of Tree of Life, it's a magnificent, beautiful film. Now I'm just thinking that the academy is confusing visual effects and cinematography: Just think of Avatar in 2010 (it's a green screen movie!) and Inception in 2011 (although well deserved).

Not to say that Bob Richardson is nothing less than a great DP (and thus did a brilliant job on Hugo), but why the hell would they rob Lubezki from his well-deserved oscar AGAIN? I lost faith in the Academy's cinematography branch back in 2007, and now this!

Wait, in what sense isn't this the case? If you're shooting an night exterior scene at day then that would be classified as "day for night". Regardless, I'd recommend not to.

Yes, I know. It was meant as a joke; since they're already involved in everything from writing to editing, they might as well pick up the camera.

I can't believe nobody on the first page mentioned Soderbergh. He's one of the few Directors-who-DP's that I know of. Sure some directors like Lars Von Trier likes to operate the camera themselves but very few who are actually DP'ing. And did I mention Robert Rodriguez? He DP's many of his own films including Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Spy Kids. Ironically both Rodriguez and Soderbergh are indie-kind-of-filmmakers who are used to being involving in every aspect of filmmaking. I'm sure the Coen Brothers would have shot their own films if wasn't for godsend Roger Deakins.

Not that I have an answer to your question, but you'll need to consider the reflectivity of the sand as well in your exposure calculation. Also, I do not understand why you need the china balls in the first place if you're shooting under bright sunlight? Why not use a overhead griffolyn to fill in the shadows or a solid black to create negative fill/give it more contrast.