Chris D Walker

Published this last Friday: Women of Contemporary Cinematography

This follows from another thread in the Cinematographers sub-forum. For the last three months I've been writing weekly about the creative talents behind the camera. There's also a little history and technical discussion going on and I would value any feedback about my writing so far. I like riding the line between being informative without being informal, but sometimes I can't help myself from going into too much detail. Christopher Daniel Walker on Medium There's posts about the cinematography of Dean Cundey, ASC; Matthew Libatique, ASC; and Grieg Fraser, ASC. ACS. I've also written about production design, film and digital technology, and most recently the costume design of Sharen Davis.

By chance I've written and just published an article about this very subject: Reading Light - Tradition and Modern Tools But I'd say the same as the other responses you've gotten here. Use a light meter, test your camera and your film stock.

Cinematography - Greig Fraser, ASC, ACS Next week: Reading Light - Tradition and Modern Tools

Costume Design and Production Design - Kristi Zea Next week: Faking It - Emulation of Aesthetic

It's Friday which means a new document: Lighting and Photographing Skin Tones Next week: Costume Design and Production Design - Kristi Zea

Another new document. So far I'm sticking to my weekly schedule: Cinematography - Matthew Libatique, ASC

New document just published: Production Design - Carol Spier

I've recently started writing a blog called Film Craft and Artisans. My intention is to write one article each week and I started with a post about the cinematography of Dean Cundey, ASC. The plan is to write about cinematography, production design, costume design and anything else that takes my interest. Cinematography - Dean Cundey, ASC Any thoughts or suggestions for me proceeding forward would be very much appreciated. My next document, out on Friday, is about the production design of Carol Spier and I'll be starting another soon about the cinematography of Matthew Libatique, ASC Many thanks.

Black and white nitrate film by the late 30's had equivalent speeds of 80 and 160ASA (Kodak Plus-X and Super-XX). Technicolor film was much slower. Carbon arcs and large incandescent bulbs in fresnel and broad lights were the main sources used. Hollywood films of the 40's were shot in studios and as a result hard light sources would often create overlapping shadows without diffusion. In the early days of motion pictures muslin was hung above a set in the place of a solid ceiling to diffuse sunlight; the move to constructed sets saw less diffusion being used. Cinematography, ed. by Patrick Keating is a good reading of the craft from the late 19th century to the present. I'm currently reading another in the series about art direction and production design.

Overall I'm excited if not as jazzed as everyone else seemingly appears online. I am a big Star Wars fan but I'm ambivalent about what J.J. Abrams and Disney have planned. Good points: - "I am Chewbacca! I am a Wookiee! I fight the Empire!". - Oscar Isaac enjoying himself flying a X-Wing. - The charred Vader helmet was cool. Observations: - Chewie does look weird and a lot of it is down to the eyes. Instead of a shaggy dog he looks like a groomed Pomeranian. - The footage of the TIE fighter chasing the Falcon appears to have taken its visual cues from the BSG remake - faux verite handheld and zooming. - We see Han and Chewie, but no Leia. I don't know whether Carrie Fisher can carry it off after 30 years and the filmmakers know it, too. - Someone else already said heavily processed anamorphic 35mm and I agree.

It's not only the green or magenta spike DPs need to be concerned with. If you shoot a Macbeth colour chart with several LED sources there is an unpredictability in which lights will affect which colours. AMPAS did a test with a model wearing a dress with detailed hues of blue, violet and cyan under different sources where an LED didn't have the full spectrum to accurately reproduce the colour, so appeared as merely a blue dress without the fine gradations present in a tungsten-lit scene. Some LEDs can reproduce colour with fidelity but testing is needed to be sure. You can't trust manufacturers measurements of CRI. LED lighting is taking over in lower budget, independent filmmaking because of their efficiency and small size. They can be great for augmentation in smaller spaces. I don't know whether this practice still exists but productions shooting on a stage payed for the space and the number of days being used, not the electricity they were drawing from the stage tie-in. For this reason productions weren't concerned with the efficiency of their lights because they weren't paying the bill. Carbon arcs were loud, DC, and had a short life; we're talking 30 minutes. Incandescent was quiet, AC, and had a much longer life. It made sense for studios to make the switch on stage, although carbon arcs did see use on exteriors until the 80's when HMIs were introduced on a larger scale.

One problem with LEDs is different manufacturers will have varying processes such as the number of diodes, the binning process applied, and the phosphors used to produce 'white light' that they will not match. A tungsten light from Mole will match with a tungsten light from Arri. DPs have to test for the quality of an LED and whether it is a satisfactory match with other light sources. Big lights won't disappear from large budget films. Productions are not only shooting in low light scenarios; you need big units to fight against natural daylight or for long throw on a large scale set. I can think of maybe two LED lights powerful enough to match the intensity of 6K HMI and they're very expensive to rent. I can rent a kit of three blondes for the same price as a 1x1 Litepanel. LEDs have vastly improved, but they have yet to fulfill the requirements and variety that tungsten lights have in size, punch and accuracy. This might be of interest, too: http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/02/27/bve-2015-how-accurate-are-your-led-lights-ex-bbc-expert-alan-roberts-has-the-surprising-answers/

It looks like a relatively small space so your kit should be enough. Like David said, diffusion outside of the window and sheer curtains on the inside. Are you aiming for diffused north/south skylight or sunlight streaming through the window? How about using smoke to diffuse the light inside the room? I would suggest moving your 650w fresnels, gelled with 1/4 CTB perhaps, as far from the window as you can to reduce the falloff into the space and make it less contrasty. Consider raising the ambient light with lanterns or bouncing a Litepanel or 300w fresnel off a wall or ceiling, too. Best of luck with the shoot.

There is a breakdown of the scene somewhere online but from what I can recall and gather from the clip: - This was shot on an Alexa unlike the rest of the show which was 35mm, most likely because of the length of the shot, the distance traveled and the space that needed to be lit. - For the cyan/green cast inside the stash house I'd guess it's mostly industrial fluorescents concealed behind furniture both from high and low angles. It could also be gelled Kino bulbs. - The mercury vapor and sodium vapor lights lighting the exterior are probably a combination of gelled tungsten and HMI pars for hard shadows in unison with practical street lamps. - There are pools of light in the exterior portion, maybe coming from smaller units. I don't know about the DI process, but it's likely there's been tweaking for the Alexa footage to match the 35mm material.

I have a host of conflicting thoughts about the trailer and the movie itself with regards to audiences' expectations, the filmmakers' intentions and its links with the original trilogy. My thoughts are only from what can be gleaned from the trailer, so who knows what the product may turn out to be. I've been reading about how the new movies would be a return to the 'used universe' aesthetic of episodes IV-VI, reliant on practical sets and makeup/animatronic effects as evidenced by the brief on-the-set videos with JJ Abrams. The trailer shows us digital environments, ships and droids; the opposite of what was promised. The impossible shot of the Millenium Falcon isn't Star Wars' style, either. If you look at the original trilogy the practical photography isn't fancy. 90% is shot on a tripod, sometimes with a tilt or a pan. The remainder is shot on a dolly and just one steadicam shot that I can recall. I question whether the photography in the new movies will show a similar restraint or fall by the way in favour of JJ Abrams established 'look' as seen in Star Trek and Mission Impossible III. If you intend to remain true to the spirit of A New Hope, Empire and Jedi does that mean all aspects of their production? Obviously that's not practical with modern visual effects so that gets a partial pass, but it remains to be seen whether the visual approach will be cohesive with its forebears. Observations: - The ball droid is a ploy to sell toys, so at least the movie has that in common with the original trilogy. - The mini lightsaber blades are silly. Has it become a tradition that with a new movie comes a new lightsaber concept in an attempt to reinvent the wheel? - The new X-Wing design was one saving grace. It harks back to Ralph McQuarrie's early designs but also feels like an evolution from what we've have seen 30 years previous. - If I didn't know the new movies were being shot anamorphic 35 I doubt I could tell in a blind test whether the photography was film negative or digital. Not good in my book. - Nothing about the plot or the characters. I do wish JJ Abrams would dispense with his coyness and secrecy. Excite people with a story not with nostalgia!

Black Narcissus may be the most beautiful Technicolor film there was. It's daring to have at times near monochrome images in a format designed for vibrant colour reproduction.

This is an anecdotal story but bear with me. I recently bought a Rank Aldis rangefinder camera for £15 on eBay. It's 50+ years old and is fully manual so I used my light meter for exposure. I took it for a day out on a boat up river and the woods nearby my home loaded with Fuji Superia 400 (I also had Pentax 110 sub-miniature camera loaded with Lomography film). I get the film developed and had 9x6 prints made. I had to say "Holy cow." I own several digital cameras and have never been as enthused about my shots as I have looking at these prints. I'll be shooting rolls of Lomography-modified 5213 200T next week, too. Since shooting stills film again I've been thinking about what makes celluloid distinctive from digital photography, whether for stills or filmmaking. Most of it is subjective so I'd love for others to chime in. The first distinction is how light from a scene and lens is captured by the medium; film captures light with a logarithmic response whereas digital uses a high-bitrate linear response chip with an applied gamma to attain its initial image. A given film stock has an innate look or aesthetic that cannot be duplicated by software that will extrapolate and interpret an image based on a manufacturer's specifications. I also think a film negative's subtractive colour process versus a sensors' additive colour process plays some role as to how a digital image can have 'off' skintones and inaccurate reproduction of certain hues. Also note that the cyan layer in a negative is at the bottom; perhaps there is a micro-diffusion happening in the red-sensitive layer that compliments people's skin? I am not 100% pro film. Digital cameras do have several advantages over film stocks such as sensitivity and resolution (except for 65mm 5-perf and IMAX) but many cinematographers care more about the latitude and colour fidelity that film can provide among a host of other considerations I won't get into. Don't you think it's fantastic that a 50-year old camera can still be put to use and provide excellent prints? How many of us are using digital cameras or even phones today that are over five years old?

Five? I know the people who watch these movies are fully aware of them being absolute trash, yet it stuns me how little internal logic this series has from one to the next. It's actually insulting to their own audience. Some notable clunkers from the series: - In the second movie ('Apocalypse') it's firmly established that the virus infects living tissue, but the heroes are attacked by zombies rising from graves in a cemetary with no explanation. - In the third movie ('Extinction') the world's oceans dry up and the land masses become desert because of a virus. Someone care to explain this? - In the fourth movie ('Afterlife') a light aircraft flies from Japan to Canada to California without refuelling, then later someone successfully takes off from a prison roof in the same plane having no previous pilot experience; the city of Los Angeles continues to burn despite the world ending years previously; the Las Plagas and the Executioner appear for no reason nor explanation; and a character suffering from convenient amnesia found in Canada winds up the the same prison in California where her brother has survived the zombie apocalypse. And now this trailer which is unintelligible, incomprehensible and downright idiotic. Someone please stop Paul W.S. Anderson from producing these abominations that tarnish an excellent video-game series. - This isn't relevant to the post at all but if anyone has seen 'Blade: Trinity' there is a sequence that has infuriated me both times that I've seen it. At the beginning of the film a group of vampires fly into the Syrian desert to find a pyramid that contains the slumbering Dracula; to gain access to the pyramid the vampires wear full-body UV suits to protect them from the sun overhead. GO WHEN IT'S NIGHT-TIME!

This will be the third 'Prometheus' thread I've posted on. It grates me how some people think this film will "grow" on viewers the same way as 'Blade Runner' or 'Alien' both did several years down the line; I doubt I will be changing my mind about it. At their heart 'Blade Runner' and 'Alien' are very simple in their storytelling and it is more of how they are told. 'Prometheus' suffers from a hodgepodge of ideas that masquerades as a story which is boldly presented but badly told. On another note, they're not Engineers. I like Space Jockey better.

I'm reminded of a game you can play to gauge the 'hit rate' of a director. One person picks the director and names a good film of theirs, then the second person has to name a bad film. You alternate back and forth until you either run out of titles or someone can't name a title in their favour. There is a margin of error dependent on people's tastes but it's fun. My brother and I once played Ridley Scott and figured he had a hit rate of 60/40 of good films to bad. It went along the lines of: Alien, Hannibal, Blade Runner, 1492: Conquest of Paradise, Gladiator, Legend, Black Hawk Down, G.I. Jane etc. This was a while back so I'll have to play Ridley Scott again. Other director's hit rates: Stanley Kubrick - 80/20, Martin Scorcese - 80/20, Steven Spielberg - 70/30, Christopher Nolan - 80/20, David Fincher - 60/40, Francis Ford Coppola - 60/40. This is very subjective but also an interesting way to examine other people's thoughts about a director and their body of work. I doubt there is a director living or dead with a perfect score. Unfortunately I would use 'Prometheus' against Ridley Scott, Mr. "I wanna scare the s**t out of you". His actual words describing the film whereas in reality he missed the mark in creating any kind of tension or horror during the 124 minute running time.

I saw it in 3D; it was good except for miniaturization in the wide vistas and some amount of strobing in the busy shots. "I wanted to like it." I've said this about other films before, and it's the worst thing I can do because it ends with me seeing the faults that much more. It hurts me to say that I didn't enjoy 'Prometheus' because of how much of an 'Alien' lover I am; I was wearing my USCSS Nostromo t-shirt in the theater while watching the film. But hey, maybe you'll love it and I'm being overly negative with memories of how amazing it all began.

The US has to wait another week before they see the film. I've seen it and I am crushed. I had lowered my expectations before stepping into the theater, but I didn't lower them enough. I want to sound off about everything that made me pull a sad face for 97% of the running time, but I won't ruin the disappointment for anyone else. Maybe I'm dwelling on the bad when I should be praising the good, yet I'm struggling to think of anything worthwhile about the story or the creature design. From a technical view (cinematography, production design) the film is excellent (except for a certain makeup job) but the story must come first, and it didn't. It was ham-fisted and didn't provide one scare. My instinct was proven correct: Ridley Scott was lying. I won't say what about, though many of you know what I mean, and it was the one heart-pounding moment in the entire film. If and when you go to see the film you may very well picture this in your mind: albino with the mumps.

Despite what Ridley Scott, Damon Lindelof or whoever else says it is not, this film is an Alien prequel. That is the space jockey, that is H.R. Giger's spacecraft before it crashed, that is a Weyland-Yutani decal sprawled everywhere. This is where the comparison to the Star Wars prequel trilogy comes in. I suppose it's unavoidable but the design and technology in both Scott and Lucas' films is an advancement rather than being a progenitor; the spacesuits especially are leaps and bounds ahead of what appeared in Alien with the skin-hugging fabric that replicates atmospheric pressure among other things. The "truckers in space" idea has gone out of the window. The Prometheus ship is also a lot more glossy, less angular and less pointy (I remember there being a heap of antennae) than the Nostromo. As far as CG versus miniature photography, the amount of time to build a finely detailed and painted CG model over a physically existing model is considerably shorter (provided that you're trained professional) and may require only a single person to do it. A physical model can be broken and take days to repair by a team of modelmakers before it is back to the needs of a shot and cannot be easily replaced during the interim. Tell that to a producer and it's easy to understand why CG is prevalent, even to the detriment of suspension of disbelief. Shots of the Millennium Falcon, the Discovery and the Enterprise are burnt into the back of my skull looking so cool. Lastly, who's seen and read about the mysterious 12ft tall humanoid featured in the trailer? Nerds love to theorise. I have a theory...

The last few days I've been thinking about films that fit into a lo-fi aesthetic of cinematography; asking myself whether it is disappearing thanks to modern digital cameras and film-makers who may be weary of taking such an alternative approach to shooting. I first thought of this when a recently common criticism of horror films is that the aesthetic doesn't match the content. Several good examples are the Platinum Dunes remakes like 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre', 'The Amityville Horror' and 'Friday the 13th' being "too slick and polished" compared to their originators. What's strange is that Daniel Pearl, ASC shot both 'Texas' films (original on 16mm reversal, remake on 35mm negative) and it's Tobe Hooper's film that leaves a greater impact even now. My point being that a lo-fi aesthetic can be important to a person's response to said film. Two good examples from the early 2000's are '28 Days Later' and 'Pieces of April', which I feel wouldn't have the same effect if they were shot on 35mm instead of standard definition DV. Or look at some of the work done by Matthew Libatique, ASC or Barry Ackroyd, BSC with Super 16. Despite the fact that I've just cited half a dozen examples of lo-fi cinematography, I still feel that the look is becoming increasingly rare. Just to put it into a context, I consider a lo-fi aesthetic to contain: - Available light, practical sources, negative fill, bounce and little else. - No cranes, dolly or steadicam movement; tripod and handheld work oftentimes. - Camera limitations in sensitivity, latitude and resolving power that can lead to a severely impacted image. There's more to it, but I think this is a good lead off. I acknowledge that this aesthetic was often only realised because of limited resources or budgetary constraints; this doesn't stop me from thinking that it can be an artistic and creative decision by talented film-makers who do have the resources and necessary budget to shoot with better tools and choose to shoot otherwise. Makes me want to try it out for myself.