Chris D Walker

Kubrick was a very driven director. And maybe not the easiest guy to work with (I'm thinking back to the behind-the-scenes of The Shining in particular). Not so much an ego as a strong resolve. Before films he was a published photographer, mind. I stand by what I've said. If you want to shoot a film, you become a cinematographer, maybe join the union. Ego-directors never do the catering or join the teamsters. They spoil themselves with roles that get them recognition as an artist, not as a team player, which is a big part of being on a film crew. Is a film diminished because the director has a DP? No. Is a film diminished because the director is the DP? Personally, yes. Disagree with me if it makes you happy, but I would rather see the same film with a solid budget and a decent crew than one bigshot as writer/director/cinematographer etc. Besides, neither Soderbergh nor Rodriguez are Stanley Kubrick.

I have an initial question followed by a train of thought. In a typical shooting scenario, what amount of light do you have to play with? I mean in terms of what speed film or sensor in relation to a given stop. Do you shoot mainly low-light footage that demands high sensitivity with fast lenses or in bright sunlight with a deep stop? I'm not asking about any preference but what you encounter most often during a production. I ask because there's a number of digital cameras around that can shoot at high speeds with low noise and few artifacts; the Mysterium-X on the RED, the Alexa and soon the F35 both with a base E.I. of 800ASA. Also, the lenses are getting faster; the Leicas at T1.4, Cooke going from T2 on their S4 primes to T1.4 on the S5/i range, Master Primes, T2 zoom lenses from Fujinon etc. There appears to be a greater demand for low-light capable cameras than for anything else, despite that not all shooting scenarios will be illuminated by candles or practicals. I find it strange how cinematographers 30+ years ago got the exposures they did with 100-speed film at T2 at the best of times, yet now no production can exist without shooting with 5219 or 8573 500T or a higher-speed sensor. Have the objects that cinematographers shoot changed? Is it the growth of directors wanting to shoot in practical locations? Is it to do with budget constraints? This post was in part inspired by watching The Taking of Pelham 123 (the original), Taxi Driver and Apocalypse Now. It seems a world away from how film is shot today. Thanks to those who read and reply.

I don't know whether many of you have seen this so I thought I'd share: Steadiseg - Hugo Cabret It's a novel idea using a segway to handle the 75lbs.+ weight of the Alexa stereo system. This will also be the first narrative film Scorcese will shoot that is completely digital - and 3D. I haven't enjoyed his most recent films (especially The Departed) but I won't hold judgement until this is shot and finished, probably the end of next year.

I saw Predators Tuesday night; a big improvement over the AvP films (I paid to see Requiem in the theater), not so much an improvement on the original nor the sequel which I enjoy a lot. I share those thoughts about it looking great footage from the Genesis. From the trailer I thought it was Super35 but while watching the film there were a handful of shots that have that motion you can get from a digital camera. There was also an issue with one scene where the image looks as if it was brightened in post and the blacks were hit badly (the waterfall scene). Beside those minor points, it was effective. Despite a few nags about the story and editing, it's solid and entertaining enough, and I was in the right frame of mind when I went to see it.

Wait, we need to capture at least 4K for digital systems to match 35mm film? I don't buy that. I think HD is clean and sharp enough as it is. A lot of HD cameras around today oversample for the best images to output 2K/HD (F35 & Genesis both have 5760 photosites across the horizontal, Alexa from 3.5K etc.), the RED isn't any different. Maybe it should be an aesthetic choice to shoot at HD instead of 4K in the same way one may choose Super16 over 35mm. Does it mean to say that any number of films and television shows which have been shot in HD are lesser when compared to material that originated as 4K? If a film has great lighting, production design and the like what does it matter to capture it at a resolution that people can't see with their own two eyes. I'm not saying 4K is a bad thing, simply that it should be used for the right reasons, not just for its own sake. The majority of users don't need higher resolutions except for the need of wanting it. As the saying goes: use the right tool for the job. HD is not 35mm. It is not objectively better or worse. It's - something else. As far as tapeless capture is concerned, it's the way for productions in film and television, especially with recorders like the Cinedeck and Codex. Despite this, Sony is upgrading HDCAM-SR to 12-bit 2K by the end of the year, which doesn't rule out tape wholly just yet.

My thoughts about directors taking on other roles during a production? If you can afford a decent crew a director should remain as a director, acting as a master of ceremonies, an island of tranquility in a sea of chaos. Directors who act as the crew have an ego coupled with neuroses and I don't like that. Whenever I see Cameron or Soderbergh operating the camera it's as if they trust no-one else to achieve the best result. It's the 'you're doing it wrong, allow me' mentality. To an extent I don't like DP's who operate themselves, either. As far as Soderbergh's films I think Ocean's 11 and 13 were fun and 12 (Soderbergh's favourite) was shameful. I could go into his other films but it would take a while. There is a certain style to his films, like many have already described, where you're unsure whether it is deliberate or simply working with what is in any given situation in terms of lighting, space etc. The worst perpetrator for ego-director? Robert Rodriguez. Director, DP, camera operator, production designer, stunt co-ordinator, special effects supervisor, etc. Check out the credits for Once Upon a Time in Mexico, it's ridiculous. Where first this was a necessity for him it has become an indulgence, a lot like his films. I do like From Dusk Till Dawn, however.

The reality of the situation: The Alexa is shipping units right now as per their original release date, no delays. The Mysterium-X upgrade is now available for the RED. The Epic and the Scarlet have not been released and have suffered several extensive delays. Will they be released by the end of the year? Maybe. Why is resolution such a big deal? 80%+ of the viewing public don't have 20/20 vision. People can't resolve 4K+ of resolution. Sharpness, contrast, latitude and refresh rate are more important for great images than sheer number of pixels. We know this yet ignore it. For the majority of applications HD/2K is ideal in terms of image quality, data management etc. for presentation. Another thing, how many RED shoots master their projects in 4K? I imagine very few. In Hollywood, sure, but for independent features they mostly finish in HD/2K, right? This isn't an attack (despite having done it before with my 'I hate RED' post), but a real question of application in production and post.

As I understand it: An f-stop corresponds to the focal length of a lens. So, for an 18mm lens at f/1.4 the aperture would be 12mm (approx.) and at f/2 the aperture would be 9mm. Focal length of lens divided by aperture. What has to be taken into account is firstly the wider lenses are typically retrofocus designs, which requires more optical elements and each absorbs a small amount of light. So, in a hypothetical lens with a maximum open aperture of f/1.4 the actual transmission could be an f/2 or greater, thereby the reason cinematographers use T-stops which do measure the actual transmission of light to a film plane. Second, a Full-frame sensor has twice the area of Super35, meaning you would need twice the amount of light to attain the same exposure (assuming they have an identical speed rating). A Super35 lens with an F-stop of f/1.1 can realistically have a T-stop of T1.4 provided that you're using the best lenses available anywhere. A Full-frame lens with an F-stop of f/1.1 would have a T-stop of T2 provided that you have the best lenses availble anywhere. The problem with using Full-frame lenses with extremely wide apertures is that they would be large, very heavy and impratical for production shooting re: pulling focus on any steadicam, dolly or handheld shot. You can get there, but it's investing a lot of energy and workmanship for little in return.

There's a guy I know who's into photography and that's all we have in common and all we talk about. He shoots with a whole set of camera bodies and lenses (he still uses film in a 30-year old Minolta) but praises his Nikon glass to no end and a Tamron 28-300 f/3.8-6.3 on his Canon. As far as cinematography the majority seem to be either in the Cooke or Zeiss camps. There's not as much distinction as to shooting with wide or longer lenses as I can see. Are there any sets of primes or zooms that you've wanted to get your hands on since NAB? The new Leicas? Schneider? Arri and Fuji zoom lenses?

Yes, 3-chip 2/3" is vague. You're absolutely right in saying 4:4:4 Log when comparing with Super35 sensors for a film production. The aspect of depth of field and field of view interests me; Sony has said the F23 compliments the F35 or vice versa but I don't know which DP's, if any, have shot with both on the same project. I could see the F35 shoot day exteriors and stage sets at a T4-5.6, then shoot the F23 for night exteriors and available light at a T1.6 (Digiprimes or Digital Primos) or T1.9 (zoom lenses) and achieve a similar depth of field with the same field of view. Can you distinguish between a Super35-size frame from a 2/3" chip in such a scenario? One could argue that you can shoot a Super35 sensor rated at 1000ASA at T2 in available light (or something similar) but it wouldn't be the same. Not worse, mind, just not the same. I did some numbers (which I love to do) and one would need another 3-4 stops of light to achieve the same depth of field: 2/3" at T1.6 - 500ASA: 6 footcandles Super35 at T2 - 1000ASA: 5 footcandles Super35 at T2.8 - 1000ASA: 10 footcandles Super35 at T2.8 - 1600ASA: 6 footcandles I guess my point is that everybody appears to be clamouring for faster sensors that can shoot in available light and with greater depth of field. It's already here, simply smaller. That foreign film I was thinking of was Sex and Lucia (F900 if IMDb can be trusted).

Greetings, I've posted before about the strengths of one format over another before (anamorphic 35). Now, I'm curious to ask about what DP's, AC's and the like consider to be the strengths of shooting on smaller-chipped digital cameras like the Viper, F900, F23 etc. Does anyone view there to be any problems shooting in the format? Do you consider 3-chip cameras equally to Super35 size CMOS/CCD's during pre-production and budgeting or even prefer them on the whole? Also, which films do you consider to be the best looking examples of smaller format digital cameras? Here's a small list of my current favourites: - Collateral (Viper & F900), a bloom of iridescent algae for the LA landscape (10 points to spot the reference). Can't say the look works as well with Miami Vice and I haven't seen Public Enemies (which hasn't stopped me from bad-mouthing the film to my friends). - Star Wars Episode II & III (F900/F950), although not the first F900 film out of the starting gate Episode II does look great. - Zodiac (Viper), upon repeat viewings I can see that video-esque motion but it doesn't diminish the strength of the photography and low-light scenes only achieveable with a 2/3rds digital camera (as far as available light shot wide open at a T1.6 with sizeable depth-of-field goes). I haven't seen Benjamin Button but from what I have it looks more of the same (which is good). There's a handful of others, including a foreign-language film shot on an F900, but their names escape me. Thanks to those who read and reply.

Seeing as this is the place to ask questions and share ideas, I thought I would share one. There have been many strange and wonderful ideas about the future of capture and projection for films; this is what I think film could become. A hybrid between Showscan, Super Dimension 70 and Maxivision48. Either film (3-perf) or digital (2K) projection at 60 frames per second. Here's my logic for it: - 24 fps doesn't cut it for fast motion. There wouldn't be such an issue with 60fps. With a scene that doesn't require fast motion capture you could switch to 30fps and step print the frame. - 65mm film at 60fps isn't a producer's dream (281.25ft/min). 3-perf film at 60fps (168.75ft/min) is do-able. Alternatively, 2K @ 60fps needs only 150% more data when compared with 4K @ 24fps, which would need 300% more data than standard 2K capture/projection. - 48fps isn't compatible in any way with television at 60Hz. Blu-ray can playback 720p and 1080i at 59.94Hz, regardless of region. 60fps can be transferred into an interlace signal easily. There's also PAL60 for DVD. - Grain would be much less of an issue. At 60fps a viewer's eye can't see film grain unless you're pushing by two stops or are severely underexposed. Ditto for noise in digital capture. - There are no film or digital presets for 48fps capture. There are dozens of digital cameras, high-end and prosumer, that can capture 60fps at 720p or higher. - No dorky polarised glasses. - You can project onto a much larger and brighter screen. Flicker would be something of the past. As I see it there are only a few pitfalls. One is pretty big: - For shooting at 60fps one would need an extra stop and a half of light for correct exposure, but that's not outside the realm of possibility. - Industry acceptance would take time. We're so accustomed with 24fps and its aesthetic. Plus, every producer and distributor is on a 3D binge, charging every ticket for extra cash. - Another conversion of projectors at a high cost. Away from the DCI specifications. How does this sound to everyone else? Is it possible? Is it realistic? What can we call it? As always, thanks to everyone who does read and respond.

Please be as broad or in-depth as you choose. What is your favourite lens/lens set that you have ever used for a production? What makes it your favourite? -Speed -Sharpness -Contrast -Roll-off of focus -Bokeh -Spherical or anamorphic -Ergonomics -Weight -Distortion free optics -Unique characteristics Is it a zoom lens? Ridley Scott's favourite lens appears to be the Angenieux 24-290 T2.8. What about for different lens mounts? B4, PL, PV etc. As a sidebar question, what are your thoughts on shooting with lenses? Do you limit your palette? Do you shoot with a consistent stop? Is your personal taste for wider or telephoto lenses? It'd be interesting to hear differing views and rationale for them. As always, thanks to those who read and reply.

That larger sensor may not be as beneficial than people are led to believe. This is a hypothetical: If one were shooting on a Super 35-sized sensor with a 50mm lens, to get the same angle of view on a Full-frame sensor they would need an 80mm (give or take). Focusing both cameras at the same distance from the subject (let's say 6') and at the same aperture (T2.8), the Full-frame sensor would capture an image with much less depth of field. The same applies for anamorphic. What I mean to say is that operators and focus pullers have enough trouble shooting with wide-open Super 35-area spherical lenses before moving up to Full-frame 35. The number of people capable of shooting on formats larger than Super 35 is very small in cinematography, I don't have an exact number. Plus, how many cinematography lenses cover Full-frame? How many still lenses have an aperture larger than an f/2.8? Some might say the solution is to shoot at a slower stop and push up the speed of the sensor. Doesn't that counteract how many people want to shoot; with available light and night exteriors with decent exposure? Super 35-sized sensors are the optimum for 75%+ of features; 20% goes to 2/3-inch chips. The applications for shooting with Full-frame and medium format sensors has a very small niche, just like with Imax 15/65. Small productions have no need for them. Personally, I like what Arri have done; oversampling for a 2K image, dual recording uncompressed and ProRes, and a Super 35 sensor among other things. It's what professionals have been wanting from a digital camera.

Hand-held isn't the problem, it's the combination of camera and lens that can make it worse. Films like the second and third of the Bourne trilogy, Quantum of Solace (awful title) and others have a tendency to shoot hand-held and with long lenses, oftentimes zooms, which enhances the body movement of the operator to a very noticeable degree. If you look at The New World it's predominantly hand-held with wider anamorphic lenses (35, 40, 50) and it's never jarring. On the other hand there's a scene in Star Trek after a bar fight; it's a quiet dialogue between Kirk and Pike being shot on a long lens sitting on a tripod (I imagine), yet the camera's still moving. There's deliberate shaky cam while on a tripod. Why? It has become a fashion. About Saving Private Ryan, it was maybe three sequences that used the shaky cam (action scenes), whereas today there are directors and DP's that want to shoot whole films with longer focal lengths and hand-held for that 'kinetic' effect. Personally, I thought that John Toll's photography on The Thin Red Line was better serving to the action (especially those low-angle, fast dolly tracks). I suppose it's a question of reserve and knowing how best to use it in the end that matters.

Some great points here, guys. I like Pepsi, more than Coca Cola, but I do hate their celebrity endorsements. I eat at McDonalds, but I do hate that Justin Timberlake sings "I'm lovin' it". I don't own an iPhone, but I hate that the small print in the ads read 'sequence shortened and stages removed', or something to that effect. I think it does matter because how it's sold is what first piques your interest. If RED sold their cameras as professional HD with reasonably comparible compression to HDCAM-SR at a competitive price I would have fewer bones to pick. The fuss with many people isn't so much what it delivers, but what is promised. About word-of-mouth, I think that is part of my issue. It has the same principle as a game of Chinese whispers; as it goes further down the line the message gets distorted and more simplified. There's a tendency to focus on the big numbers and fancy words. I must stress this again, I have an issue with how the camera is being presented, not the camera itself. It would be a pleasant surprise to test a RED (currently out of the question due to a lack of funds) and find that I like the result. What unique advantages does a RED, ignoring cost for a moment, have over an F35 or a SI-2K? I hate being sold 'untruth', that's all. Thanks for very full and detailed responses.

I Hate RED I don't feel this way against any other digital camera. I have this hatred for the RED in it's mass hysteria of marketing, numbers and fandom. F23 and F35? Fine. Genesis? I can live with it. RED? I'm screaming in my head. This is wholly about what has been spoken about the camera, not the camera itself. 1) K's - Simply, a 4K bayer sensor isn't 4K. Marketing team, stop using this number. Also, as for the number of K's a camera has, how far can too far go? 2) Coming soon... - For obsoleting obsolescence, here's another build and after that an updated sensor followed by a new viewfinder. 3) Goodbye, intuition - Fashion and men's magazines have recently been using RED's and EPIC's to photograph their subjects, Esquire in particular. Said: "This makes it a lot easier on the photographer since he doesn't need to know, intuitively, when the best few seconds are to snap a stream of shots." Wait, the photographer doesn't have to click his shutter anymore? Wow, an artist is at work. 4) Wavelet goodbye - I'm not a master of software but a 10:1 compression ratio (Redcode 36) can't realistically carry uncompressed RAW data. 5) Indie Baby - "It's a professional camera for the prosumer market. Hooray!" I dispute. There are many great cameras that deliver an equally good-looking image for cheaper than a RED, both film and digital. Films get made on Super16 for under $30,000. Saying that, how much does the storage of compressed 'uncompressed', 4K, 12-bit data cost? Plus lens rental, DIT, colour grading, archiving etc.? Everything written has been concerned with how the RED has been sold by the manufacturers. How the camera itself works in the field is not my point, I'll let others comment on that. I hate been given hype. Sony doesn't do this. Panavision doesn't do this. Arri doesn't do this. Conduct yourself in a gentlemanly fashion, RED marketing team. Rant over. Has what I've said been fair?

What I would like to happen: -Film and digital to have an equal share of production shoots. -Better stocks (whatever you view that as being; 800 EI, tighter grain, a new black and white stock?). -Better projection in theatres (large, bright and clear). 5/70 or 15/70? -35mm cameras with greater flexibility (lightweight, 2/3/4-perf easy switch, stop-motion to high-speed). -New and better lens design (exotic materials, distortion-free optics). -One-camera projects. -Facilities for both photochemical and digital intermediates available. What will most likely happen: -95% of all films to be shot digitally. -All digital projection. No Prints. -Knockoff cameras and sensors; cheap, poor quality and modular (read: deceptively costly). -No film with a budget more than $40 Million, thanks to post-production tools and cost-saving producers. -Non-union shoots become the rule. -Everybody is a film-maker, meaning more crap is more readily available (I think film-making should be a tough nut to crack, having to prove your commitment to a body of work - elitist, perhaps). The following don't apply to cinematography but I think are important: -More people streaming high definition films from online to their TV's and computers, meaning lower cinema attendence. -Films are sold as internet virals. -3D TV as the standard. This is guesswork. 2025 may hold something different entirely.

True. Gone with the Wind sold 18 Million tickets in 1939 in the US alone (if memory serves me). No film today even comes close to that number, so I suppose I can take some comfort in that. I do like Gone with the Wind. We may have to agree to disagree; I wasn't sold by the imagery and I don't care for 3D. If it were another director would we call him on the sub-par story? I'd like to think so. Why is it seemingly Cameron gets a pass for mediocrity in narrative writing? I may be making wild and unfair judgements but if this story was in novel form wouldn't we all shrug at the non-entity of our readers experience? This is not Asimov or Clarke here. In interviews Cameron himself said you can't have a good movie without a good story. His standards for a good story must have fallen sharp somewhere. Are we being paradoxically blinded by the wonders on screen? My thoughts are out. I think I needed to expound. No win, no lose.

The link I posted didn't work. Hopefully this one should. Avatar: The Abridged Script Take 2 One more time: I don't like Avatar.

About a fortnight ago I was telling my brother that I had changed my mind about the movie; I don't like Avatar. Avatar: The Abridged Script It is a bad movie in my mind. We always speak about how the story should always come first, yet are ignorant when James Cameron pens a repetitive and cliche-ridden script. The imagery cannot make up for a bad movie. Also, in American Cinematographer this month (page 42) there's a fantastic picture of Cameron, Worthington and Weaver on a motion-capture set: Cameron's serious and leading, Worthington looks absolutely clueless to what he's being told and Weaver has the demeanour of someone who hasn't felt physical human contact for several years, all while wearing blue Na'vi/Elf ears. This is all irrelevant, however; it looks set to be the biggest movie ever made and I'll be left in the dirt bitter and as clueless as Sam.

I'm currently gearing toward the camp that favours extensive planning before production to achieve the aesthetic look of a film through cinematography, lighting, costume, make-up and, perhaps most important, production design rather than electronic tinkering in post. In my mind a directors idea for how a film is coloured, lit and dressed should be set in stone in exactly the same way as when one decides which focal length of lens to use, how to block a scene and whether to use a handheld shot or a Steadicam; a director doesn't feel the need to change any of those image components. DI's supposed benefits of contrast enhancement, desaturation, power windows etc. can be done on the soundstage or on location through careful choice of stock, lighting, costume, make-up and production design. Refusing to establish a look until post-production on a big budget film is, to my mind, bizarre if one claims to be a director with a 'vision', a vision that can't be established or locked before production when you have the necessary money and equipment to accomplish it. The photochemical path appears as more of a collaborative effort during production because you are all working to the same goal and aesthetic. Dare I say that whatever look can be dreamt up in a DI suite can be accomplished photochemically provided you have the money, equipment and determination to do so on set and in the lab. Directors, DP's, gaffers, grips, production designers, make-up artists, costume designers and actors all got along fine before the DI to acheive a desired look. Ease does not equal professionalism. Perhaps smaller budget films need a DI more so than bigger budget films because of a possible lacking for the appropriate tools to achieve a particular look during production. In closing, very few films demand a DI to look good if someone is a pro, and a bad film does not benefit from post-production tinkering (I really like that word) if it has a bad story, bad acting and/or bad direction. I also like optical Super35 blowups; bring the grain.

I have just returned from the Plaza in Truro after seeing the movie in RealD. I'll be answering the questions most of us want to hear. This is my view on the movie, you're free to disagree but please don't say that I'm wrong, each to his own. Was it good?: Yes. Film of the year?: No. Was it 'The Game Changer'?: No. Was it good in 3D?: 50/50 - The actual photography looked like cardboard cutouts. The CG had more depth and flow. Convincing CG?: Difficult to call on the photorealism standpoint. There was a clear separation between the humans and 'the natives'; both were on screen together for a total of maybe three scenes. Good story?: I've seen the story before; we all have to some extent. Good visuals: Yes. What about the cinematography?: It was very tight framing so I didn't feel how expansive the world was meant to be. Strange use of zooms during several instances. Do I take back what I said in an earlier post?: No. Much of the design didn't click with me. I could go on but no-one wants to hear it, right? Acting?: Sigourney Weaver was shockingly the worst actor in the whole movie. No-one besides Sam Worthington's 'Jake' and Zoe Saldana's 'Neytiri' had time to really show their chops. Stephen Lang was very much 'stock' bad guy. When the movie finished there was one guy clapping which turned into the audience applauding in that awkward way we Brits don't clap but don't wish to be rude. In closing, the movie was good, but I enjoy picking out negatives of any film before discussing the good points. Can I give a score out of Five?: 3/5. Out of ten?: 6 or 7/10.

I just watched the trailer on Apple's website. Besides the story of the film, which reads like the spawn of Ridley Scott's "Body of Lies" and Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker", what was most striking was the look: very noisy night shooting that looked like video. What's strange is, if IMDb is to be believed, it was shot on Fuji Vivid 160T and Reala 500D stocks (it doesn't say whether it's 35mm or Super16). For such a high budget film and talents like Greengrass and Damon it's strange to see such a rough and dirty look. Sure, the Bourne films had the shakycam and zoom lenses but I can't decide whether this is either a progression or a step back. Most likely 500 speed Fuji pushed 2 stops? Maybe shooting digital for night sequences? If anyone does know for sure or has any thoughts about the film and/or its look, please post here. Thanks, Chris

I found this today: Technicolor 3D An 'in-between' for flat 35mm and digital projection that uses a patented lens design, capable of being run on standard 35mm projectors with circular polarisation techniques the same as Real-D and Dolby Digital 3D. They say test audiences find little distinction between this system and 2K projection when screening 'The Final Destination 3D'. Has this just been announced or around for some time? Will this actually be used in theatres in the US and overseas? As always, thanks for any replies.