Daniel Moore

First project is PSA, btw...

Looking for Producer to make things happen. While budgeting is great, the real attributes we need are someone who can think critically, with smarts, incredible resourcefulness, good in business, intelligence, someone VERY familiar with protocol and knows where/how to get what we need- a hardcore left-brain person with dignity :) Must be based in Los Angeles.

Please send resumes/links to awakenedone3@gmail.com

Thanks!

There are so many magazines on film and cinematography, but they obviously don't discuss the same subjects. I just bought a copy of American Cinematographer and I am wondering if anyone recommends it, or if anyone could recommend another magazine....?

If you could also give me some summaries of what each magazine discusses that would be great.

Let me know what you think. I believe I'm ready to direct commercials....do you all think I'm ready? Here are the website and Youtube links in case one works better than the other:

Just copy and paste this one:

www.fluideyefilms.com/july_09_DANNY-Cbas-web.mov

Anyone know where I can find scripts so I can compare them to the finished film?

Anyone know how I can obtain copies of scripts so that I can compare them to the final movie footage? They don't have to be physical, they can be PDFs or whatever. I was able to download Munich by doing a Google search, but I was hoping someone might know of a more official/reliable source that has ALL scripts. For example, the scripts for The Terminal and for Catch Me if you Can looked like someone had lazily typed them up without script format just for the internet. I want more official stuff. Anyone?

This is kind of an odd balance of needs. The crew is very small, and what we would need is a smooth operator/wheeler and dealer. I don't care too much about budgeting. If you can find good deals, then great. We don't need a whole crew to be assembled, I just have a few unique dilemmas that I think only a smart producer would know how to solve.

Pretty much, what I need is to shoot on a street(found the location already), and I'm shooting a scene with a tow truck. For this, it's complicated because the driver would probably have to be a stunt driver, or perhaps the fact that I wouldn't know how to get a tow truck in the first place, and if I could then the driver would have to act......its complicated eh?. So that's pretty much the only reason I would need a producer.

This production is probono unless we get a bigger budget soon, and hopefully if the collaboration is good we cna work together more in the future.

Its tough though because so many people want money. I could buy people meals.

Suggestions, opinions, applicants?

Chances are they just used the photos/videos to do digital extensions and/or build their own sets, more of reference material then stuff which would be in the final film. I seems to allude to shooting video/stills which is why I get the idea this was more so in pre production then it was for the actual shooting of the film. Guess we'll find out in about 2 weeks, though.

Yep. Any filming of the real Vatican had to have been for pre-production reference. The Vatican wouldn't let the crew film there in Italy, so the crew actually re-created the Vatican to scale in an enormous empty sports arena parking lot in Inglewood, CA. A lot of it was built, and then later on they took large parts away and replaced the empty spaces with fifty foot high green screen walls for the digital post effects. It looked amazing.

Michael Bay goes through DP's like I go through underwear. The man is insane. You are thinking of Mitch Amundson who shot Transformers. John Schwartzman did a number of films with him, I know Amir Mokri worked with him. He came out of music videos. Very talented but a little difficult.

Yeah, Amundson did do Tranformers, but he must have also done The Island, Transformers 2, and a bunch of commercials, because the lighting/esthetic of all the footage I've seen has that DP's touch, as opposed to Bad Boys II which to my memory didn't have any particular stylism that stood out to me.

First, Micheal Bay's DP has a very unique aesthetic, to the point where I know its a Bay film within seconds of watching the footage. I think the guy's name is Mitchel someone. I love his esthetic. What does he do that makes his work, well, his work. What might he do that other DPs don't do?

Next, I look at Kaminsky's work, like The Terminal, Munich, and Catch me if You Can, and he's using the same lighting arrangements for all of them it looks like. How would you describe that? What does he do differently than other DPs? I noticed he uses a lot of Key and Fill, and there doesn't seem to be too much depth in the shots.

Third, Roger Deakins- his work just looks "golden" and warm to me. Maybe he uses a lot of gold bounces? How would you describe his techniques? Thanks.

Note- whenever I think about ways to articulate cinematography, mostly the basics and my own jargon come to mind, for example, "heavenly" would be aperature is opened a lot so you get that high key blasting white light, but I know there's also a lot of technical stuff involved that I don't know, and I also don't know how much technical info is necessary to articulate a visual style.

What is DI? I think I am correct in saying it means "Digital" something....but if someone could really elaborate on it, like explain what it is, when it's needed(or if it's preference rather than necessity), and give me some movie names that have DI so that I can have some reference, I would appreciate it. I have actually been told that the movie A Very Long Engagement had a ton of DI, so I should watch that again, but any other examples would be great. Thanks.

Wow great responses from everyone.

That makes complete sense about directing the eye. I remember the conference table scene where Daniel Craig apologizes, and as the other men leave the room as the camera moves closer to him, his face and also his shirt are very white, almost "glowing"....and it definitely directed my eyes. It actually reminded me of how a "black light" works.

I also agree, lighting doesn't have to be "natural", but, when I thought about how the exterior lighting in the locations seemed to me to be very undirected soft light, and then I see an interior shot where the character's seem to have unexpected highlights, that to me seems contradictory to the exterior visuals.

Interesting point about "suspension of disbelief" too.

I guess I can say, from a technique based perspective, I can appreciate Road to Perdition more now. Thanks for the responses.

I was watching Road to Perdition, and the lighting seemed unrealistic to me. There were several scenes, mostly where the scenes had dim rooms, and the characters had soft but bright light projected onto their faces. It seemed almost as if ambient light was the key light, and not only that but that it didn't seem to be motivated by anything....

There was also a scene where it was raining outside a window, and there was that interesting effect where you see the shadows of the rain projected into the room from the light behind it....although, has anyone actually seen rain do that in reality? I'm not sure I have, although it seems possible. I'm wondering if it's a style of direction/lighting that is used to be cinematic regardless of it's realism.

Anyone seen this movie lately or remember it?

I don't mean "bad" in terms of its negative connotations. Rather I'm saying that it was intentionally documentary-style. To be honest I don't remember the beginning of the movie that well, but I felt that there wasn't enough artistry.

 

Even "The Shield" which I admire for the documentary edge has some photographic irony, allusion, things of that nature.

 

United 93 worked, but I personally don't enjoy photography that is so documentary in nature. Even photojournalists try to allude to things through framing and composition. This just had the feel of turn the camera on, record what is happening, which again, isn't a bad thing and certainly suited the story, but isn't a good way to win cinematography awards.

 

 

I happen, too, to disagree with the notion that cinematography can ever really be "too polished" for a given genre of film. Look at "The Thin Red Line" or "Pulp Fiction", violent war/action movies that are still very artfully photographed.

 

I think the quest for "realism" is like "the grass is always greener" because documentarians are always trying to make their footage look steadier and steadier and more thoughtful, composed, and it seems like filmmakers are trying harder and harder to make their footage appear unplanned and haphazard, the way that news crews shoot only when they don't have a choice or are rushed.

 

So these two fields of work are trying harder and harder to look like the other, which is ironic because eventually you get to the point where you are trying to emulate something that no longer has the same style as the style of theirs that you are trying to emulate.

 

If news footage becomes smooth and cameras more sensitive, how is shakey, grainy, underexposed footage going to be recognized by viewers as trying to emulate news footage?

 

Same is true with the former notion that grainier footage looked "real" because news was often shot on push-processed 400-speed 16mm film, and movies were seeking to emulate that look by pushing 35mm or even shooting 16. Now the VHS/digital look predominates when most stations have gone to HD, so art imitating life in this case there is a real lag because it seems like both sides are trying to mimic the other and, as a result, are see-sawing back and forth.

I never saw The Thin Red Line, but I will look into that.

It's interesting that you referred to news footage as looking grainy(and shot on 16mm). When I imagine news footage, I think of modern clear high resolution video tape that's aired on television with the camera being held steady(as with live reports). I would not have imagined "grainy" and "news" in the same sentence.

I do find your examples of the two catagories emulating each other amusing hahahah. I do agree too, based on what you said, both catagories are probably going to look bad.

While I love "United 93"'s very unorthodox (for Hollywood) approach to the story, and its realism, if anything the cinematography is intentionally bad to further this purpose.

 

I think they could have thrown some better insert shots into the mix to make up for the lack of stylism in the live-action stuff.

 

But again, for the subject matter, too much polished cinematography would have been bad too. I really dislike that they don't seem to have any polish at all in this film.

 

If I recall correctly, from a previous post, the ASC article mentioned they shot in real time with a pair of offset handheld cameras shooting in staggered fashion and reloading continuously for the long takes you see in the movie.

Hmmm, well, what makes you say "bad"? When I looked at the lighting, I felt like I was actually at the airport(which was probably the intention). When you say "polished", I'm assuming you mean "Hollywood" looking. When I think "polished", I think of a scene that is perceivably lit to please the audience rather than show mood or less common style. I thought the beginning of United 93 was somewhat polished, like all those nice moody orange tones(the close up on the guy's hands holding the book, and the other hotel room shots). In the airport shots I noticed a lot of direct key lighting(I'm guessing completely natural) creating white areas on the film(which doesn't really seem like it fits "polished" to me, but the lighting definitely looked powerful to me)

This movie, United 93, fascinates me. I was just watching some of it. The beginning has amazing low key scenes....really nice orange tones in my opinion. Although, the rest of the movie is suddenly extremely high key, and I think that high key looks REALLY good considering the movie was shot like a documentary. I was trying to analyze the execution of the way the movie was shot, and I was thinking first about format- I'm guessing it was shot on 35mm, but correct me if I'm wrong.....the strong documentary style made it difficult for me to recognize the format because it was so different to standard Hollywood movies. The camera had a lot of free hand held movement, and it didn't seem like any lights were rigged up. The lighting seemed really natural....and at the same time very high key, so I thought maybe the camera's exposures were just very large to let in more of the natural light that was availabe. Anyone seen this movie who can give me their insight?

Nor would there have been home video then. Sony's 1/2" B/W portapak also came out in 1965.

Video cassettes in 1973.

 

Home movies used a projector. The video tape of 1959 was 2" quad.

I wasn't technically thinking home "videos".....that's just the generic label I gave it. I knew the scene in Hollywoodland must have been shot on film. Although, thanks to both of you for your information, that's interesting.

Generally I carry both a regular Silk and a Half Soft Frost to put on frames for day work, to diffuse the sun. The nice thing about Half Soft Frost is that you only lose 1/3 of a stop under it, so when people move from full sun to being diffused under it, they don't not get darker -- it's like an Opal material in terms of heaviness, just smooths out the sunlight while keeping its directionality.

 

Silk is heavier and makes it look more like people are under the shade of something unless the background is not obviously sunlit (like dark trees and bushes, which help hide the fact that the people are under a silk.) But it is a nicer softlight, more of an overcast look.

 

So I alternate between the two. There are many other types and levels of diffusions, Quarter Silk, Light Grid, Quarter Grid, etc. I try to keep it simple, down to two levels.

 

As for bounces, most people use Ultra Bounce these days, before that it was a Griflon. Griflons are a bit shiny though, Ultra Bounce is softer. Even softer is Muslin, bleached or unbleached (unbleached has some warmth it it.) At the other end, if you want a lot of bounce, there are silver materials like Lame'.

What about those silver and gold bounces(someone told me they're nicknamed Elvis and Liberace)? I was told the gold is for soft bounce and the silver is for stronger bounce.....I've also seen "checkerboard" bounces on frames. Do those two bounces fit into what you're talking about?

A "backlight" is a simple concept, a light that comes from the background or behind the subject, aiming towards the camera.

 

"Key" is more confusing or vague since it means the "primary" light on the subject - there are cases where the "key" is a backlight, or you could say that there is no "key" I guess. Or the strong backlight bounces back up into the subject's face -- now is that bouncelight into the shadows the "fill" or is it the "key" since it the the main light on the subject's face? Or is the key the backlight since it is the dominant light in the scene?

 

"Silhouette" is different than backlight -- in fact, technically a silhouetted subject would not be backlit, they would not be lit at all -- a silhouette is a solid black shape against a lighter background. So if you lit the background and let the subject be a black cut-out shape in front of that, they would be a silhouette. Though some people are more vague in the use of the term to describe anytime the subject is fairly dark against a lit background, though not necessarily black and sometimes backlit.

Hmmm, well in that case, it seems like there could in some cases be no lighting function names at all. If I light a scene with all candles as practicals, there would be no back light, no fill light, but maybe you could consider the practicals to be the key lights because they are not only the primary source but the only source. It seems like all those function names are for when and/or if someone might use them to make describing a very average/basic lighting set up...like for an interview, but it seems to become more vague when I think of these functions being translated into movies....

Also, thank you Mr. Rakoczy for that book recommendation, I will check that out

Motivated light - light which has 'motivation' or a reason for it's placement / use. [ie. a lamp in shot, the sun, moon, car lights etc]

 

Key - as you've already said, the main or primary light source.

 

Fill - light used to lower contrast in the image by filling in some of the shadow areas left by the key light.

 

The use of the back light is always debated here, it boils down to taste and motivation. What does the script need?

A back light might be clearly motivated by the location or story, or it may be used without motivation to provide separation between foreground and background elements.

 

The lights are named according to the function they perform, not physical location. So you could key a character with a back light.. for example as in the shot you described from Terminal. This is then balanced out with fill light to enable the character's face to be seen (as per your desription).. or not, if a silhouette is desired.

Thanks guys, awesome responses. I thought things like car lights, and a lamp in the shot were considered "practicals"....?

Also, now that I've read the responses and I think about that scene from The Terminal, it seems like the names of lighting functions are to an extent, semantics. Meaning, a light in the back of a scene is not necessarily a "Back" light just because it's in the back. It just turns into a debate about perception. That scene I described from the Terminal had all that light behind Tom Hanks and the other guy, but, I think to myself that maybe it was possible that although it was a light behind the actors, for all I know the DP could have intended to actually have the lighting aimed towards their faces be the key light? Unless, the strongest light in the shot(light from behind them) automatically becomes the key light because it's the strongest source....

I have some basic questions. If people could give me some replies that would be great.

What's "motivated" light?

What's a "Fill" light?

What's a "Key" light?

Is a "Back" light even necessary if you don't want a silhouette?

I take it from what I have read that there are no official positions for the lights to be set up....so would the lighting names (Fill, Key, etc) not change based on their physical positioning?

I was watching The Terminal(with Tom Hanks), and there's a scene where Tom Hanks is walking with whoever plays the security guard. They are walking down a hallway in the airport and there's a ton of light pouring in from giant windows behind them as they walk towards the camera(the camera is moving backwards as they walk forward). I think the light lit up the whole hallway, but both Tom Hanks and the other guy were completely lit in the scene- so because the light was behind them(which I don't know if it was real sunlight or a really huge set light), does that make it a "Back" light, or does it make it a "Key" light because it was the main source of light in the shot? I'm guessing it was also the only light, because if the camera was moving down the hallway for the shot, other lighting set ups would probably logically been on camera haha.

If people could be elaborate that would be great. Thanks!

Regardless, you will definitely see a significant difference between the DVX and the HVX

Hmm...this leads me to conclude that film is way more trustworthy than digital. If someone said they shot something with 24p, then that's like fifty percent of the equation...the other fifty percent being the camera. Whereas with film, like 35mm, I've seen crews shoot television commercials with several different looking cameras all with 35mm film, and regardless of the camera, it still comes out looking like a commercial.

It seems like digital is really convenient in a lot of ways, but it seems like it also complicates things....

I'm trying to pinpoint the texture of Super 8 film. I was watching Hollywoodland(with Adrien Brody and Ben Affleck). There's a scene where we see P.O.V. through the lens of a camera as we watch the home videos(fake for the movie) of Ben Affleck's character while he's lifting his son around. I think that scene was in color. There's another scene where Ben Affleck is alone in frame goofing around, and then he signals the camera to cut(the P.O.V. camera in the movie). I'm wondering if anyone knows if either or both of those scenes were shot in Super 8(while the rest of the movie was in 35mm)....? I would guess because Super 8 was the standard home video film for that time period, and I'm assuming that was the director's and/or DP's intention for Hollywoodland...

I'm trying to pinpoint the texture of Super 8 film. I was watching Hollywoodland(with Adrien Brody and Ben Affleck). There's a scene where we see P.O.V. through the lense of a camera as we watch the home videos(fake for the movie) of Ben Affleck's character while he's lifting his son around. I think that scene was in color. There's another scene where Ben Affleck is alone in frame goofing around, and then he signals the camera to cut(the P.O.V. camera in the movie). I'm wondering if anyone knows if either or both of those scenes were shot in Super 8....?

What is a "workflow", and what does it mean when it becomes plural(workflows)?