Jump to content

Ozgur Baltaoglu

Basic Member
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ozgur Baltaoglu

  1. I would recommend, Europa (Lars Von Trier) A true hypnotic opening sequence... Marx Von Sydow counting...
  2. thank you all for your valuable input... I am actually a bit nervous because I will direct and shoot for the first time. It's quite a bit of work but it also feels liberating... I'm looking forward to a shorthand relationship with a dp someday...we'll see...
  3. It seems like the right time for it... Has anyone had experience with a Krasnogorsk camera? There are some with reasonable price on e-bay... Ali
  4. My main challenge, among some others mind you, in lighting is that I can't quite visualize what sort of lamp to place to get a certain fstop and a certain quality... I'm aware of almost all the tools and their function but when I start to light it all seems to add up and begin too look over lit (maybe I should turn everything off and start over and turn them on one at a time) I tried using photometrics and calculating footcandelas and lux but it's definetely not practical at the moment... I know expereince will solve all the problems but for now I have to find a remedy... thx ALi
  5. Hi guys, I need some general advice on lighting CU of faces... The scene takes place on a theater stage. The key light will be side light provided by those narrow long throw theater lights, probably a stop or two over... What should I do with the fill side and eyelight? I can bounce the side light but I want a warmer fill. Would a 600w fresnel + 1/2 CTO through a frost frame work and if it does how far shall I place it... BTW it's video...thank you all in advance
  6. Chainsaw, theoretically speaking it is possible to get very sharp, completely in focus, telephoto images (for instance 160mm lens, app. diameter: 10mm, f. 16) Does this work in practice, I mean is it practically possible to compose a tele frame completely in focus where normally you'd get the background out of focus... Maybe I can put the question like this: Is depth of field caclculation purely mathematical, regardless of the kind of lens etc. thx
  7. Can someone explain the main difference between a par and a fresnel? Are they all daylight or do they come as tungsten units? Thx
  8. "Some have been kind enough to say that my cinematography on GWPE looks like Vermeer's paintings, but in fact, I didn't do anything that I wouldn't have done if I were telling the story on that set about someone other than Vermeer. If you took The Godfather and and changed the costumes to the 17th century, everyone would say 'Gordon Willis has recreated Rembrandt.' I didn't want to make GWPE a visual statement, because photography shouldn't take precedence over the story. The first thing I said to director Webber was, 'People shouldn't leave the teather saying, every frame is a painting,' because the most important things are emotion and story.'" - Eduardo Serra, AFC, ASC (AC Jan '04 pp. 95)
  9. Tarantino considered hiring several Dps for Kill Bill because he wanted every chapter to have a different look, but he ruled that out at the end for "practical" as opposed to artistic reasons. Had he worked with 3 different dps would the film benefit from it and have more distinctive visual styles? One of my favorite trilogies is Three Colors: Blue, White, Red. Dir. Kieslowski... All have a very different look and DP: Slawomir Idziak, Zbigniev Preisner and Piotr Sobocinski respectively. Idziak's cinematography is exceptional!
  10. Thank you Mitch, I appreciate it... what you're saying is, since digital color correction (Da Vinci etc) has become an industry standard, you shoot and the lab prints "normal" and you do your c.correction and then print a film out (do you still get the I.P from the cam.neg. though) from that; the film out would be the I.N and from that you get color corrected release print. So there's no messing with printer lights on this pathway? Ali
  11. Slowly whole thing melts down to relativity and double-faces of "beauty"? What if I want to create discomfort; I could also try to arrange lines so that audience's brain would have a hard time accepting the image, they would be irritated... The cinematography wouldn't necessarily be beautiful in a traditional sense but it would also be beautiful in a sense that the sequence or even the entire film would work perfectly... I may sound demagogic but honestly I just ask questions to understand and these are very hypothetical issues... This is my modus operandi
  12. the AC manual 8th edition has a great article by Richard Crudo, ASC but I got lost along the way reading since I have shot film only once and I finished video and don't have any lab experience thus many aspects remain a question mark. Can someone explain the process? Thank you Ali
  13. In other forums I wouldn't dare bring this up, this one I have seen potential that some people would be interested in topics as such... Technical and conceptual; ideal combination for a platform of cinematography.
  14. It all depends on how you look at cinematography. If you think it's a craft then you're right. If you think it's art then you're wrong. All artists are to a degree craftsmen but craftsmen are not necessarily artists nor do they need to be. And as for your analogy; "Just pushing myself to try something new." "But where's my analogy?"... just kidding...
  15. As for musical analogies go yours is among the good ones I've heard so far... I have nothing against Toll or the film (although I must admit Tom Cruise is a lousy actor) I'm sorry if you think I sound hostile, I quoted him and said what I said to illustrate a point...
  16. The thing I praise in the lighting of The Shining is not that it does the opposite but the way it supports the story and the way the decissions taken of lighting remain anonymous. I agree with you on doing opposite for the sake of just doing it. Another example would be "Eyes wide shut" (I think I have given away that I'm a Kubrick fan). The blue light on windows at night... but the films night exteriors are not blue and the dual harmony it creates with that warm tungsten coziness in the couple's bedroom, could talk about Kubrick's take on lighting for hours but I'll stop for now...
  17. What is there to award if not something new and ground breaking. Even the academy seems to share this opinion but let's not get into this...comment on nominations was an excuse... I have read the article myself on AC Jan '04 so I know they fought the harsh sun light and whatnot. My point is that it is a typical genre film and perhaps a good one at that, cinematographically speaking... and should it be awarded for being what it is? I couldn't care less. I know that Toll went to the location and found out the most uninteresting natural light conditions etc. What I wanted to draw attention to is the attitude towards this kind of genres and the way they are lit. I doubt that the film is naturalistic. On the contrary it is too dramatic. And this kind of dramatization would never in any way be appropriate for a "zen-like" attitude... So it is ill justification if you ask me... And what kind of perfection are we talking about here? Perfection you talk about is a misconception of the eastern world and Japan in this case, just like when Toll admits Quote: " I had never been to Japan before starting this film, and somehow I had this idealized impression that the exterior light there be dramatically rich but soft and diffuse, that this should be the starting point for the look of the film." AC Jan '04. The question is; Why does he have that idealized impression and in what way did this effect his cinematography? I opened a topic on the conceptions of cinematography like the ones we discuss here so I suggest you move relevant replies to that topic.
  18. Most of the people here seem to have good grip on the technical issues concerning cinematography but what about the aesthetics of lighting? Is good cinematography hitting the exposure, having a dense nagative, rich blacks or is there something that's more essential? Over the years filmmakers have identified themselves with certain ways of lihting, composition and movement to create certain moods. These approaches created conventions and caused stereotypes and repetitions. i.e. horror films should be dark or extremely low key to be technical (generally speaking). But some films have challenged this. I know it is a cliche example but I'll give it anyway because it perfectly fits the topic; The hot, white windows as backlight in The Shining. In my oppinion what makes such cinematography good is the way it supports the story and not draw attention to itself and yet it's not that simple to get one's head around it. The way those high, burning windows is a comment on "darkness" it self. Abundance of light is just like darkness. It feels like sitting in an interrogation room and all the lights are shot in your iris. And you're being interrogated by Nicholson's character. It's ironical cinematography all over just like the story is ironical; my notion of good cinematography... I'm really curious about what you guys think on this? Ali
  19. No I don't. But what I would expect from a two time oscar winner cinematographer is to push the envelope not technically but artistically (conceptually). To light Cruise well and photograph beautiful images would be sufficient however I find this approach on ancient japan or any ancient period for that matter to be lit diffused and soft utterly conventional and thus, though "beautiful" it may be, lacking any comment on the story (as if the 19th century japan has never had a sunny day, if they were we would see it in Kurosawa) . Poorly, no but differently would be the way to go and that not just to "change" things. What I'm criticizing here is not Toll's cinematographic skills, it's his and the director's joint approach on the subject and it's result on the photography. And this approach I resist not only because it is "oriental" (kata practicing at dawn, etc.) in the theoric sense but also it is artisticaly (already) poor and visually not stimulating. Toll could not avoid repeating himself. That's what I mean when I say "enough is enough". Cynical remarks make me articulate my self like this so if I bore anyone I apologize!
  20. Has anyone seen Gothika? (gothic?)... Lots of wild crane and stdcam moves, ghost p.o.vs and all ?? generallywhat scares us is following the action through the subjective pov but whose subjective pov?- definetely not the ghost's (I know some of you will scream "6th Sense" and "Others" but we identify with them just the same and I dont want to score a double spoiler by further explaining why it's a different case with them. ) What could be a narrational justification for ghost pov shots other than the obvious possibilities for seemingly interesting moves which infact are not. Anyway I think Gothika is a typical text book example of a Hollywood blockbuster gone wrong... problematic script/ narrational ambiguity and showy, uninteresting camera movement not to mention poor acting. I think Kassovitz is an above average director but if he's going to shoot hollywood he should indulge himself less in conventional hollywood filmmaking.
  21. ... and I'm sure Kodak, naturally, is doing its best to keep it that way. Does anyone have an idea on Fuji's market share?
  22. and as for john toll, he is a very good cinematographer and and industry guru but enough is enough...
  23. I hope Serra gets it... I have seen all but seabiscuit... Beautiful single source lighting by Serra, fast falloffs on walls and sweet white side light just enough to illuminate the room and the actors... Cinematography that doesn't supress the story is the best no matter what the genre...
  24. In most hardcopies like the asc manual, the tables are in american measures. There's an interactive photometric calculator on Arri's site(http://www.arri.com/entry/lighting.htm) but it is not quite advanced. Does anyone know such calculators or conversion tables? Thx in advance -A
  25. hi leon, I havent done any big shoots but I know this... if what you mean by motion capture is motion control then I have to say it would be nearly impossible to build a m.c. rig at home since the device uses complex software to make multiple passes (infinetely repeating the same camera movement) however it is possible to make manual, human operated multiple passes, simpler the movement easier to repeat... I've tried this once; we tried a tracking shot (green box) we timed the move, marked the track and rehearsed quite alot and then shot the plates the next day trying to match the speed... the effects artist then composited them and it worked ok... lessons learned; we should have shot the plate first, it is easier to duplicate lighting and movement, you can also play back the plate on a separate lcd or video assist and time yourself little more accurately, also talking to the effects artist in advance might help because in this kind of poor man's hightech gear situations you may need unconventional precautions, in our case we had to place witness points for keying in the most unusual places. Also Zooming is pretty tricky. I know I couldnt be of much help but perhaps it may help... good luck
×
×
  • Create New...