Gregory Middleton

Hello, it's has been a while since I've been on this great forum. I can tell you that there is a Forbrydelsen 3 on it's way, premiering in September. I shot the two first episodes. On the Alexa.

Great work Gregory.

Thanks Marcel. Sad we won't get to follow you onto a season 3 here.

Your show looks great. Congrats!

Best,

Greg

Hello everyone!

 

About 2 years ago I purchased my Canon 7D which has introduced me to the world of film. Since then every time I was doing something as DP I was mad about one thing - getting the "professional film look". I was experimenting with many things - picture styles, color grading, lenses, lightning... Of course I have improved the quality of my footage alot, but you can still say, that it was shot by amateur. I've had few periods of time, then I was blaming alot of things why it was impossible for me. Using 7D, not Alexa, Red or 35mm, using Canon lenses, not Zeiss or Cooke... It even got to the point, where I was blaming different air density in my country, than in USA (lol, but actually it's a fact. still not a game changer...). I know that it's possible to shoot great footage with DSLR (example - Killing Joke or

that was shot in my country, which proves to me, that I shouldnt blame "air". And by the way it was shot on neutral picture profile, which also proves to me, that picture profiles are not the ultimate tool for "film look"). I was thinking that using some cine lenses is going to get me there. Well, quick search on youtube (

) shows, that there is some difference, but it's not the ultimate cinematic tool. Now I came across some amazing footage (which I'm also going to use as example of this "professional film look" that is my ultimate goal - GH1 + Lomo) from GH1 with lomo anomorphic lens on the front. This put me into thinking - anomorphic is the ultimate tool for geting this look. Well, again just a quick search on youtube, and my idea seems to be wrong - Century anomorphic + 5D. So what I would describe as this "film look"? Definitly one of the biggest differencess between my footage and professional footage is contrast ratio. This "cinematic" kind of black. Also colors. Mine are over saturated, but when I'm trying to make them desaturated I feel like I'm loosing some details in them. Sharpness - I know that it's about good lens and focus puller. But definitly my ultimate goal is this footage from GH1 with Lomo, that also proves to me, that you can get that look without special picture profile, color grading or lights. The best I've got so far -

by cinestyle and color grading and

by lightning (actually I know it would look alot better if we could afford more lights, but our budget was really tight. oh and by the way, please don't judge audio and color correction - it's just RAW files from camera cutted in right order).

 

The question is - what am I missing? I really want to know, becouse I've got some big projects in near future, and I don't want to waste opportunity of making documentary film about hospital for their 100'th anniversary (don't worry, I'm better documentalist than DP:) ). Thanks for any help!

I took the time to view your examples. Its not a question of technology, just practice and technique. Its not a matter of not having enough lights but using what you have to good effect. As you practice, remember its all about taste. Knowing what you like is the first part, getting there is the fun part. The term 'professional film look' is actually holding you back. Its too vague and gives you no where to investigate. You have to answer the question yourself 'what do i like about those images.' Its detective work to deconstruct lighting and setups from other films/videos. Over time you'll get better at that too.

Another great reason for shooting a note or sign as David calls them, with your chart is that this information is never 'lost' . The colourist will always see it.

I used a dry erase board to shoot notes with charts on The Killing this year. With the same colorist you can quickly get into a shorthand.

Greg

Hi,

 

Up until recently most of my shoots have been extremely run and gun and low budget; I rarely had time to shoot a color chart. That being said, the film has always come back colored beautiful. But I figure it couldn't hurt to get this parsed out because of this my understanding is still a tad shaky.

 

To confirm -- one would shoot a grey card (or color chart, or both? help) in the lighting they want to be neutral? So what confuses me is then, what do you do in situations where you want the light to be warmer or colder and there is no neutral source?

 

To clarify let me give an example; I am shooting a scene on 5219 outdoors, the subject is lit by a blazing fire. I expose for the subject lit by the flames, and want the film to turn out exactly as I see it, very warm. If I'm shooting tungsten film without an 85, where would I want the grey card to go? My intuition tells me I would have an on camera light balanced to 3200 that I would shoot the grey card with. That way the color of the flames (lets say 2500K) look slightly warmer, as it does to my eye. Is this correct?

 

What is normal practice for shooting a grey card or color chart? Is it normal to have an on camera light like this to shoot color charts in situations where there is no neutral lighting? Do you shoot them at the beginning of every scene? Every change in lighting? Please explain :)

 

Slightly confused and looking forward to your answers, thankyou!

 

Evan

Hello all,

 

So a few of is have seen this already, it was probably the most anticipated film for me in a loooong time (maybe since Return of the Jedi, honest).

 

I found myself trying to ignore parts that were bugging me from about 10minutes in - and regrettably they accumulated enough to register and take me out of the ride and well seated back into the cinema fiddling with my glasses and trying to overhear discussions among the hundreds of other 30+ males in attendance.

 

In the style of the film my questions and observations to follow will likely be ill-posed and ignorant but regardless, here goes:

 

 

... crickets chirping ...

 

I just don't know where to begin !

 

ahh fack it

 

It was just such a mess, I just don't care what happens when people are so random and incoherent as they were. If maybe Scott was extrapolating on what society and therefore a microcosm crew would be like if it composed of the children and grandchildren of the petulant 'me' generations of today then maybe he's on to something, but it just isn't enjoyable watching.

 

Too many instances of questions like 'um, er... but, so, why didn't so and so or at least someone spot/comment on/ponder the implications of what was happening all around them or too them'

 

>'hey guys I think I saw a worm come out of my eye'

>'hey everyone I think we should all regroup and figure out what is going on and come up with an action plan - put us all on the same page'

>'hey I think someone is having surgery next door, perhaps we could help"

 

Ok, so big white man has some mean strong herbal tea next to a water fall while an independence day saucer floats above - so he didn't know it was going to affect him ? (shocked look) and why not ? and it was meant to seed planet earth / or ? and how did these ancient civilizations get to know the local star system of the engineers and why draw it on a wall ?

 

So black goo in canisters has worms in it - that turn into cute little arm breakers - which then turn people into dead things with wormy things in them that jump at you, ooor you go all puffy faced and angry and try to kill people around you, but if you drink it, actually, no, not it, but the stuff in the ampoules in it, then you get worms in your eyes and ebola on crack, but you dont go crazy, you get horny instead and impregnate women unable to have children with the mother of all chest buster/ face huggers combined - which then makes a pointy alien after having face-hugged one of these tall men (any females in the race?).

 

So where did the derelict spaceship from alien come into this - assume its on the other side of the planet or off to the left ?

 

Why did they land the Prometheus on what looked like a god damned runway ?? real wise move

 

Vickers - inept

 

Like someone pointed out online and I felt like screaming at the screen 'FOR EF'S SAKE RUN PERPENDICULAR TO WHERE THE DAMN SHIP IS CRASHING!'

 

Would have been more interesting if she had survived, perhaps wounded and had to go along on the ride to the sequel, maybe squeeze in some character development somewhere as opposed to the angry geologist/skeptic-voice of pragmatism-keystone cop/comedy relief-feral killing thing arc that we were offered instead

 

 

dang - battery is running low

 

film had many good moments - but it unfortunately swung downhill

 

your thoughts ?

Neil deGrasse Tyson said it best:

Prometheus: Two parts Cowboys&Aliens, one part Mission To Mars, one part The Day The Earth Stood Still. Blend in the abdomen.

also:

Prometheus goes 35 light yrs into space, but CharlizeTheron gaffes "We're a half billion miles from Earth"- just past Jupiter

So I saw this last night - opening day here in the US. I hardly ever go to an opening day showing, much less see new films in the theater (Netflix is much more my speed these days.) And Prometheus is the perfect example of why I don't go to the movies anymore.

 

As with every film, STORY is everything. And this one was horrible. I knew Ridley Scott was quite capable of making sub-standard stuff but I was hoping he'd kick it back into 70s gear for all of the fans of the original Alien. Instead, he sank to a new low. Not only was the story and plot completely disjointed, but he also made no attempt to develop the characters. It almost felt like he was in a rush to get to the end credits.

 

I was extremely underimpressed with the photography, as well. I can't think of a single shot that was memorable. The best visual for me was Charlize Theron.

 

And did anyone else notice the discontinuity at the VERY end of the film? The big guy who got impregnated by the giant squid is the same one that is supposed to be found at the cannon inside the crashed ship when the away-team from the Nostromo goes searching. Instead, the very first form of the aliens we know pops out of him inside the smaller of Prometheus's crafts and he dies right there.

 

REALLY disappointing. Ridley showed no loyalty to the fans of the original film. I know he said he wanted to make Prometheus somewhat "self-contained" with a story unto itself. But sometimes you just can't do that. When you know there are so many aficionados of the original film still out there, the filmmaker should feel an obligation to make a QUALITY prequel. I know I would.

 

It's time for Ridley to pack it in. His best work is behind him. I will say this: if he does make a sequel to Blade Runner, you can bet I will avoid that like the plague.

The planet they are on is marked LV 233 on their 'map' in the Prometheus bridge. The Alien planet is LV 426. David refers to many other ships, like the one him and Elisabeth leave in, so I think they meant to mean they're are many. Perhaps what happened to those engineers on LV 233 happened to the crashed ship in Alien.

That may be the only detail which made any sense in reference to the other films.

Thanks for your reply!

 

I'm really interested in translights actually. Have been ever since I saw a BTS video for the dune tv series lensed by some guy called Vittorio Storaro who made extensive use of them. Okay there were a few shots where I felt it didn't work but overall it was a great effect!

 

I like the idea of re-cycling translights! :)

The only thing that would worry me about that, is how much you can get an idea of what the quality is like from some small pictures.

 

It seems to me it's easier to use translights for cityscapes and stuff outside a window in the distance, where worst comes to worst you could throw that into shallow dof. I'm guessing for the hospital set, it had to look like a hospital? Was that difficult to pull off with a translight?

 

Have you got any tips for working with them, even basic ones? I know so little about the subject.

Must try and get to see the series so I can check out the hospital and city hall!

 

Thanks again for getting back to me!

 

love

 

Freya

 

 

Hi Freya,

You are correct that picking from a catalogue can be misleading, but thats whats available. We just try and get it early enough. It helps to shoot some tests first, which I did manage to do the day before our first scene in there.

The hospital translight was for the view out the windows. Thats all we have used them for on the Killing. Typically we front light the Day side with Kinoflo as its the most controllable with DMX dimming for adjusting the levels by switching off tubes. It also keeps the stage cooler than large tungsten fixtures. The night side is backlit. Its the same translight but on the back is the 'night' photo version. We use tungsten on that and specifically focus several lights to highlight certain windows in buildings and such. In this way we can keep the look varied at night. I will also vary the lighting level based on how out of focus it will be.

In general, having something between the camera and the translight helps realism. So does keeping the camera moving. It can be just drops of rain on the windows, or shooting through another glass door or blinds.

 

Getting the brightness right is key as well as the color and the match to the color of the light coming in the set.

I guess it would depend on if the danes make a season 3? Or would you guys branch off in your own direction?

 

 

 

What do you mean by off the rack? Do you mean it's second hand, or is it a translight that gets rented out to a lot of studios? Is there a market there in re-using translights? This is all facinating stuff. You have made me want to watch it now! Havn't even got around to watching the danish version yet tho.

 

So the city hall office was not off the shelf but designed for this show? It can't be further away due to the size of the set?

 

love

 

Freya

The american series certainly does diverge from the Danish. We do solve the murder at the end of season 2 but its different from the Danish. I have an idea where we might go in Season 3, but I've not been told much.

As for the translights, yes, the hospital set one was rented from a company. Its been used before, so when i said 'off the rack' I mean more like retail sales out of a catalogue. You look at pictures and try and find a good match for our set, Michael Bolton our production designer had to modify his design a bit to make the rather limited length of the translight work. 10ft longer would have been much better.

The City Hall translight was indeed specially made for us. I know the designer had won an Emmy for his technique of scaling the film grain in the image to the estimated ideal shooting distance. The bigger the more expensive, and the more you have to raise the set. Its always a compromise, but I think this one works well. One flaw with the distance we have is shooting from outside the windows with the reflected city is that the reflection ends up being very close to the distance to a subject in the middle of the room. Its always nice to have the reflection more out of focus, especially at night. I ended up shooting most of those shots at T 1.9 to help blur as much as possible.

Until The Killing Season 3 begins shooting. Then you'll be shooting 35mm again. Are the driving scenes shot on a process trailer or in a studio? Which locations are sets? I was wondering about the Darren Richmond's hospital room scenes. Is that in a studio with a Translite outside the windows? Thanks!

If there is a season 3, I doubt very much it will be film. A tv show shipping negative to be processed seems very unlikely. FOX pretty much mandates digital capture on all their shows. With no working Lab in Vancouver it would be a tough fight.

Switching for season 3 has been discussed already.

Almost all of our driving scenes are process trailer. We have shot a few in true PMP style, but only brief ones. With our short schedules thats the best way, even though process work is anything but fast. It allows for some scheduling flexibility on our location days. We have become pretty good at the set ups the more we do them. Typically A Camera is on the side shot on a 4 or 6 ft linear slider with B camera through the front windshield. We almost always shoot through the windows and there is nothing like real reflections for realism or to reinforce the mysterious nature of the show.

The hospital was a new set for this year. It is a translight. Its certainly not the best we have. It was purchased kind of 'off the rack' and not made for us or to specifics of our set/location. The City Hall office set has an impressive translight which when handled carefully really works well. Just wish it was a bit farther away!

Other regular sets include the Larsen House/Garage, the Seattle Police dept and a swing stage for a few things you'll see still coming up this season.

thanks for watching

Greg

We finished shooting last week. This will be the final 35mm film gate check in Vancouver for me most likely. Deluxe/Technicolor recently announced they will be closing their joint owned Film Lab after the Percy Jackson sequel finishes filming in a few weeks.

Truly the end of an era.

Below is 1st AC with that last gate.

AMERICAN HORROR STORY on FX shot by Michael Goi and John Aronson would be another new film based TV show. Regarding the testing involved with 5219 and emulating the feel of 5229, did you test pull processing? KODAK 500T 5230 seems to be midway between 5219 and 5218. Were you able to test that filmstock, if so what is your opinion regarding its shadow detail? Regarding the change from shooting '29 to '19, were the lighting setups changed very much? Whenever I watch that show, those overcast Vancouver skies puts me back in the early seasons of the THE X-FILES. Many thanks for your valuable insight.

Roger Reid the kodak rep and I discounted 5230 pretty early on and decided not to test it. A few factors, availability and not as low contrast as the 29, an even older emulsion design more similar to the 5296. Thats too much contrast for what we were after.

Pull processing is an interesting tool, but not possible for The Killing as we work with very low light levels, so the trade off in sensitivity wasn't possible. We shoot in a dark time of year, so I'm constantly stretching the film to its limit at the end of our days and in our night work want to bring out as much natural background light as possible. 5219 has great range which really helps when we need it.

For example, the night driving scene at the beginning of Ep201 with Holder had basic fill from a single Kino tube on low output with Tracing paper on the fixture at a distance of about 9 ft. Not much light!

Lighting setups are a bit different from last year as I'm a different cinematographer. We do use a lot of the same mix of tools, gels, diffusion etc. I've tried hard to keep it consistent with last year, but still let the show grow as the story develops more.

I really enjoyed the first two episodes this season. What film stocks are you using now that 5229 is no longer available? Speaking to new shows shot on film, there is definitely an agenda to force digital acquisition on everyone, but I see the exception being the producer

having enough influence to greenlight a film show. HBO and AMC are the only networks that I know of shooting new TV shows on film.

We are using 5219. It took a bit of testing and work in telecine to imitate the contrast and saturation of the 5229. The grain structure is much tighter though and we can't really change that. Pushing is also a tool which no longer works as 5219 gains much contrast and not much speed, where 5229 pushed very well with a big gain in speed.

As far as producers having control, ours was very pro film and really enjoying the look of season 1. She had enough influence to make them accept it. Its also a kind of look thats particularly hard to recreate with digital.

Seeing as the story is basically continuous, a good match was mandatory.

Saw the first 2hrs of season 2 on iTunes and it looks like you guys really went daring with such a dark look. It almost reminded me of LOST HIGHWAY. AMC doesn't give you hassles about bringing it up? Your show and MAD MEN are the only domestic programs I buy up as soon as they become available online.

 

Have you talked to any mags about the show yet? I freelance for ICG and HD Video Pro (which still does film coverage now and then; I just did AMERICAN HORROR STORY for them), and used to write for AC and Cinefex. I don't think I've seen anything on THE KILLING in terms of BTS stuff yet.

The Killing is a mystery and the showrunner certainly encourages darkness and obscurity. Some dailies at the start of week one, were a bit too bright as we were still finding the levels with the new film stock ( last years 5229 was discontinued ). I have yet to receive a note that a scene was too dark, so I'm really given a lot of freedom there. FOX produces the show, but I think they take pride in the difference compared to other shows.

I haven't spoken to AC or anyone else about this season. There was an AC article last year on Peter Wunstorf asc who shot the pilot and season 1. I'd be happy to though, its certainly the end of an era.

Last week we had our season 2 premiere.

I've become keenly aware that this will be one of the last tv shows shot with film on television. Some other AMC shows are but all new shows are not.

Happy to answer any questions about the show.

GM

I'm DP'ing a short at the end of the month(1/2 night ext 1/2 night int) and wanted to play around with either making tungsten look like Sodium Vapor or Mercury Vapor. I've seen Lee's Super White Flame 232 on a tungsten light and it looked close to sodium vapor to me. Also, I've read on here and heard from some gaffers that Lee Steel Green 728 on a tungsten fixture approximates Mercury Vapor.

 

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions or results with said gels. Or with these Lee gels which I guess where specifically designed for making vapor lights: http://www.leefiltersusa.com/lighting/news/articles/ref:N4AA7745D2BD62/

Tests are the way to go for sure. Shelley Johnson is very right to point out that the fixtures on location can each be very different, both the Sodium and Mercury. If you can't shoot tests with your film or cine digital its helpful even to snap a few with your DSLR. The sensors may not be an exact match ( especially for RED ) but it allows you to try a few things quickly.

MT2 works great most of the time. I find all the new 'Urban Vapour' series of gels much too red and don't match real sodium.

Another trick for exact matching is to use real Sodium fixtures as off camera sources.

Real Sodium 1 side , MT2 on tungsten the other.

A review of a friends documentary in film school.

" Like watching the radio "

Ouch.

A product called Goof-Off works well on adhesive residue. Its a solvent.

I just came back from seeing this at the Rave Cinema at the Howard Hughes Parkway.

 

I tried to see it in IMAX 3D but as soon as the movie started after the 2D trailers, something seemed wrong -- there was hardly a 3D effect but there was a double-image blurring a lot of the frame. I played around with my 3D glasses (which I have to wear over my regular glasses), the problem didn't go away, so I went into the lobby and got a new pair of 3D glasses, but the problem was the same.

 

By the time I returned to the lobby a second time, there were a dozen people all crowding around the attendant complaining that the 3D projection was messed up. One of the geekier guys claimed that the light from one of the two projected "eyes" wasn't being polarized. The attendant called the projection booth but the projectionist kept saying that there was nothing wrong with the projection.

 

I spent about ten minutes with the gathering crowd of confused moviegoers who felt something looked screwed up, then gave up. I went to the box office and got a refund -- they also gave me a free ticket to the Real-D screening that was to begin in fifteen minutes, so I saw that. I hope they eventually fixed the IMAX screening - I hate to imagine people watching a 2.5-hour movie with screwed-up projection like that, and paying extra for the pleasure. I suspect many aren't going to want to pay extra in the future for that sort of experience.

 

The movie was OK, had some good action moments... the 3D felt pretty mild at times, which was OK. In fact, the only thing that annoyed me technically was the inconsistency from intercutting HD spherical and 35mm anamorphic.

 

I preferred the intercutting of brief IMAX elements into 35mm anamorphic in the second installment to this one -- the look of the 3rd movie was a bit all over the map, grain, no grain, grain again, sharp, soft, sharpened, plasticy, clippy, anamorphic bokeh, spherical bokeh, etc.

Not much different than the other movies, with only a passing interest in shooting for 3D I thought. By the end I'm not sure anyone noticed it was still in 3D as our eyes and brains adjust.

One thing I did notice was lots of retinal rivalry in the highlights and reflections. I was surprised, but I think using a 1/4 wave retarder was still too new an idea when they were shooting. I just shot my first 3D film (Cobu 3D) and the results with that filter were a huge improvement. I'm also very used to looking at 3D after weeks wearing glasses on set.

Its always safer to shoot flicker free. You should be able to see any issues on the waveform however. Sometimes it will only show up from 1 light or at a particular angle depending on conditions as a very slow pulsing density shift.

Flicker free will make sure however of no issues at 23.98

Beware fluorescents in locations with magnetic ballasts however.

I have an important question :

 

Do I need to use flicker free HMI ballasts when shooting with the Alexa at 24 fps? 23,97?

Does it work like the RED, with a rolling shutter that can make some lines moving through the frame?

 

Thanks!

Just checking the IMDB page, do they have enough people with producer credits? :blink:

 

R,At least 4 are in Post. Like many tv shows with several companies involved it gets busy very fast. I only interact with a handful of them involved in the day to day. I just finished 4 days of reshoots on a feature....with a single producer with us. Nice change!

Thanks David. Have to share credit with the excellent make up artist Calla Dreyer. She tried some new techniques that were not used last year by the previous make up team. We managed one camera test a few days before.

As always its a team effort and you need to involve all your collaborators when tackling such a challenge. I could have done a little more skin smoothing with more time in the suite, but not on their schedule.

I think you pulled off the "old school" de-aging of actor John Noble very well and the overall look let the viewer know that this was not set in the present time as a typical episode. You must have been under pressure to pull it off, but it must have also been fun to accomplish.

I noticed it quite a bit for most of the early scenes between Peter and his "mother". Obviously more noticeable on the wider focal lengths, but I really liked the look on the longer lenses. An almost dreamy, hazy memory type of feel to it.

Yes, the same problem shots were still a problem. I'd mix in the use of some front nets next time after more extensive testing.

Noticed a few things in the broadcast. De-aging of John worked well, especially seeing him at his real age in the preview for the next episode. Color wise the broadcast comes across as slightly brighter and snappier than in the color suite. A few scenes had been graded quite differently after I left. The scene between Walter and his wife in the vanity mirror was intended to be much warmer and slightly golden, but came up looking exactly the same as the previous room.

Now this gets into the sensitive topic of Post color correction and the Director of photography. I found myself in the unique position on FRINGE of coming into an established show and learning from the other DP's and their previous episodes about the 'look' of the show. Tom Yatsko who has been with the show from the beginning was very encouraging to let me experiment and try new things as the show develops and to add my ideas. It was a fun collaboration.

I had one other area to learn from and that was the color correction based on the broadcast. After shooting a few episodes I started to learn the tastes of the Post Producers who end up with the final say on the final grade based on the finals I was seeing. There is no sense in my lighting or using colors that I know they will change later. The amount of contrast they apply also varies, and that is the hardest to deal with because if thats inconsistent, then lighting extreme contrast or very dark scenes becomes very difficult to judge. There had been obvious differences of opinion previous to my arrival.

Now the scene I'm referring too in last nights episode I knew might be too golden for their tastes, but I decided to try it anyway and keep it subtle enough. The colorist and I actually discussed that in the suite. He is often obviously caught in the middle but ultimately answers the the Post Producers. So the end result is a very normal skin balance and actually not as warm as the living room scenes earlier. Not my intention, not my choice but a different one that you could easily make an argument in favor of.

The last part of the image handling which I found very surprising is the path of the material to final color. They do not master of of HDCAM SR or an uncompressed format , but export out of the AVID in a highly compressed film format ( RXM 115?). This explained a lot of what I assumed was digital noise due to broadcast compression, but actually is compression artifacts introduced at this point. It also greatly reduces the color and contrast range available to grade. I was very surprised to say the least. FRINGE is not a cheap show to produce and the tiny cost savings vrs the compromise in quality seem like a terrible trade off. You can really see the difference when you compare it to an HBO show shot on film for example where they keep everything as close to original quality as possible.

FRINGE this friday Feb 25th is the final episode I shot this season.

For fans of the show its a follow up to Episode 15 of season 2 and takes place back in the 1980's in both Universes. The story involves the effect of Walters abduction seen in 2-15 on his family and young Peter. We also get to meet young Olivia at the daycare where Walter was doing his experiments.

As far as period cinematography goes, I followed the lead of the episode last year. Rear nets were chosen by Tom Yatsko then for two reasons. Firstly they helped with the de-aging of John Noble trying to look 25 years younger and secondly because their slight star effect evoked a period feel. I stuck with the same net material on rings behind most of our lenses. I also used a combination of other filters for the very wide lenses when the nets would appear too soft or on lenses which had no rings. Cementing directly on the back of a lens is tricky business and on a tight schedule having them come off unexpectedly can cause big delays.

I was warned in prep that any digital de-aging of John Noble as had been added last year would be impossible this year due to post/vfx schedule, so I erred on the heavy side diffusion wise and tried to complement the lighting as much as possible.

A few times its actually much too heavy, but once I realized that I did make some adjustments later in the shoot. Nets cane be notoriously unpredictable as their effect depends on so many factors. I've used them before on other projects but still encountered new anomalies.

The entire episode was on location, which is unusual for Fringe and makes for a complex scheduling challenge with a young cast who can work limited hours.

We even had some extreme weather to deal with as you'll see in a couple of scenes including the teaser. The later scene was incorporated into the script and was actually a magical addition. It was snowing.....in Florida!

I didn't use too much color mixing in this episode. It seemed to help with the period considering the palette of the sets and locations. Ep 313 I used all kinds of color in the 'Bug Lab' and its nice that the show has so many different worlds.

I was in LA the week of color correction so I managed to be present for the first pass which was a first.

Any questions I'll be happy to answer.

Regards,

Greg

Currently I'm shooting Episodes 13 and 15 while Tom Yatsko directs Ep 14. So I'm filling in for him. That should be it for me on the show. Tom and David Moxness will finish out the year. I do not believe that Tom has any plans to leave. I know that the show runners and Tom go way back to Alias days so their reference is not that surprising.

There is a certain amount of anxiety around FOX's decision to move the show to Friday night in January and there is no guarantee that Fringe will return for a 4th season. I'm optimistic however that its large PVR/TIVO audience will allow them to do well on Fridays and we'll get to see a lot more Fringe.

best

Greg

Great show Greg! It is too bad that so many shows have gone digital.

 

Are you staying with the show? You mentioned that you were involved in episodes 2,4,6 and 8.

 

I also wondered if maybe Yatsko was leaving the show. They seemed to give him a nod in episode 309 twice referring to Yatsko, Peters Cocker Spaniel which could not be reanimated.

how did you get that "dreamy" effect when peter was given the paralytic? was it a lens or filters or digital?

That effect was entirely in camera with a lens. We used a Lensbaby with panavision mount on our camera. It allows for a sort of selective focus / bellows effect you can manipulate manually very simply.

It was also used later in the episode when Olivia is on the operating table and rescued by Col. Broyles.

Tonight's FRINGE was directed by a series regular Brad Anderson. I really admire his films (Session 9 , The Machinist , Transiberrian) so it was a thrill to get to shoot this episode with him. He's very good with suspense so he was a natural fit for this episode which follows the 'other' Olivia being found out as a double agent and the real Olivia getting back to her home.

Brad carefully plans his sequences and still manages on a tight tv schedule to make it relatively effortless. Lighting was sometimes a bit compromised to get the angles and shots he needed, but that is a trade off I'd make any day for a good sequence. It can even lead to some happy accidents.

Not many new sets, but a train station interior which we had to make day in at night. Probably the biggest set up of the year so far.

If any of you have any questions about , happy to let you know what I can.

9pm Fox Thursday Dec 2nd.

Greg