Jean Dodge

oh yeah i just remembered these... ( I need coffee!) re: Can anyone cite some prominent feature films that were shot on 16mm and given the DI to blowup treatment? I recall COASTLINES was an early adaptor of this technique, but did not "show well" at the box office. DUANE HOPWOOD and CASA De LOS BABIES also come to mind. But those are all several years old now. There has to be more, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment. HUSTLE AND FLOW Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN CONSTANT GARDNER CITY OF GOD can't vouch for this list 100% but I think it is right

You had me at "struggling photographer..." That's like rock musicians writing songs about radio disk jockeys.... they are playing to the right crowd with this subject matter. I always thought the early life of "amateur" photographer Jacques Henri Lartigue would make a good feature. On a side note, it was odd and bittersweet to see that scene with a 35mm Chaplin film projected in an early nickelodeon style theater has been shot on 16mm, especially by a five time Academy award nominated film maker. But if we are to believe the director, he chose 16mm on purpose for artistic reasons even though the producer has offered 35. I'm guessing the full story is a bit more complex than a publicity interview tells us. Budgets are tight for films like this in Scandinavia I guess. It does bring up the issues of indie film production vis-a-vis super16 with a Digital Intermediate. I'm surprised there aren't more indie features shot this way, but it only makes sense for a certain budget level, regardless of artistic intention. Can anyone cite some prominent feature films that were shot on 16mm and given the DI to blowup treatment? I recall COASTLINES was an early adaptor of this technique, but did not "show well" at the box office. DUANE HOPWOOD and CASA De LOS BABIES also come to mind. But those are all several years old now. There has to be more, but I'm drawing a blank at the moment.

Neo-naturalism? Naked cinema? Less is more-ism? Some wag is about to make a bundle on t-shirts and bumper stickers when they coin the right phrase to describe what's coming around the bend to a theater near you soon. Love the trailer, enthralled by the critics and looking forward to seeing BALLAST. It's getting comparisons to recent standout indie films like CHOP SHOP, GOODBYE SOLO, WENDY AND LUCY and FROZEN RIVER for the timely subject matter, ie poverty in the USA but of course all these films are different from one another. And yet, we might be seeing a school of art being birthed anew. I wonder what they will call it? Neo-neo realism has already been floated... but in relation to "mumblecore," which in my opinion - and the opinion of many of its makers - was a phase of film making that has already passed out of relevance. I'm curious to know what films were screened (if any) in preparation for deciding the visual look of this feature. To me cinematography at its finest is lot more than lenses and lighting - it's artistic intention and storytelling and life itself, reduced to silver halide crystals and soul-searching FEELING, too. It's philosophy and lifestyle, too - in other words, it's personal. Not to wax too poetic here but this stuff is just as important! Shooting an "unlit" movie is a lofty goal in an artistic sense and brings the cinema into a new territory. Some of the work being done with the new Canon D5 Mk2 is, by design, leading towards this naturalistic style that still looks presentable. I can't wait for the 4K camera I can hold in my hand and not intimidate subjects with... the realization of the cinema verite manifesto writ large, and somewhere in the heavens Dziga Vertov is dancing pirouettes of joy. I heard a recent interview with the DP of television's 24 who longs for the freedom these DSLR/DSMC cameramen are enjoying.... less is more, indeed.

great scene, great cinematography..... I remember on a set visit once watching Sven Nyquist with his hand on the shutter dial of a panavison camera "riding" the shudder angle in the bright texas sun during a shot in a hayfield for WHATS EATING GILBERT GRAPE as the sun went in and out of clouds. A true master at work, he kept his eyes on the scene and Johnny Depp, not on the dial. Badass. Nestor could do this, too by feel almost I've heard. I've floated exposures before but never with confidence. Fans of TTRL might enjoy THE WILD CHILD by Truffaut if you like this sort of camerawork - this is an early example of how it is done well, as the film is shot mainly in a country house with open windows, lots of interior to exterior traveling camera. (Nestor Almendros' work) Of course it goes without saying that the groundwork for this sort of stuff can be seen in the films of lazlo, starraro, nestor et al - POCKET MONEY, SCARECROW, even cheapies like COCKFIGHTER. And if you love Malick you have to get to know Ozu, Dreyer, Misoguchi, Bresson... dig deep people! His roots are deeper than Oklahoma, budda and AFI. Tom, I think saw some of your time lapse work recently - you are a true disciple of Malick, huh? You do nice work, and are kind to share your workflows etc. if that is you...

Okay I guess I am the only one who saw this movie? (It made nearly six million in its opening weekend, which is moderate I guess compared to what the marketing campaign seemed to be hoping for. ) Since last weekend, I had the opportunity to see it again in a theater with Sony 4K digital projection and I also read up on what was available on the internet via press kits and sundance publicity, etc. After seeing it in 4K projection, I'd like to amend my earlier comments about the look of the film and shift the discussion (if any) towards the difference between the movie I saw on 35mm projection and the one I saw two days later - they were almost totally different films to a trained eye. It was extremely frustrating to see how much better the 4K digital version handled the fine details in close-ups. (Granted this is just one aspect of the presentation, but it is crucial one, especially to someone who came up in the ranks as a focus puller!) In 4K, i feel like I saw the cadillac answer print all cinematographers love to see - the work looked as good as it possibly could have and it was beautiful, if simple studio-style dramatic film making at work. And on the 35mm version the fuzz factor was almost unacceptable even to my beer-drinking buddy who knows nada about photography, sitting next to me. But I still don't know what apples I am comparing with what oranges. As far as I know, the film had a DI from Postworks NYC, and I think the following tech specs were probably passed on to a press release from them as follows: but don't quote me. This info was taken from a sundance-era press story and the link was so old I couldn't be sure the page I saw this on was actually linking the right sidebar to the right feature story. But it seems right. Production Format: 35mm. Camera: Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL Lenses: 17.5:75 Primo Zoom; 24:275 Primo zoom, and Primo Primes. Film Stock: Fuji 35 mm (Fuji Eterna 250D 8563, Eterna 500T 8573) Editing System: Avid Media Composer version 11.2.7 at Post Factory. Color Correction: Scanned by Postworks on a Spirit 4K and a Northlight 2 scanner, conformed on an Quantel iQ, color-corrected for D Cinema and film-out on a Pandora Pogle by colorist John Crowley and recorded on ARRILaser film recorders. In addition to opticals and effects done in iQ. VFX were done by Ben Murray at Postworks in 2K on an Avid Symphony DS/Nitris. Now, I know what all this stuff is - this isn't my first rodeo. But I notice they have carefully left out details like which ARRIlaser did the record out - a 2K version or a 4K version? If the (minimal) VFX work was done at 2K, in house at Postworks, that to me hints strongly that the producer negotiated an all-in deal and that it's very likely the film out was 2K just like the VFX work was. I'm wondering if I saw a 2K film out and then a 4K D cinema, which is a bit of an unfair fight. I know for a fact that I have seen Primo shot footage on WORKPRINT that looked better than what I saw projected. But of course, that was a contact print with no DI.... I truly enjoyed the film and thought the cinematographer served the story well and the director should be happy with his work - but I do have to say there were at least two or three important emotional two shots or OTS shots where the focus puller missed his marks and the leading lady's eyes were soft. That's not the problems I'm talking about. I mean the ones where she is planted in a booth across a table, etc or sitting in a parked car or on a park bench and we should be able to make out detail in her eyelashes and we can't. All this brings about question of budget and post production decisions that I don't have answers to yet. I'd be grateful if anyone with some inside dope could shed light on this. I am assuming from a cursory look at the closing credits that the film was budgeted at more than six million but less than twenty, but that's just one man's vague guess. For discussion's sake, here's a link to a jpeg of a production still - not a frame enlargement - but it illustrates some of what I'm pointing to. Minus the noise and the clipped/ blown out highlights, this JPEG approximates what the leading lady's eyelashes looked like on screen in 35mm... milky, whitish and blurry. Over-scaled, in a word like this JPEG. In 4K they looked "right," like a good 35mm portrait shot at f2.8 or less ought to. http://www.allmoviephoto.com/photo/2009_ad...nd_001_big.html

I just saw writer/director Greg Mottola's fine film ADVENTURELAND, and was wondering if anyone knew any details about the cinematography. It's a coming of age story set in 1987, and take place in an amusement park, some suburban houses and one or two bars and a disco, with an almost even split between day and night scenes. Looking at the closing credits, the crew seemed ample - with a rigging crew, plenty of carpenters and teamsters, etc. I'm guessing the budget was at least 10 million, possibly more but I have no confirmation on that. Shot by NY DP Terry Stacey, (DOOR IN THE FLOOR, AMERICAN SPLENDOR, FRIENDS WITH MONEY, WENDIGO) the film had a slightly underlit documentary/low budget look, spherical lenses and a digital intermediate that, to my eye, didn't do the film any favors at all. The film just never seemed as sharp as it could have been, and the color contrast seemed to suffer as well. I'm wondering if the digital intermediate is to blame for a lot of this degradation, and was it 2K or 4K resolution _ I'm guessing it was 2K. In some regards it looked like the film makers were trying to copy the look of DAZED AND CONFUSED, which in itself was shot to look somewhat like a 1970s film, iifc using mostly 5247 stock, or maybe even 5248, in the daytime to give a feel that viewers associate with older films. I'm also guessing the average f-stop was near WFO but that this was not doing the lenses any favors. It looked more like nikkor lenses than Primos in many places - too milky and not performing as well as they should at the wider apetures. Again, however it seems like the DI is to blame, but I'm just guessing. To the DPs credit, it was not OVERLIT like a teen comedy, and I appreciated that - the car shots looked good and the homes seemed "real," as in really depressing like suburban homes always do to teens. Not too many filters, either it seemed like. I liked that. But the fuzz factor literally pulled me out of the film when it came time for the romantic close-ups and emotional teen anguish moments. It looked like those old plastic double fog filters or a low-con had been applied to the projector lens, and no it wasn't the theater's fault. My main question then is, why did they do a DI at all? The color palette was nothing radical - maybe they shot it in winter to look for summer and wanted to adjust for that? In any case, to a casual observer such as myself it seemed like they would have been better off with a straight photochemical finish - they had the crew to light the film well enough the first time around, ya know? Granted, I know NOTHING about the aesthetic choices and monetary decisions that went down - but maybe someone here does? BTW, the film is good - script, acting and direction are up to what we all expected from the guy who made DAY TRIPPERS. Go Greg!

The writing is on the wall... film is dying and it's likely just a matter of time before we'll all be shooting with ones and zeros, like it or not. I'm a serious hold-out, but not an ostrich. It's sheer economics, not what Oliver Stone and Spielberg want that will win the day. Kodak is not going to get a bailout from Obama, I'd bet. It's hard... it sucks... it's profane in many ways. I personally have a graduate degree's worth of soon-to-be-arcane knowledge when it comes to silver halide crystals and echtachrome, print lights, filtration, emulsions, anti-halation backings, etc. So be it. As a self described "film-maker," it is a true sea change at hand. But the cinema is my religion, and it will remain so, even if we are making images with a chip in our brain next decade. Red One at least tries to understand what was important, and yes, sacred to cinematographers and respond. I like their product better than the competing HD cams, in a lot of ways. They fully admit that the "film look" is what it's all about. There was never much guarantee that this was the goal of other companies. It seems to me that the Red company is learning and improving, and also being dealt some serious challenges as well that spur them onward. The Canon D5Mk2 proves that the basic tech Red is using is available to anyone who might want to give them a run for the money in the pro-sumer market for gizmos to own that make good pictures. The "jump" they have on the competition is less than half a lap it would seem in some regards. I see the Red One as that, a pro-sumer camera to own, not to rent. Which is a weird market, and maybe not what was needed but again you can't stop time or tide. I've shot my last indie feature in super 16mm, I'm willing to bet. Last summer I worked on one shot on Red, and it was an eye-opener - not a game-changer, but certainly an eye-opener. Then it was back to 35mm... and then back to s16 for a tv commercial, if only for the fact that we needed to do some odd effects that the Aaton allowed. And in the meantime, time marched on. Nothing breakout at Sundance or sxsw was shot on Red, but it might have been. And I'm guessing it will be next year. I saw CHE, and KNOWING... and they didn't totally suck, image-wise... (too bad they did suck, story-wise) so to producers and exhibitors Red is here to stay, and "proven." Again, like it or not. This week I shot with a DSLR, cheated and gimped into service to make motion pictures. All of them have drawbacks... all of them have strengths. And 35mm still looks the best, has the most reliable accessories, and leads the way in day-in-day out durability. Right now the Red is just another tool in the toolbox. But it's not one that is going away, and it just might be a game-changer with the next generation of cameras/sensors and codec. So let's keep up the dialog with JJ, and be glad he's engaged. He's not Mister Potter from ITS A WONDERFUL LIFE, after all.

Take note of the interiors shot in the bathroom. The energy of having the wide scope lens right in the lead actress' face is apparent; it gets commented on a lot. I love the rosy color of the film; it can seem beautiful at times and at other moments it's a doomed desert look. The water in the film NEVER looks inviting - the blues are almost always either clear or black or raging white. If you like mid seventies color noir, also check out NIGHT MOVES and THE LONG GOODBYE, two excellent films in the same vein, although both are contemporary. For period films, there is also THEY SHOOT HORSES DON'T THEY and DAY OF THE LOCUST that are gritty and bleak.

I saw CHE / The Argentine in 35mm at a multiplex, and then a week later saw the roadshow version of both parts one and two at an arthouse theater again in 35mm. I'd like to see it on a 4K projector to compare... but like the esteemed Mr. Mullen said, if the goal of Pt One is was to emulate a national geographic kodachrome look the camera preformed admirably - especially in the jungle conditions considering it is basically a DSLR with a PL mount on it. Soderberg deserves credit for having the balls to go for it, he had an early build of the camera and didn't let that stop him. I heard they used cold packs from a cooler to keep the thing from overheating at times, issues that have since been addressed somewhat now by Red. The proof is in the pudding as they say and the film looks "better than 16mm," possibly better than s16 and yet has the feel of a film shot handheld in the jungle, like say "Burden of Dreams." Only in 'scope, which was what made it unique. Keep in mind the film made diddly theatrical in the USA, and already has grossed ten million in Spain alone. It was made for the latin market... and in those terms it looks great and is innovative and has some fine acting. Cinematography is about satisfying the story, the director's vision and the audience. (My opinion of the film is not important here, I'm a gringo cineaste. I found it dull for the most part, despite good performances.) Dennis and others make all the relevant technical points about clipped highlights and such... I'm just trying to speak from a producer's point of view. It was a good call, shooting on the Red.... ARTISTICALLY. However since the budget was in the range of 65 million, perhaps the Aaton 35 or a Moviecam might have been a better call... if the goal was a perfectly exposed and presented image, but then the DP is also the director, and he has to hold up physically for the whole shoot. So we're back to digital, or s16mm and the Red One was picked partially for it's compact size and light weight. Cameras, and the systems they employ to make images are "just a tool." CHE aside, IMHO, 16mm has been dealt a major blow by the Red One. Heck, the $5k panasonic HD cams hit 16mm hard enough... Issues with dirt and scratches, negative cutting, A+B rolling, optical blow-ups etc... all gone. 16mm is now an artistic choice and a "look," more than a cost-cutting tool. Yes, there are practical differences but they are small compared to the big picture. Soon the Epic will be out, (later builds of the Red system, with 5k and up, and full frame sensors, etc.) and 35mm will take a hit as well. 35mm is a heck of lot more resilient, however.

(cross posted to Red User, with additional thoughts at end) I just returned from my local multiplex where I saw, back-to-back, KNOWING, DUPLICITY and a trailer for PUBLIC ENEMIES in real world conditions. Leaving aside cinematic worth, (please...) all were presented in 35mm anamorphic, all looked "as good as they make 'em" to the casual eye. The devil is in the details, of course. KNOWING - shot on red, mucho lighting and grip, plus (2K or 4k?) mucho cgi VFX. Speaking strictly of principal photography: Looked great, some skin tones in the house set seemed a bit green for my taste. Noise-related defects common to the Red - purple where you don't want it, etc. Nice blacks, no noise there. The light falls off suitably in every shot - some shots seemed to lack full dynamic range compared to what film would be doing, and I am speaking of creepy shadow "whisper people" in the kids' bedroom scene. Day exteriors in 1950s were given a treatment to seem softer, nostalgic-y than same set seem in present day, for contrast. Leaves probably changed color in DI to give Autumn look, that all seemed good. Highlights seemed DIFFERENT, not better or worse in day exteriors. That's where you could tell it wasn't film. (I wonder what the budget for silk leaves was?) Dynamic range in day exteriors seemed a bit less than film, imho. Didn't spot any Rolling Shutter issues with picket fences, etc. Int/ext (looking out) car shots on index bridge coming in to NYC seemed fine, but were probably green screen? Big aerials looked good too. The DPs goal was about two things: Nic Cage's face in medium close up and creating creepy apocalyptic mood. Lots and lots of "hero stands transfixed on edge of battlefield/canyon, etc" composite shots. One plot point is about sunlight, and the key dramatic scene is shot in an open garage door, with full sun hitting the two leads flat and low. It looked good, but maybe a little too blown-out for good skin tones/ depth to register best. I bet the first answer print looked better. CGI reverse shots make the whole movie seem plastic-y, but that's not the fault of the Red. DUPLICITY - shot on panavision anamorphic, 2k Digital intermediate, if one is to trust IMDB tech specs ( always a gamble). Comparing clarity of close ups, the anamorphic and Digital Intermediate made Julia's eyelashes and skin tones degraded to the point of looking like some white silk stockings had been applied to the rear element of the portrait primes, which may have also been the case. In pure Hollywood terms, she is an "aging beauty." Her make-up was showing excessively at times. DPs focus - make things look slick and worldly, and make her look as good as possible. Travelogue and beauty shots galore. Tons of BCUs and two shots w Clive Owen. If this is some sort of a baseline to judge the Red against, the Red did well. Better dynamic range from film but the 2K DI didn't do the film many favors in that department. In fact, I'd blame the 2K DI for most of the fuzziness, not the anamorphics or the makeup or the in camera filtration, whatever it was. But I'm guessing. PUBLIC ENEMIES TRAILER Hard to judge anything, no shot stays on screen very long. Seemed to have less dynamic range than either, but also has an intentional period desaturated gloomy depression look, so it's difficult to make any judgements. No artifacts seen. Muzzle flashes seem like film. Of the three, it seemed to have the least amount of detail/ resolution. For comparison's sake I'd hazard a guess that between these apples and oranges the Red One can compete with Panavision, and is a worthy tool. Both methods were good for the job at hand. PUBLIC ENEMIES may not look as good as one would hope. Certainly MIAMI VICE does not bode well for PE. MV looked awful, imho. -- added thoughts after a day: Like the quote in the director's interview cited above, audiences are getting used to small screens, digital resolution and smaller dynamic range, and the general fuzzy look of DIs. Get used to it, it's a sick sad world in some ways. I've seen b+w nitrate films from the 1920s projected in a fireproof projection booth on a big screen, and even with the lenses they were working with then, the stuff looks AMAZING and blows away what we see today in many regards. Certainly nothing shot or projected on safety film in b+w has ever come close. They used to call it the silver screen for a reason. Maybe digital projection will get there, somehow soon - not yet. Maybe digital cinematography will be able to rival Vilmos' work on Godfather 2 soon, but I say not yet. That day may or may not arrive. I maintain it's still an open question, but the trend seems to be in favor of a "yes." Let's hope we get there soon, I'm getting a headache from these murky muted things that resemble video games. KNOWING is a plu-perfectly awful movie but it looks pretty damn good for being shot on a camera that costs less than an SUV. Kudos to the tech team who made all that happen, and an attaboy to the DP as well. All these things are tools to tell stories with - a Pathe', a Mitchell BNCR, an Arri 2C, a Red, a camcorder, a Pixal 2000... tell a good story and make the images work in service of it and audiences will accept it. They accepted cave paintings at one time, and some of them can still move me, if you view them with an audience in near-darkness and add some music and words.... (a Pathe, that is in the hands of Billy Bitzer, and a BNCR on Greg Tolands Chapman, and an Arri 2C in Kubrick's hands, and a camcorder wielded by Tom Richmond and a Pixel 2000 in Sadie Benning's bedroom and a Red... where? Still waiting... )