Evan Winter

Why not take control of the lighting in your scene by using the Ansel Adams approach - break out the spot meter and place your exposure so that all the important elements in your scene fall where you want/need them to fall. Isn't this why most meters sold now are dual meters - reflected/incident? Why use the wrong tool for the job?

I'm looking forward to Transformers. I'm looking forward to being entertained, to watching the impossible, to seeing things I would never see outside of a Bay film, to being whisked away on a rollercoaster ride. Yes, Bay shoots beautifully & yes Bay is a little frenetic in his cutting style but all you have to do is watch the Hummer rolling down the hillside in Bad Boys 2 to see that the man knows how to get the adrenaline pumping. Bay doesn't, however, write the scripts. Wafer thin characters? Weak storyline? Only partial credit (or discredit) can be dropped off at Bay's door. Sure, a more 'literary' director might ask for more rewrites to plump up the characters and develop the storyline. They might even tone back the action and pace the entire piece more passively - they might also end up with Superman Returns (a film which only a relatively small box-office crowd and I seemed to enjoy). Whereas, Michael Bay can manage an ultra-massive production machine, that is built upon the notion that it can win back its money in boxoffice dollars, and he can manage it well. Like Richard B said, it's hard to appreciate the insane amount of skill Bay exhibits unless you've helmed a project yourself. This doesn't mean one can't critique a film unless one has made a film - I'm very much against that school of thought. What this means is that it is really really hard to understand just how much Bay is doing and just how well he's doing it until you've tried. Personally, I'm impressed by him as a filmmaker because I have experienced the chaos of pre, post, and regular production. I'm impressed by him as a viewer because most of the time I come out of his films with a smile on my face :) (excluding - The Island). :( I enjoyed Bad Boys I & II, The Rock was a blast, Armageddon was an implausible visual feast, and the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in the film shocked me with its scope and verve. The man is talented, this to me is undeniable. He can make films and he can make them well. He is not a motion picture philosopher, he is not a director who will illuminate aspects of the human condition. He is an expert craftsman who understands his clientele and who will deliver something that 9 times out of 10 will thrill them to the core while simultaneously satisfying his own desires towards artistry. He is good precisely because he is like so many other Americans. He likes what they like, he is thrilled by what thrills them, and he can take that common sensibility of his and turn it into moving pictures! He is a success by his own standards and at the end of the day, as anyone with a strong sense of self will tell you, those are the only ones that really matter.

Michael Bay is often looked at by film-purists (and many cinematography forum members) as a hack, fauxteur, and/or panderer. However, I'll contend that the man knows what he wants to do in film, knows how to do it, and most importantly knows how to entertain. The newest trailer for the Transformers movie gets the blood pumping, the heart racing, and the mind spinning (at the incredible complexity of the effects). Granted, the trailer provides little indication of the quality of the film as a narrative but all systems on this project seem to be a go! I absolutely adore the organic way that the Transformers move and transform in their environments and I can't help but admire the directing ability that must go into a project of this scope. Sure, you're brilliant if you make me cry and care in a movie with a cast of 3 who mostly sit in a single room and talk to one another but to control, maintain, structure, and deliver a film on the scale of the Transformers is brilliance on a different plane entirely. Check out the new trailer - http://movies.yahoo.com/feature/transforme...WTxEfAxzHtfVXcA

Thanks for the information David! I've been looking for those details. :)

Hi Dan, Fracture was shot on Super 35mm film and went through a DI. It was composed for 2.35 and was directed by Gregory Hoblit (Primal Fear, Frequency) from a screenplay by Daniel Pyne and Glen Gers. The film was DP'ed by Kramer Morgenthau (Godsend, Mayor of Sunset Strip, Empire) and was cut by David Rosenbloom (The Break-Up, Friday Night Lights, The Recruit, Pay it Forward, Deep Impact). Unfortunately, I'm not sure what camera(s) it was shot on or what actual stocks. :(

Oh, and the story ain't bad either. :)

Hey Mark, The mechanisms that allow us to see with our eyes are more similar to the system used in digital technology than to film capture and presentation. Plus, film is easily and almost unarguably the more limited format when compared to digital and digital's potential. This much is clear, one day film will be the oddity. Not now, not tomorrow, and probably not 5 years from now but one day it'll be as outdated as daguerreotypes. I shoot film. I shoot mostly Super 35mm film and a lot of Super 16mm. I prefer film to anything I've seen digitally to date but it's easy to see the direction the wind is blowing even if it is blowing more softly than the digital-pundits would have us believe. Evan

Congratulations Jim, that sounds fantastic. I'm looking forward to seeing more footage from the camera and wish you all the best in your endeavor.

Both a spot meter and an incident meter could be used in this case. I would argue that a spot meter is the more correct answer because it provides more detailed information about the light in the scene. When dealing with extremes like white and black and trying to find exposure it always depends on the look that is trying to be achieved and what's more to achieve any kind of control over your look you should know exactly what the lighting ratios/levels are; if the choice has to be between an incident or spot meter then a spot meter would be better suited for the task. I believe my dear friend Ansel (who dealt extensively with just these kinds of details) would agree... ;)

Saw 'Fracture' tonight and was very impressed with the cinematography. There was a lot of use of color, movement, lenses, composition, and contrast. The film takes place in L.A. and it was very interesting to see L.A. shot like L.A. looks. Most of the time DPs fight the hard and harsh sunlight of the city. 'Fracture' embraced the harsh light and used it almost like another character. The film was very much about light and dark narratively and they played this theme in the lighting as well. Also, it was quite cool to see such wide lenses used to frame the city so elegantly. I also enjoyed the copious use of color. The background was always awash with reds, blues, and greens. Quite a few shots in the film could be considered art if taken as stills and this was done in a movie that is basically a trumped up courtroom drama. It was enlightening and a breath of fresh air to see a DP take a film that would typically be shot mundanely (ostensibly for realism) and make the visuals exciting. Bravo Kramer Morgenthau, bravo.

The way I see the FvR 'discussion': 1. film - superior image quality 2. film - more established and proven workflow 3. film - more established and proven accessories 3. film - vastly superior support structure (technical etc) 4. film - greater dynamic range (image can be manipulated much more) These are the first 4 things that popped into my mind, after 2 minutes of thought, I'm sure I can come up with others. Then, after looking over my stream of consciousness list, I realized that most of my concerns have to do with a sense of control over my tools. To be a true artist the tools do not need to be the sharpest, most powerful, lightest, or anything else - they need to be the ones that offer the most control to the artist and they need to be the ones that allow the artist to forget about the technical and focus on the creative. Personally, I have no doubt that one day everything will be digital but that day is not today and so today I will shoot on the tool that allows me to be the most creative. I believe that tool to be Super 35mm film. I will keep an eye on tomorrow but I can only live today. Evan

LOL, Alright Max, I gotta know - give me your top 5 - 10 overall films (technically, narratively, acting, etc - simply the 5 - 10 best films you've ever seen). After reading your critiques and comments over the last few years I'm curious to know what it is that you actually like (or love) and I sincerely plan to watch at least a few of the films on your list; I may very well learn something! Also, I attended a Q&A session with director Danny Boyle that took place after the movie was screened. I thought the film was pretty good. The first 2/3rds are, in my mind, vastly superior to the last 3rd. The film switches genres, everyone can tell this. Danny Boyle brought this up himself. He said that the suits claimed it wouldn't work. His response was that he believed it would and he felt that you have to be daring in filmmaking; you have to take risks otherwise you're not really doing much. I wish I could say that I thought the genre swtich worked but I didn't. The film is well shot and well composed. It's very pretty and the effects are outstanding (especially when the budget level is considered). Danny Boyle said that he wouldn't likely do Sci-Fi again because it's, 'so hard'. He joked that this is why you see so many directors do one Sci-Fi film and then abandon the genre. Considering just how independent this film is it's awfully Hollywood and felt very unlike Danny Boyle's other work (which isn't a particularly good thing). At the end of the day though it's a solid work of narrative and visual craftsmanship constructed by a very capable and talented director.

Insightful thoughts and also interesting because they run counter to what we're often 'taught' in music videos; which is that narratives don't work well because once you've watched a storyline video you have little desire to see it again whereas events/climaxes/situations, in videos, have far greater replayability (hence the vast predominance of these types of videos). It also seems that Hollywood may find so much box-office success with their big summer films for precisely this reason. It's way more fun to ride the same roller-coaster twice than to hear the same camp-fire tale twice. That said, I personally appreciate a well told story more than watching the movie equivalent to a 'roller-coaster'. But, on the other hand, I can't deny enjoying my popcorn films right alongside the rest of America. ...I'm such a movie fence-sitter...

Thanks everyone for all the help! We just ended up going w/ stock straight from Kodak. I must admit that it's surprising to me that there are no such companies in the UK (recan and shortend sellers). Seems like that might be a business someone could make some cash in over here. Hi Phil! Thanks for the reply. I actually enjoy shooting over here. The crews are cool and hard-working (Anna Carrington is a gem and a fantastic focus-puller!). I've now shot 4 videos over here and it looks like I may end up doing a few more here as well. I can understand some of your frustration about working in film in the UK. The prices are insane. They are literally double what they would cost in North America. From filter rentals to processing it's just plain out and out more expensive. The prices alone are near enough to stifle an industry. Other than that though, I find locations, crews, and pretty much everything else to be just as good if not better than what I encounter in North America. My .02... :) Evan

Just wondering if anyone knew the names/numbers of companies specializing in recans and shortends in London, England. I'm over here shooting a video and I'm hoping to top-up our footage count by a can or two.... Phil R. any suggestions? :) Thank you everyone and thanks Phil! Evan

Hey everyone, I'm currently shooting 2 jobs in London, England and we've just finished day 1 of 2 on the first music video. Long story short we have an extra can of brand new, unopened, 400' can of 250D (7205) and we need a 400' can of 500T (7218) (16mm). I'm hoping there's someone out there who would like to swap film stocks with me. We would need the stock no later than end of day Wednesday March 28th, 2007. If anyone is looking for some 250D and has new 7218 please call me at - 0.787.969.8003 thanks a lot! Evan

Just cause something is harder to do does not make it better but I do get where you're going with your argument.

Hey David, The definition of art that you have provided does not in any way, 'dispel [my] idea of art as primarily a communicative process.' The definition you have provided suffers from a common problem in language today (even moreso than the definition I provided) in that it is so vague and abstract that it is meaningless. Moreover, I will argue that it is actually harmful. If the true definition of art is to say that 'art is the materialization of an idea within a medium' then, using this definition, all propaganda materials become art. What's more, they become the very definition of art. It would be awfully simple to argue, effectively, that the definition you have chosen places the Army (Army of one!) and the Nazi regime as the creators of some of the best art from the past 100 years. Thus, your conception of art seems particularly flawed. Additionally, you have misunderstood me. I did not propose an all-inclusive definition of art. My post says, "At the end of the day art is about communication. The ultimate desire of the true artist is almost always to impart to others some sense of the world as they saw, experienced, or imagined it." The 'almost always' is meant to indicate that art can be or do things other than what I have suggested. And as for my opening sentence, "...art is about communication' - I'd argue that your definition says much the same thing, '...materialization of an idea' - the materialization or making real of an idea seems very much to be about communication to me. My main point, however, is that your definition makes propaganda the best art and while some propaganda materials surely are art a definition that counts them as the prototypical form that art takes seems a little odd. Evan

Hi Michael and good luck with the shoot! I have some thoughts on shooting film that may or may not help you out. Hopefully you find something useful in my babblings. First off, modern film stocks are so sensitive that they see the world almost as you see it. My main trick when lighting (very unscientific) is to light the scene by eye and then squint slightly to get a sense of how the film will expose the shadows and the highlights. Another good aid is a quality digital SLR stills camera. I use a Sony Alpha (although the new Nikon 10.2mp is arguably a better and more robust DSLR system). To use a DSLR simply set all your DSLR settings to match your motion picture film settings. This gives you a very good idea of how the light will look. Although, in transfer, chances are your film will see deeper into the shadows than your DSLR (especially with 7218 - does that stock even know that sometimes shadows should not be seen into?) and your film will hold the highlights much better than your DSLR. In essence, if it looks good on the stills camera it'll look at least as good on your processed film. If you're really much more comfortable shooting off a monitor then I highly recommend going the DSLR route. It'll keep you feeling safe and again if it's on the DSLR then it'll be on the film. The one caution, with 35mm DSLRs, is that the depth of field will be shallower on your stills camera than on your 16mm film. Often this can be slightly disappointing when you get into transfer and take a look at images that looked gorgeous on set with beautifully bokeh'ed blurry backgrounds only to realize that you can see from an inch in front of the lens to a mile distant! ;) Evan Whoops! forgot to mention, the squint trick only really works with faster stocks... it works real well with 7218 for instance but I wouldn't try it with anything slower than 320ASA. Definitely don't pull this one out of your bag when you've got 50ASA film loaded up on your camera. :)

I find it hard as heck to judge focus on 16mm when I'm operating....a problem that resulted in some fuzzy performance close-ups on my last job (I couldn't tell the shots were out and so I didn't tell my 1st to adjust and I didn't reshoot the offending portions of the close-ups). I do feel that I can more accurately judge the scene and more clearly see the scene when I'm working with a 35mm camera but that's just my impression of things. I have to admit I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the hardware. Evan

Back to the Kubrick/Fincher question - these two directors are different sides of the same coin. Especially when considered against feature filmmaking as a whole and all the many different feature directors. Also, while it is amusing to make fun of the Rattners and the Bays and compare them to the Fellinis and Renoirs, I would argue that feature filmmaking is, by and large, a commercial artform. Predominantly, films are made to be seen by a large enough audience such that the filmmakers can make money. Many films are made that work outside the bounds of this typical feature film bailiwick but if we're seriouly analyzing the situation it's impossible to deny that the vast majority of movies are commercial ventures. The storytellers involved are no different from Shakespeare who was unavoidably concerned about his own box office or Michaelangelo who worked more often than not on commissions. I bring this up because great work can be done in a commercial field and it is likely a mistake to dismiss the work of Bay, Rattner, and others of their ilk out of hand. Their work pleases the masses, it is well-crafted (from a technical standpoint), and usually gives us a view to the spectacular. Finally, these two directors are always named as if they should be looked down on by the more serious artists among us. Which is strange to me for several reasons. Firstly, I highly doubt these two men agonize over their films and are upset at by the movies they end up making. Rattner and Bay probably love their work, enjoy the material, and relish the opportunity to, in their own ways, push the envelopes within their types of films. Secondly, they are commercial artists with talent, ability, and skill. Thirdly, they have the ear of their industry. Fourthly, they are household names. Lastly, they can turn out a commercial artpiece that will bring in massive audiences excited to see their latest work. It's strange that any of this justifies the vilification that these directors receive - while many a more serious-minded director makes talking head movies that lose money, are seen by few, and are comparably simple to execute (again from a purely technical standpoint). At the end of the day art is about communication. The ultimate desire of the true artist is almost always to impart to others some sense of the world as they saw, experienced, or imagined it. Bay and Rattner's messages may be far less dense than the messages of others but their messages are heard and that right there is something which should never be underestimated - the artist with the power to be heard. Evan

I saw the movie last night. Apparently it's on track to make between 65 - 70 million dollars this weekend. Which will make it the largest opening weekend ever in the January - April window. So kudos to Snyder and the rest of his team. Now for my review. :) First off, I consider myself 'left of mainstream' and I love action, popcorn movies, and the odd art film. This being the case, I was really looking forward to 300.... I have to admit I was disappointed. As everyone has already said, the film's visuals are wonderful. They are so different from anything else you would ever see in a North American theatre that it is truly a treat. However, the dialogue is near laughable, the acting is all one note (King Leonidas yells virtually every single line he has), and the movie fails to really connect on an emotional level (it works only as visceral entertainment). The film is candy for your brain - it's brightly colored, it's chewy, it's sweet, and it's digested fast enough to leave you wanting more but it sure as hell ain't good for ya. The film is entertaining but it had the potential to be more than just entertaining. Don't get me wrong, I think Snyder has a fantastic career ahead of him (and he's already got a pretty darn good one behind him). My problem is that I wanted this to be more than a one-note action rollercoaster with the odd 'man's man' propaganda slogan yelled out at me. Beautiful film though - and I've never seen grain/noise look so pretty and add to the overall atmosphere of the movie in a more organic way. Evan

*major spoilers for 'The Third Man' follow: Hey Joseph, I see what you're saying and I understand that it was meant to seem tragic when Holly betrayed his close friend. However, the situations, reasons, and events that brought them to this point felt terribly contrived to me (not to mention slow as molasses). Also, Holly's sense of right and wrong seemed a bit off-kilter - Holly, a starving artist with nary a penny to his name, is invited by an old friend to war torn Vienna with the promise of employment (in order to save Holly from destitution). But before Lime could complete his promise to his friend he was forced underground to evade capture. Now, the first and only betrayal is committed by Holly who betrays his friend to the police for a woman he barely knows and a woman with whom he is in lust (also the lover of his dear old friend). Indeed, the first time Holly was on track to betray Lime he was doing it not out of a sense of right or wrong; he was doing it for the girl (proof: after the girl says she doesn't want the police to get Lime and that his capture would really hurt her Holly decides he will no longer help and plans to get the next flight out of the country - the penicillin starved children be damned). Let's not forget that, after all this, Lime still wanted to 'help' Holly (in his way). He still offered him a place in the racketeering and very foolishly went to meet up with Holly who had the cops with him this time (apparently because of Holly's recently strengthened sense of morality due to a hospital visit with dying children we never see). Plus, Lime has no reason to involve Holly in his business; Lime, a man of unarguably fuzzy morals, is doing this for Holly out of pure altruism (there are no ulterior motives suggested). Now, it may sound like the story is pretty decent and reasonably deep from the above but it's not. The above, as opposed to a Coles' notes analysis, are more akin to Ph.D defense accounting of the events - I've made a mountain out of what was a rather small molehill. And let's not forget all of the above happens in pretty much the last 40 minutes. We've already spent 1 hour watching Holly ask every Viennan in the bleeding city whether or not there were in fact 2 or 3 men with Lime when he was 'killed'. At the end of the day, it's just that I have difficulty understanding the person who, after watching any of the other films in my first post, still says, 'Right! The Third Man is just as good as those other old flicks'. However, I want to thank-you for allowing me my opinion because at the end of the day movies are like anything else that smacks or artistry - different viewers will take different things from the work and one man's garbage will be another's gem. P.S. - What was the point of the balloon seller???

I have no doubt I'll be vilified for the following statement, however, I feel compelled to make it. Carol Reed's 1949 crtically acclaimed film 'The Third Man' was a poorly paced, thin plotted movie that failed to captivate me on almost any level at all. The first 2/3rds of the film feature our protagonist delving into the mystery behind his friend's murder after he hears conflicting reports about the number of men around when he died. I found Holly Martins' motives for investigating the barely mysterious death to be a stretch and then struggled through watching the man blunder about for the next hour gathering almost no new information. The film runs approximately 1 hour and 44 minutes and until Orson Welles' shows up (55 minutes in) virtually nothing happens. To add insult to injury, none of the characters are particularly compelling or interesting to watch (excepting Bernard Lee's Sgt. Paine) and all the characters that are built up throughout the tale (the other 2 men and various cronies having something to do with Harry Lime) end up having absolutely nothing to do with its conclusion. I know it may seem unproductive to make a post about a movie I didn't like but I was surprised to have so strongly disliked such a traditionally well-received film that I had to mention it. I also wouldn't consider myself an ADHD style viewer who needs Bay-esque explosions and Rattner-like pacing to remain involved in an under 2 hour film. I've seen Strangers on a Train (1951) and loved it, Citzen Kane (1941) is stunning, The Maltese Falcon (1941) didn't thrill me but I can appreciate its appeal, Notorious (1946) was excellent, Hamlet (1948) was enjoyable, 12 angry men (1957) was of the best movies I've ever seen, Vertigo (1958) was astounding, Paths of Glory (1957) fabulous (love those dolly shots), etc... I've watched movies from the 40s and 50s. I understand that they should be watched with an eye to the context of their times. However, the movies from this period that I enjoyed, I enjoyed without reservation. They were good films for the 40s, 50s, or 2007. I cannot say the same for The Third Man. In it's defense, I enjoyed the cinematography. I found some moments with the camera to be magic (when the camera pushes out of Anna Schmidt's window and they do a 'seamless' dissolve from soundstage to actual location so that we can see the 'unknown man' looking up at her window from the street below). The lighting was intriguing and without a doubt added a tremendous amount of suspense and mystery to the film - without such fantastic work I may have had to slit my wrists before even reaching the one hour mark. The film is definitely a keeper from a lighting point of view. But as a story...suffice it to say I would have been very annoyed at having spent my hard-earned 0.50 cents to see this back in the day.

I personally love pranks but in our tort-ridden society I would be really worried about these guys getting into a lot of trouble. I think I would thoroughly enjoy a brief scare like being in a short-lived mock stick-up by dudes with space guns but this seems like joke that has far too much potential to go wrong. Well, at least you had a good time Matthew! :)