Kitao Sakurai

Hey all, I'm gonna be shooting a music video coming up on super 16. I've been wanting to try a skip bleach combined with a pull process. I'd like the final image to to have a kind of blueish, sinister, contrasty, crunchy highlights, but not to be too overly grainy. Has anyone tried this? I'm thinking of the pull process so that I could expose the neg slightly more normally and not have it be overly dense. basically, I'd like to have a very funky, organic, unexpected quality to the image, which is what I had gotten before with skip bleaching 35mm '79. Has anyone ever tried this? any advice? again, as it's for a music video, I won't be needing to go to print or anything... this is kind of a point of inspiration - I love the messed-up look of the Anthony Mandler video for The Killers: anybody know how they got that look? I just love the fogged or flashed look to the performance scenes... thanks!!! Kitao kitaosakurai.com

Hey everybody! my new site and reel is up! tell me what you think! A couple things on it don't work quite right - one of the music videos and one of the shorts don't work, but I'm working on getting that fixed. Enjoy! kitaosakurai.com

I recently purchased a canon over a Beaulieu purely for functional reasons. I'm about to go into production on a doc, and I'm approaching the shooting of it in a partially run and gun/film collage style and partially in a traditional, old-skool, film-doc style. I'll also be shooting super 16 and standard 16. I did some tests with the Canon, and I was not only utterly blown away with the stunning quality of the image, but with the ease of use. I'm sure that a beaulieu could get me equally nice images, but for the kind of camera I need (gotta be able to shoot sync sound at 24fps) the canon feels more run-and-gunnable. In terms of image quality, IMHO, the main factor (besides good shooting, of course) is how you get the film onto tape (if you want it to live on tape, that is). From what I've seen, if you can afford a really decent TRANSFER of the film using an actual telecine with a super 8 gate and a competent colorist, Beaulieus and Canons can both look utterly mindblowingly fantastic. For me, I made a choice based not on which camera might have a minute edge in terms of softness in low light, but on wether or not I could whip the camera out and grab something, as opposed to futz with this battery and cable and metering it and etc etc... If I were working in a different shooting style I might choose the Beraulieu. I think the answer is that there is no "this camera is concretely better" answer. If you have the resources to properly transfer your film and put it through a workflow that will preserve the raw, beautiful quality inherent in super 8, both cameras can be really great. I'm pretty sure Guy Madden used all Canon super 8 cameras on his newest feature...

Yeah, I just shot a super 35 short (2.35) with the cooke S2s for similar considerations. The director and I both wanted this very old-school anamorphic quality in both the mise-en-scene and the lighting, but, like you, there was no way we could swing ACTUAL anamorphic lenses for budget reasons. I had used this one set of re-housed S2/S3s which I love, and was happy to discover that they cover super. I think that these lenses, shot pretty open, (I shot the entire movie at a 2.8 or thereabouts) has a very anamorphic feel. I didn't actually go for any flares, because they wouldn't have fit the film at all (the film was mostly these bergman-esque master shots)... But they have a great "period" anamorphic quality... I don't know why more people don't shoot more super 2.35 with these older cookes, it's just so nice. And we even tried to be really period in how we lit it. We barred ourself from using ANY kinos or HMIs whatsoever, just a bunch of big tungsten fixtures that we rigged into these old-school bounce-light rigs.. And lemmie tell you, the quality of light and image you get from a 5k smashing into bead board and then diffused through a layer of opal or frost, and then shot with like a 70mm S2 prime... man... SOOO creamy and seductive, it all just "works..." good luck!!! kitao

Hey there! Very nice work. I think what it does best, really, is showcase your very specific eye. I don't really love those "I can do every kind of shot/film/mood/genre" type of reel, because they don't really give me a sense of what the DP is thinking or what she is concerned with, visually. As a director (being that I work as a DP), I would want to work with somebody with very strongly defined notions of what they want to see up on screen, and I think that your reel appeals to (hopefully) others who want the work of a DP with "big ideas".... Couple minor things. A couple shots bothered me not because they were badly lit or composed but simply because they screamed video - towards the beginning, we see a group of people at a table in front of a window, I'd consider losing that, and I can't remember where it comes but a very high-key shot of a black guy looking to the side, which seemed very "video hot" to me, and didn't really otherwise contribute to the reel. Minor things, though.. I think you should take them out only because the rest of the work is so strong... Can you talk just a bit about your background? where do you live/work? You mentioned the work of some very interesting DPs. Would you list some films that are close to you, or that you're enjoying/taking insparation from at this moment? cheers, kitao

Hunh, great news then! Yeah, I really like the soft, bendy quality of these lenses - much more "anamorphic" looking than superspeeds. Thanks!

Hi all, I'm about to shoot a short in a few weeks, and the idea is we'll be shooting super 35 4 perf composed for 2:35. I've shot stuff with this set of cooke S2/S3 primes which I absolutely adore, and I'd love to use them for this project, but I'm not sure if they'll cover super 35 2:35. My rental house says that they PROBABLY will cover but I don't think they've tried. I need to test, I know, but I'm just wondering if anybody has had a definitive experience with this setup before - either "yes, it worked beautifully, no problems" or "It was terrible! ruinied the production"... etc. My instinct is that it'll probalby work - the 2:35 is pretty narrow, versus if I wanted to get 1:33 full aperture, in which case edge-to-edge would probalby be a problem. Thanks in advance everybody!!! kitao

Hey, What you want is already out there, actually: http://www.duallcamera.com/catalog/index.shtml This is a rental from Duall camera here in New York, where I rent a lot of stuff from. They have converted several Beaulieu super 8 cameras to take PL-mount lenses (!!!!) as well as adding crystal sync bases. Additionally, these cameras will accept rods for matte box/follow focus... I think they even have video tap too... I do not work for them, to let you know... The 16/9 thing it does not have, but If I were you I'd just crop in post... 1.33 to 1.78 isn't THAT bad... Duart just got a super 8 gate for their Ursula telecine, and I did a supervised TK onto digi of plusx and trix stuff that I had shot at 24p... Man, it. was. BEAUTIFUL!!! a good transfer really makes all the difference. I think the optics in a lot of the good consumer s8 cameras are totally fine... I was using a cannon xls, and it was RAZOR sharp. I think a lot of what people blame on bad optics is really bad transfer or bad projection... Some of this stuff, if you saw it on tv, you'd think it was 35mm shot in the late 50's, no kidding. I'll try to put some frame grabs off of the stuff once I digitize it. kitao

Hey guys, Great work, I thought the second one - the black and white one - was especially well realized. I loved the quality of the images. I'm curious as to how much of the "look" you did in post, and how much you did while shooting. You say that on your home-made mini35 rig you are using sigma and nikon 35 still lenses and a macro that "isn't perfect" in that it blurs the edges of the frame slightly. I found this bluring - as well as the vignetting (again, was that post or in camera?) - to be one of my favorite visual aspects. It was very "organic" feeling, and worked perfectly with the shifting focal plane and really very smart hand-held shooting. Well done, Kitao Sakurai

Alan Clarke, a British director who made work mostly for the BBC in the 80's (and who sadly never became popular in the US) has made some really astonishing no-dialogue films. I say no dialogue and not silent because the sound design becomes a really essential component of viewing his movies. His greatest film (in my opinion) and one of my personal favorite films of all time is "Elephant." Not to be confused with the Gus Van Sant picture of the same title. Van Sant's "Elephant" is actually an homage of sorts to Clarke's version. The floating, roaming steadicam shots, the 1:33 aspect ratio, the "disembodied" narrative viewpoint, the treatment of extreme violence and it's placement in society along with a host of other stylistic and conceptual ideas were taken pretty directly from Alan Clarke's "Elephant," which was made in the early 80's, deals with the sectarian violence in Northern Ireland (as opposed to Columbine) and is only 37 minutes long. To me, this film is pure cinema. Not pure form or style, but pure cinema in the best sense - he wrestles with a subject that's both inherently political and topical and age-old at the same time and manages to create a succinct, laser-like statement, which, in it's strength, refuses to take sides. All with no dialogue, no narrative development, no "characters" really to speak of, and a really really strict structure. Having spent a little time in Northern Ireland myself, I can appreciate how crazily hard it would be to create ANY kind of statement or piece of art that could somehow deal with such a complicated and brutal situation, let alone with SUCH grace and strength as Alan Clarke's "Elephant."

Hey, thanks. Those black stripes were actually put there because when I shot with this reflex bolex super-16 "hr-16" (I think..) the filter-tray slot was dangling open for a few shots and fogged the extreme right side of the image in really strange strips. I thought that it was too distracting and "mistake-like" even though I liked the idea of side-fog like things... so in the on-line I just added these black vertical grads to both sides to cover the fogging and balance out the shots. I tried curved vignettes, but they looked too obvious and less interesting. In the end I think those grads improved some shots, like the opening one in the reel. I'm glad that light leak happened. That soldier short film is a short called "Virgin Red," which I co-produced in addition to having photographed. You can go to it's site: virginredmovie.com You need flash 7 I think, but you can view stills, "making-of" things and pretty extensive content. We just did the TK a couple days ago so the film - or clips - should be up pretty soon. And yeah, I hear you about the last half. I had wanted to include the 'slower' stuff at the end, as it was the first big 35 short that I had directed, and because it shows a pretty different tone from the rest of the stuff... but it is indeed slower and less immediately dynamic. Different people react to the inclusion of that last stuff in pretty different ways. I'm thinking of maybe cutting a 2 minute "more dynamic" version, possibly. What do you folks think? I mean, what does this reel say to you, if anything? What would you think as a director? thanks! kitao

Hey, thanks a lot! In answer, that stuff at the beginning, with the very saturated colors and black and white stuff was shot with a super 16 Bolex, actually. I shot the entire video (for this Japanese pop thing) on this steadycam-ish flight stick and with one lens the entire time, an old (I think 7.5mm) Kinoptik. I love those lenses. In some of the shots you see this beautiful flame-like flare that occurs at the bottom of the frame which I really like, and upon closer examination of the footage I found to be caused by the image of the sun illuminating the clouds... it's hard to describe how it works, but kinoptics feel more grungy and organic to me than zeiss superspeeds or whatever... I used two stocks - Ektachrome, which I had cross-processed (for the color stuff) and vision 2 500T 18 for the bw stuff (which I made bw in telecine). I also liked the look of the car interior stuff. I worked with a crew of 2 people for that one, so we had more freedom to go anywhere and move with the sun, basically. The second thing - the 2:35 war stuff was 35mm 500T '79, which, upon extensive testing, was found to respond better to pushing and skip-bleaching than '59 or '18. It was shot with the beautiful cooke S2/S3 lenses. It was composed for 1:85 but I put a 2:35 matte on it just for my reel, cause I think it looks cool. The stuff with the woman and man in the bedroom was push process 1 stop and the war stuff was full skip bleach. The other music vid. stuff following that was all super 16, a mix of '18 and the really really nice vision 2 250D. All of the extreme color "looks" were created mostly in telecine. The last thing (the only thing that I didn't shoot myself, but wrote and directed) was 35mm vision1 200T with zeiss superspeed primes. Thanks for the intrest. best, kitao

Hi! Thanks a lot! Glad you liked it. To answer the question about the lighting package (if I can remember correctly): 1 4x4 kino 2 4x2 kino 1 1x1 foot kino 2 1200w HMI PARs a couple 1 k's... 10 or so stands, bags, etc.. a few flags, a few nets and scrims a china ball a putt-putt genny that never managed to work one of those big RV's that served as the dressing room/living quarters of most of cast, as well as a source of (not much) power to run a couple lights off of when we couldn't steal power from somewhere... That was pretty much it. Midway through production we even lost the g&e van, so we had to stick everything in the luggage compartments of the RV, making it like this omni-film-production-vehicle. Crazy production, but a lot of fun... As for the compression of the trailer, I didn't do it, but I know a sorensen or sorensen-like compression program was used to squeeze it and make it look good. I don't know the exact program, but I did use a program called Squeeze to compress my reel which I actually just posted (kitaosakurai.com). I think it's important to use one of these programs because they make the footage look better (and be much much smaller) than just posting a full-rez DV compression quicktime file or whatever... hope this helps kitao

Leo, "The late lamented 7361 B/W reversal print film was a great camera film. Use it with an uncoated lens and get something that looks like snapshots from the 30s. Quite sharp and amazing latitude for reversal. 5360 autopositive is still around and gives interesting results. Estar base version has BH-1866 perfs." Could you expand upon on this a little more? I'd be very interested in trying to shoot on a bw print stock like this. Would the current version of 61 be 02? Do you think this would compare? If so, as a starting point for testing, what were you rating the 61 at? And what results have you achieved with the autopositive film? best, kitao

Hey everybody, Here's my new reel. It's sort of a cross between a music video reel and a narrative reel. The first thing on it I directed and shot, the second thing (the 2.35 one) I produced and shot, and the rest I just shot, except for the thing at the end, which I directed. Hope you enjoy! here it is: kitaosakurai.com