Brian Rose

Thanks David, this is perfect! BR

Hey all, I'm starting to work on a preliminary budget for a doc shoot to take place in Hawaii, on the island of Oahu. So far however, I've not had luck in locating any rental houses, though surely there must be some. Do any of you know of some places you might recommend? Thanks! Brian R.

The best cinematography I saw in theatres was "The Red Shoes" in a 35mm print from the new restoration... But that's cheating a bit. For films made THIS year, I thought Pfister's work was quite good for "Inception" (even if I think he's starting to repeat himself a bit), and I gotta throw down for Deakin's and "True Grit." The man is due for his Oscar, and I'd give it to him just on the strength of that amazing shot in "Grit" where Matt Damon's face is illuminated by striking a match. Remarkable!

Imax for me has always been about absurdity. I mean, 65mm film is big and costly and unwieldy as 5-perf vertical pulldown. So what do they do? The say, "Hell, let's flip the sucker and shoot 15 perf!" They design cameras that can go to Everest, into space, or 12,000 feet beneath the sea. And then they throw it up on the biggest F'in screen you've ever seen. I'm willing to be open minded about digital, so long as they bring that same "to hell with common sense" approach. They need to come up with an ABSURD digital camera. I say forget 8K. Go for 12K, and shoot at 48 FPS or even 60 FPS, to finally put to bed the old strobing issues that have plagued 24 FPS Imax. Go all out, Imax!

IMO, they would've been wise to study that film more. I believe the ending was rather botched. We're told through the film that she gives the performance of her life (despite falling) yet aren't really show this, since the close framing, shaky camera and choppy editing deprives us of experiencing the show for ourselves. I'm sure there are reasons they've come up with, a lot of psychobabble, not to mention since Portman isn't a professional dancer (merely a dancer turned actress), my guess is the decisions made also helped to compensate for her shortcomings. Portman does a nice job, but more and more I think they would have done better to cast a professional, even if she was an unknown. The audience really should've been allowed to experience the dance, and I felt a little shortchanged having to just go by the word of the director (the ballet director, not the film's director) who assures her she was great. This should've been shown.

David, what you say is all too true. But do you think digital poses new problems for preservation and archiving? What is the solution?

I think when we discuss film, we should consider there are really TWO kinds of film: film as capture medium, and film as an exhibition medium. The latter is on the way out, no doubt about it. Digital projection eliminates the need for expensive prints, and for theaters it means fewer necessary technicians with the kind of skills required for film projection. Not saying it's right, it's just that the numbers are too good for distributors to pass up. And I must say, projection has improved dramatically. Done right, I've been immensely impressed by its quality. And as projection improves, as it becomes possible to screen at 8K or even beyond, it will be possible to truly experience certain films shot in 65mm, which as is are rare experiences because of the short supply of large format prints, and houses to show them. Because right now, films like "Lawrence of Arabia" and 2001 aren't being truly experienced and as digital advances progress, this may change. Now as for film as a capture medium, I believe there will always be a need for film. In fact, I believe that with a few forwarding thinking individuals in the position to make a difference, film could be the FUTURE. Digital as a capture medium poses many problems...it has a finite resolution, as we've all discovered when we try to up convert SD footage to HD. You can't add information which isn't there. As soon as some new technology rolls out, stuff shot on the old technology immediately is in trouble. Digital also poses a huge problem from an archival/preservation POV. How do we preserve what exists only as 1s and 0s? Are we really going to settle for perpetually transferring a file from an old storage method to the new one? It's unstable, and the ease with which digital files can be lost forever makes me wonder if we aren't headed for another dark age, like what happened with the massive loss of nitrate film for the 1930s and earlier. Film is different. It is physical, it is *there* You need only scan into whatever format you need. Given proper storage, management, with fine grain master positives, internegatives and B/W separation masters, a film can endure indefinitely. And while film too as a finite amount of information, it can be repeatedly scanned at higher resolutions, and resolves far better than a digital form which has been upconverted. Film cameras are technology which essentially cannot go out of date. Only the capture medium is upgraded, so the equipment remains a safe investment. How remarkable that 50,60, 70 year old technology like the Mitchell BNC remain fully viable today! I've said it many times on this board before, and I'll say it again: film is the safe option. More than that, if I were a studio exec, I'd be shooting my big budget, 9 figure films on large format 65mm, easily the most future proofed, resilient format in existence: prints to Imax with minimal blowing up, reduces to 35mm superbly, and produces crystal clear, razor sharp pictures on a 1080p monitor. It has enough untapped resolution to be viable for many new HD formats to come, and the developments of Panavision with the System 65 setup (as well as Imax's innovations) have completely refuted the idea that large format is too bulky and unwieldy to be practical for modern production. It's simply not true. And the added cost of large format is relatively minimal, when absorbed into the overall cost of a $50,000,000 or $100,000,000+ production.

I have trouble getting people to understand what those black bars are when they're watching a movie. To explain film versus digital is bordering on Sisyphean.

Yes, my criticism is of the trailer, not the film, since I haven't seen the film, and cannot comment on it. But I think the trailer is rather mediocre, but so are most these days. Good movie trailers are becoming a lost art, as each one I see now seems to be the same old pattern: Rapid editing set to either a chorus or drums going "bum, da, da, da, da bum, da, da, da bum" and it ends with someone uttering, "Oh my god..." What happened to such marvelous trailers like the one for "Dr. Strangelove" or "Amadeus." Both are marvelous and really get you excited about seeing the movie. Or more recently, the first, 1:15 minute "teaser" for "True Grit" was easily the best trailer I'd seen all year, and sold me completely on seeing the film. If trailers are supposed to people interested, to entice audiences into the theatres, then in my opinion, the current trailer for "Tree of Life" fails. I'll be hoping they make another one that better conveys the sense of what a marvelous film I hope it will be.

Was I the only one rather underwhelmed by this trailer? It seemed so disjointed, cobbling together bits from the what I gather to be the Voyage of Time short, a Rob Reiner-ish 50s coming of age tale, and a contemporary drama of an emotionally traumatized man. A commentator on another forum said it best of this trailer: "It looks like a commercial for life insurance." Surely the film will be better than the trailer. I can only hope.

I'm with what these other guys have said. I used to think there were many ways to be a DoP, but now I strongly believe there is only one way, and it is to do just that: DoP. I've got friend's who've gone to LA, to follow the classic ladder-up approach of Hollywood lore. They've gotten gigs as PAs and camera loaders and...not much else. I don't think any of them have stepped anywhere near DPing. One guy's new ambition is to simply get into a union. I opted for a smaller market, Kansas City, and I've DP'd several shorts and commercials within the first year after I graduated. I work for some prod. companies as a researcher, writer and editor to support myself, but I'm always working on my own projects. I'll even do some animated claymation shorts, which is great for trying new things with lighting on a micro scale. So if you wanna DP, you gotta think of yourself as one. You'll start by shooting no budget shorts or filming live events or talking heads, but you'll at least accrue a body of work, which'll slowly snowball. And you've gotta hang in there. Despite all the mythical BS Hollywood sells to starry eyed young dreamers, moviemaking is NOT a young man's business. Young people who achieve success are the exceptions, and rarely last (see Kevin Smith). The ones who really make it, who last and have the big impact are the guys who stick it out, into their thirties and forties, until they get that big break. Look at Wally Pfister...he started off doing PSAs and industrial films in DC, then graduated to direct-to-video horror shite (I bet he'd like to take "The Granny" off his imdb) until he shot a film that put him in a position to meet a young Chris Nolan, who tapped him to shoot a little film called "Memento" Now he pretty much has the best job security in the biz (except perhaps for Deakins), and he gets to shoot Imax and be called a genius. Nuf sed.

Viljay, in your original post, it wasn't quite clear: do you have four weeks til shooting starts, or is this shoot over four weeks? If you indeed have four weeks before starting production, I'd say if you started now, you'd have time to do some camera tests and get the results back. Because that's the only surefire way of knowing what's gonna happen. The answers you'll get from us will (and are) across the board, and have many variables: film stock, processing methods, quality of the transfer...there are so many variables that you really should try it out with some tests, best as you can replicating the production and post production workflows and seeing how the material compares. You may make some nice discoveries that will save you many headaches. Something else I'd strongly advise: if you're going to mix formats, make sure to use the same lenses. Get an adapter, and use the same 35mms for your DLSR and 16mm. If you mix lenses and focal lengths and all that, it'll make cutting the material together that much harder. BR

Well it's their product, their concept, and they've hired you to make it for them. I don't think you have too many rights when it comes to ownership or use, if that's what you mean. You certainly should be able to use it for your demo reel...heck, that's basic, standard practice, cause how else to you get more work unless you have previous work to show? Really, just make sure you've got the money thing worked out and clearly defined, and you might see about getting an upfront payment, half now, half upon delivery of the final piece, in case they bail on you, it's not a total loss.

Oh yes! A few years back I saw a brand new 70mm print, struck from the OCN. Absolutely mind blowing. Easily in the top two or three movie going experiences of my life.

Oh Brian, how could I forget Errol Morris! Yes his films too have some of the most stunning visuals...his films are enough to make you wonder what he would craft directing a fiction film, or working as a DP. Either way, I'm sure it'd be amazing.

"Crumb" by Zwigoff is beautifully shot and belies its extreme low budget origins. The new Criterion blu-ray is a must. Also, I'd mention Ken Burns. He does his own cinematography, but doesn't get a lot of credit since his films are seen as relying heavily on archival mediums. But he does utilize a fair bit of original material, mainly location footage and first person "talking head" interviews, and these scenes are stunning...his composition is almost Fordian in its precision, and his interviews are the most simple yet exquisite I've ever seen. And, he's one of the few non-fiction filmmakers who still utilizes 16mm for the footage he generates for a picture, so that's worth some bonus points.

Most likely he's got a director's viewfinder. This tool allows you to simulate any variety of vocal lengths and aspect ratios with a single piece of glass. This way, a director can figure out the shot he/she wants: height, focal length, etc. It's a very handy tool, because it frees up the director from having to use the camera itself to figure out the shot he/she wants (as we've all dealt with on low-budge productions). I've long wanted to get one myself, but the 200-300 price tag has been a pretty big stumbling block. BR

Heck, just call a normal object by it's slang term. Sure threw me for a loop. Took me forever to figure out what "sticks" and "stingers" were!

What kind of criticism are you looking for: cinematography/color timing, editing, structure and content, all of the above...? BR

Yes, scissorlift is a better term for it. They're pretty commonly used for football games. At my grad school, they'd film their practices in this manner, and practically stored it on the field they used it so much. Clearly it is not much good in anything other than ideal conditions.

Yeah, it looks like from KC, I'll have to drive to Branson Missouri to find a 15/70 screen. Everything else has gone Liemax. I shudder to think how many more theaters will be lost by the time Dark Knight streets in 2012. BR

Turns out, the guy posted the following messages on twitter just before he was killed: "Gusts of wind up to 60 mph. Well today will be fun at work. I guess I’ve lived long enough," Then a second one shortly before the tower went: "Holy ---. Holy ---. This is terrifying." It sound harsh, but this guy really should've known better. He paid a terrible price for not following his instincts, especially on something as trivial as a football practice. If I'm gonna risk life and limb on the job, it's gonna be for the sake of something a bit more significant!

Nice! I'd like to hear the story of how that one got busted...some camera op must've had a BAAAAAAAD day!

I know somewhere once I saw a list of every theatre with Imax equipment, and it detailed whether that theatre was 15/70 or Liemax. Sadly, I can't find that list now, so if someone else knows what I'm talking about and would post a link, I'd be much obliged. Whatever the case may be, if Dark Knight Rises winds up an all large format affair, I WILL drive where ever I need too, and see it twice. I hope someone from Warner's is reading this. We WILL go the extra mile for large format! BR