Brian Rose

Well I tried the office numbers of both their New York and Hollywood offices. Both said the number was non working. Not a good sign at all. But their myspace and facebook pages are current, so there's hope. I wrote them, and hopefully there'll be some answers coming. BR

First off, here's your thread. There's been one reply thus far, but he seems as much in the dark as you and I. http://www.encyclopedia-titanica.org/discus/messages/5672/206599.html?1280412389 I'm doing a bunch of digging as well, and have not come up with much to terribly substantive. It looks legit, and i REALLY, REALLY want to believe it is so, because as far as I am aware, the only known footage of the Titanic was a few brief Pathe clips taken of the ship as she was nearing the end of her fitting out, in February of 1912. I've never heard of any footage taken on board, so this discovery if true, could be earthshattering for the Titanic community. That said, we've gotta take this with a hefty dose of salt. There's a lot that doesn't seem right. First off, a discovery of this magnitude would, you'd think, make the news. I mean, new Titanic footage, shot by a man on his honeymoon, and fortuitously saved in a lifeboat and then uncovered nearly a century later? It's copy that writes itself, and it's the kind of publicity you CAN'T buy. When a company is so cagey about releasing details, to me it seems to say they're not telling much because there is not much to tell, or the reality is far more mundane. And there are so many variables. The claim is the footage left with his wife in a lifeboat. That takes foresight, considering few believed the ship would actually sink. And why would the footage have gone unseen for so long? It would have been a goldmine for Biograph. Maybe the wife thought the memories were too painful and hid the film away. I don't know. Not to mention, it's never been entirely clear if Marvin had a camera with him on board ship. As I said in my prior post, while there DEFINITELY was a camera on board, it almost certainly belonged to William Harbeck and his mistress, who were likely confused for the Marvins (since Daniel Marvin was much more high profile than Harbeck). There's just an awful lot of variables here. Then again, considering the near miraculous circumstances surrounding the recovery of the lost 25 minutes of "Metropolis," nothing is out of the realm of possibility. I intend to follow up with Biograph personally and get some answers. Best, BR

Number one rule is never say no to any opportunity, no matter how tangential it may seem. At your stage, you can't afford to close doors, as can be liable to happen if you get so focused on one thing that anything else that comes up in the interim gets discarded as a "distraction." Robert Altman made industrial and educational films. Michael Cimino made commercials. Truffaut and Godard were both film critics. Terrence Malick taught philosophy and wrote freelance. Yet all arrived, sooner or later, at the same place, and all earned varying degrees of acclaim for one or more films. I myself love cinematography, as well as directing documentaries. Yet in the past year, I've been hired to write scripts, to edit, to do research on films and lately I've been doing a lot of graphical work involving cutting images and layering for 3D multimedia. In several cases, I entered into the project knowing little about how to undertake it, teaching myself on the fly. Hopefully your wife supports you in your endeavors, because otherwise you may find your options closing fast to meet the demands of a "domesticated" husband. With a wife, a house and children can quickly follow and soon your dreams are shot. Find collaborators. Start working on each others projects. The more that you have your hands on, the better the odds that one will take off, and could get your foot in the door someplace. And ultimately, DON'T WAIT to make your films. You can wait your whole life for the chance to make your masterpiece, and that chance will probably never come. Instead, take full advantage of the time you have now to start making the kinds of films you want to make. Maybe they won't be as big or splendiforous as you want them to be, but they'll be a start. You'll hone your craft. Not to mention, you never know when you might be in the same room with that producer that will change your life...and you want to be prepared to tell him about all the great stories you've got in your head, and are working on. That's how you get people interested in giving you their money. BR

I checked and it confirmed my fears...the AMC in my town (KC) has gone digital god d*mmit. Small wonder that that glorious 65mm was rendered indistinguishable from ano 35! And what a shame. I saw The Dark Knight at that theater in 2008, and the difference was enormous. Why oh why would you switch to digital when you've already got the 15/70 in place?

This all reminds me of a line from "The Simpsons": "You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!" Not to mention this one: Homer: "Oh, I always wanted to be a Teamster. So lazy and surly...mind if I relax next to you?"

Yay, my two favorite things; the cinema and the Titanic! I've been a Titanic afficionado since the tender age of seven or eight, and can supply some answers. Indeed, there was a Daniel Marvin on board, traveling home with his wife after a honeymoon in Europe. His father was the founder of Biograph, which collaborated with D.W. Griffith on his critical early films prior to his breakthrough epic "The Birth of a Nation." In early February, 1912, Daniel's wedding (or rather, a reenactment of it) was filmed and touted as the first moving picture of a wedding ceremony! Sadly Daniel Marvin died in the sinking, and lore has it that his widow was so stricken by the loss that she destroyed the print of the wedding. Whatever the case may be, today that film is considered lost. Getting back to the subject at hand. There most DEFINITELY WAS a movie camera on board Titanic. Lawrence Beesley, a survivor from 2nd class, wrote one of the key accounts of the disaster, and is considered one of the most reliable witnesses. He clearly states seeing "a young American kinematograph photographer and his young wife, evidently French," who on April 10th filmed the ship's departure from Southampton, including it's near miss collision with another steamer moored nearby. This couple is often assumed to be the Marvins, but there are two problems: 1) the Marvins traveled first class, which was segregated from 3rd and 2nd, where Mr. Beesley would have been. Also, Mrs. Marvin was an American! Instead, the couple he saw is almost undoubtedly William Harbeck, a noted documentary filmmaker who had shot footage in Alaska, Colorado and most notably, San Francisco immediately after the quake of '06. The woman was a Miss. Yvois, who was likely Harbeck's misstress (they carried tickets with sequential serial numbers, strongly suggesting they were purchased at the same time). Harbeck was returning from a trip in Europe which involved the sale of some of his films, as well as the purchase of new supplies. On board the Titanic he had no less than five new movie cameras, and 110,000 feet of film! The person who sold the gear to him later stated that he personally loaded one of the cameras with film, so that Mr. Harbeck could record anything of interest on the voyage. There is some speculation that he was hired by White Star to document the voyage. It is just as likely that he was doing what we all are inclined to do under the circumstances: take pictures! Sadly, both Mr. Harbeck and Miss Yvois were lost, along with any film he shot. The prospect that the footage may still survive, in the cold depths of the North Atlantic too deep for light to penetrate, has long been the dream and hope of all Titanic scholars. And indeed, a few frames of a film print were recovered from the wreck of the Lusitania. But that was a positive print, and it was at a depth of a few hundred feet. Harbeck's film is 2 1/2 miles down, and those cans would have long ago succumbed to the 1000 pounds per square inch of pressure exerted by the ocean, and have been slowly corroded by the saltwater. And since he never had a chance to process the film, it is highly unlikely that, if any film was retrieved, that its latent images could be retrieved. Hope this answers your questions! BR

As the originator of the imax/65mm related discussion, I also wanted to open up talk on the overall cinematography on this film, and thought it warranted a separate thread. If the mods feel otherwise, you are welcome to merge the two, with my apologies. Having finally been able to see "Inception" late last week, I have waited a few days to let the film sink in, and speaking purely about the cinematography, I have to say I was disappointed. Not in the projection, or the DI, but in the work of Mr. Pfister. Don't get me wrong: the film was sleek, beautiful, with every key, back, fill, kicker and eye light in place. And that's the problem. To me it was competent and the kind of work many DPs would be capable of doing...but in the hands of a genius like Pfister, it was lacking. It felt like Mr. Pfister was repeating himself, playing it safe with a style of lighting for which he was comfortable. The strong amber hues, contrasted with cold blue light....the slow motion cinematography...I felt like had seen it before, not just in a Nolan/Pfister film, but in many films. What is with this trend, this use of amber and blue light? I see it now so much that it feels like it's becoming a standard. I expected much more from "Inception," and instead it felt much like a lot of other cinematography, which seemed to me to be a wasted opportunity. I mean, you have a film in which you have the real world, and the dream world, and within the dream world, you have dreams, within dreams, within dreams. Imagine the opportunities for creative lighting, to distinguish each world from the other? One reviewer commented that, thanks to the editing, she was able to keep track of the simultaneous goings on of three separate dream levels. For me, that indicates a failure on the part of the DP. Part of that job should have fallen to him, and instead each world felt much the same (lighting wise, I mean). I saw no daring, no urge to try something terribly new. Instead, I got the sense that, "It worked well on 'The Dark Knight," so let's do that again." And I am reminded by why I like DPs like Cardiff and Deakins...they always seemed to be moving forward and trying new things, and letting the story guide their decisions, instead of shoehorning the story into their luminary comfort zone. Deakins, you will recall, was nominated for two Oscars in 2007, for "No Country For Old Men," and "The Assassination of Jesse James..." Both are masterpieces of the art of cinematography, yet each is quite different from the other. Likewise, Jack Cardiff brought something new to each film he DP'd, and so no two looks alike, apart from the fact that they are SO dissimilar from other work being done that you can tell a real genius lit them. Wally Pfister is a great DP, and has promise to be one of the greatest. But for me, "Inception" felt like he was coasting on that promise, rather than making good. What are everyone else's thoughts? BR

Hmmmm that's strange, because there shouldn't have been an impact on the 65mm sourced stuff, as it was not blown up. Even those it was printed to imax 15 perf 65mm, the size of the image on the film would remain the same...the only difference is the top and bottom areas normally taken up by Imax's 1.44 frame are matted to the AS of the 5 perf 65mm. There are many other potential variables. It's been two years since TDK was out, so a lot could have happened to the theatre where you saw both...different projectionist with different (i.e., less skills)...the projector could have been improperly set up...who knows? BR

Dumbest thing I ever heard had to do with image quality of various formats. I was due to screen a new documentary at a fest, being held in a theatre equipped with a top of the line Sony 4K projector. I provided a full-res version of my doc to the fest runners on a hard drive, and didn't hear back from them. I assumed all was well, yet when I attended my screening, to my utter horror I found they were showing not the version I gave them, but a file RIPPED from the single layer DVR screener copy I had originally submitted with my entry form! When I confronted the man in charge of handling the films, he said something about my file being unusable because it wasn't progressive (a lie, it was), and then he said, "But no worries, a DVD rip is the same quality." It was at that point that I knew I was working with an idiot. Needless to say, next time I'll be overseeing my own films projection! BR

So far Nolan's done pretty well, so I've got good hopes about Batman 3. And I recall reading somewhere that Batman 3 would be the last, at least, as far as Nolan is concerned. But when it comes down to it, I'd pay to see a film about paint drying, if it were shot in 65mm! :)

Living: Roger Deakins Vilmos Zsigmond Wally Pfister Raoul Coutard Chris Challis Deceased: Jack Cardiff Gregg Toland Ray Rennahan Robert Surtees Leon Shamroy M. David Mullen because his posts on this forum have been invaluable to my work and he has surely been as great an influence to me as the other ten I listed.

Wow that's amazing if that is indeed the case! Especially considering only 20 or 25 minutes of "TDK" was in Imax. It makes you think they're building up. Would that be something else if the third Batman were to be an all Panavision 65 affair? Considering the size of the System 65 cameras, I bet it could be done, and for any of Wally's beloved handheld/news doc style shots they could shoot VistaVision. God, that would be a spectacular picture!

Hello all, I have to wait to see "Inception" until Tuesday, and I'm going to see it in Imax. However, I'm really eager to know, from those who HAVE seen the Imax version, if they can comment on roughly how much of the film is in Super Panavision? Is it scattered throughout, or is it used thematically, or specific sequences? Any info would be great! BR

Well on Casablanca, Bogart wore lifts so he could be taller than his 5 foot 10 co-star Ingrid Bergman. That and careful framing and composition. BR

Someday I'm gonna create my own aspect ratio, and it'll be called "Brian-o-rama," or "Brianscope." :)

And then you have Storaro insisting he framed his films for 2.00: 1 :)

Ditto. And how about some love for native aspect ratios?

I especially like their explanation that Imax is projected via dual 2K projectors, ergo, 4K on youtube is as good as Imax. Imax now being compared to youtube? Those guys REALLY need to get control of their brand, and what it means.

Bruce, I'd forgotten about the CP16, which is a rather fine camera. I'm interested to learn more about what Nick hopes to do with this camera? I mean, he wants to shoot sync sound 16mm, but only has 1000 to spend on the camera? Something isn't adding up here...

You won't find one, plain and simple. Not, at least, without cutting a lot of corners that'll cost you more money later in camera serving and reshoots. You need to re-evaluate what your goals are, and what your budget will allow, because what you're asking with the budget you have available is quite simply not realistic. A $1000 will get you an MOS camera at best, and even then, you won't have much left. My first 16mmm was a Bolex Reflex, which together with servicing cost me close to $700. And the Reflex model is one of the more basic Bolex cameras we're talking about. The RX models, the SBMs and ELs cost even more. I would strongly advise against the H16. It is a non reflex, so you can't see what you film, nor adjust focus while filming. Frankly I consider it a collectible, not a practical working camera. It has an older type 8:1 motor mount, the motors for which are getting tough to find. On top of that, you'll have to barney the hell out of the camera, and still, it won't be terribly quiet. My first sync 16mm camera cost me $2400...it was an Eclair NPR, and that is about the most affordable model out there. It's come down in price, and they come up on ebay frequently, but still you'd be lucky to get one for under $2000. If a $1000 is all you have to spend, then you shouldn't spend it. You should save it, and instead try to borrow a camera. Or rent. Because anything you can get for under a thousand you'll probably later regret... BR

I find his stuff particularly difficult to watch. He seems quite keen on throwing in some cheap effect in his shooting style that proves quite distracting. There is his penchant for shooting blown out highlights. "The Good German" was particularly egregious, and I found it almost unwatchable. Then in "The Informant!" the use of that goddamn fog filter was aggravating enough in the trailer, that it killed any desire in me to see the feature. I found "Traffic"'s use of color coding to set apart scenes to be rather lazy...not to mention he helped originate the "blue look" that is now so common in police procedurals and thrillers, and is a big pet peeve of mine. He strikes me a rather pretentious and all about what's on the surface, with no understanding of what lies beneath. "The Good German" revealed as much. He talked about using vintage lenses and all that to somehow evoke a 40s Warner Bros. picture, yet in the same sentence, says he used color converted to black and white because black and white stocks were "too grainy." Has he EVER SEEN a picture shot in black-and-white? There's GONNA BE GRAIN. It's how you shoot it, how you balance your contrast, your light and shadow, and he demonstrated a patent lack of understanding of this. It signaled to me that he was just after an effect. It was, to paraphrase Roger Ebert, cinematic masturbation...an evocation of a past experience with none of the original passion. And Soderbergh is one of cinema's preeminent cinematic masturbators.

I put a lot of the blame on marketing. People will absolutely pay more if they were made aware of what they are getting by seeing Inception in Imax, as opposed to 35mm. This is arguably the first film in fifteen years to use Super Panavision (at least, for more than special effects) and screen it in a format that fully resolves the information contained in the 65mm neg. Yet there is nary a mention of this. Look at the trailer for "Hamlet," the last all 65mm feature. They make a point of the format, saying "Seen in Glorious 70mm Format." Sell that opulence for god's sake. You've spend 200 million on a picture, so say, "With scenes in Glorious Super Panavision 70mm." I'm not even sure you have to explain what 70mm is...just say that it is special and new, and has incredible resolution, and people will say to other people, "I hear they shot parts of it in some new format...let's see it in Imax." And whatever happened to the plain ole informational trailer? When Disney shot "Sleeping Beauty," in Super Technirama 70, he shot a trailer where he told the audience exactly what Technirama was, and how it was better than anamorphic 35. Likewise, "This Is Cinerama," explained the process to its viewers before demonstrating it, and it was one of the top grossers of the year. If I could fix one thing in Hollywood, it'd be marketing. They blow obvious selling points like large format, and make god awful, unoriginal trailers that either show all the best parts, blow the spoilers, or say nothing at all. Like "Dinner for Schmucks." I've seen several different trailers, and I still can't tell what the hell this movie is about, aside from the fact that some guy has to some idiots to a dinner. I'm just left scratching my head, and I sure as hell ain't spending money to go see it. BR

Alain, I think the difference in blue you're seeing is less about the workings of the camera itself, and more an artistic response to the technology. In the quest for a practical system of capturing and reproducing natural colour, through the 1900s, 1910s, 20s and 30s, blue was the Mount Everest. Due to technical limitations, early processes, Technicolor included, were limited to capturing two of the three primaries. And because red and green were the most important colors for rendering reasonably realistic flesh tones, which is crucial for color cinematography, blue was frequently the color that was sacrificed. Not to mention blue filters eat up far more light than red or green (as we all have discovered when we put blue gels on a light, and find our output decreased markedly). But by sacrificing blue, you sacrifice skies and bodies of water, not to mention drive the costume and set designers nuts. Early two color examples from Technicolor, when set outdoors, avoided prolonged shots of the sky for this reason...they were rendered a strange green. In "the King of Jazz," they went to great lengths to create a faux blue palette for the Rhapsody in Blue sequence. Still, it was only partially successful. So when Technicolor debuted it's three color process, and true blues became possible, I think it was a natural response to have LOTSA blue. And because Technicolor's camera and dye transfer process was so damn good, the blues they produced were quite rich and vivid, so much so that skies might sometimes be called "Technicolor Blue." Then, with the advent of Eastman color neg, there was a reversal of this trend. It enabled studios to shoot their own color, and not have to rent Technicolor's cameras and meddlesome "Colour Consultants." Eastman neg allowed them to cut out the middleman. Unfortunately, the color neg was poop. Very poor color reproduction. My favorite anecdote involves a tech who shot a camera test with a dozen shades of red lipstick. Technicolor's camera captured each shade perfectly and vividely. Eastman color negative rendered them all a uniform shade of brown. Color cinematography was arguably set back by this new negative, and until Eastman Kodak caught up and developed better stocks, Technicolor was often called upon to use their dye transfer process to salvage the prints. They had a big hand in saving a lot of films. Hence why many films of the 1950s and 1960s, while not shot in three strip technicolor, still give Technicolor credit for the prints, because they played a big part in the final color correction. But ultimately, there was only so much they could do. So you're not mistaken when you say blues look somehow different with Technicolor. They are, because color films before were unable to render blue at all, and the color negative films that overtook three strip Technicolor in the 1950s were quite poor in color reproduction. Hope this helps! Best, BR

Whenever a director brings up the subject of DoF adapters to me, I always strongly advise them to save their money. To be brutally honest, I think they're for suckers. They do nothing for sharpness or clarity, because they are always limited by the camera's primary lens (and indeed, throwing more glass in front probably REDUCES clarity). They make the camera bulkier and necessity rods and additional support. They eat up more light, which is critical considering many cams do not hold up so well in low light conditions. Their selling point is shallow depth of field, and even that is, in my opinion, rather pointless. When I want shallow DoF, I position the camera further back, or manipulate my lighting and open up the camera. I've never been for want of a DoF adapter, because I have always been able to achieve the desired Dof through application of basic cinematographic and photographic principles. It seems that many I've encountered who use these gadgets talk about DoF as a "look," like the shaky cam. They even use the term "that depth of field look," which to them means shallow DoF, which they associate with film and hollywood. Shallow DoF = professional. Sadly, they often lack an understanding of just what DoF is, and as a result, are frankly taken for a few hundred dollars by renting or even buying an adapter which, in light of the rise of DSLRs, are increasingly needless. That's my two cents. BR

I wonder what impacted new competitors like Glidecam and Flycam be having on their business? For a long time Steadicam was about the only game in town, but more and more companies it seems are stepping up and offering similar systems at more competitive pricing. I myself am a glidecam user of several years, and have been very pleased with their quality, especially when compared to their pricing. Not only that, as long as I've been working, I've only encountered one steadicam op, but there are quite a few more with glidecam rigs... Not to mention, with the proliferation of smaller, lighter cameras, it seems like companies like Glidecam, who are targeted toward those users, are in a better position than Steadicam, who came a bit later to the game with Steadicam jr. and Merlin. But again, it could just be a sign o' the times. The economy is still awfully bleak out there... BR