Brian Rose

It could be we differ in our definitions of shaky cam. For me, it's handheld which draws attention to itself, which I felt "Black Swan's" did. Compare to Kubrick's handheld work in films like "A Clockwork Orange" which is incredibly smooth for being what it is.

Well the camera work sure as hell wasn't stable and steady...

Overall I was rather a bit underwelmed by this year's batch of nominees, especially compared past years which gave us "There Will Be Blood," "The Assassination of Jesse James," "No Country for Old Men," and "The Dark Knight." Roger Deakin's is sorely overdue, but "True Grit" was not his best work (the green-screened midnight ride climax was painful to watch), and I want him to win for an undeniable masterpiece, something on par with his double nominated work back in '07. If he wins, it won't be because his work was the best, but because he's overdue, and I just KNOW he's got another masterwork in him. At least. Regarding "Black Swan," I felt many of the stylistic choices made were the wrong ones. The lighting was not what I thought was right for the film, and the inconsistent grain structure from shot to shot (sharp one minute, a swarm of gnats the next) was distracting. And I just. really. **(obscenity removed)**. hate. shaky-cam. I was struck by "The King's Speech," and in this case that's not a good thing. The odd compositions (wallpaper anyone?) and the almost fisheye wide angle lenses drew attention to themselves, but I'm mot sure they served the story. It felt like he was trying too hard. "The Social Network" felt utterly conventional to me. As I wrote in a different thread, I'm really getting burned out on the whole trend of lighting every night scene piss yellow. It just feels derivative of Pfister's work, and I'd rather give an Oscar to the guy who sat on the forefront of this style, rather than someone who just rode his coattails and appropriated it without adding anything new. Which brings me to Wally Pfister and "Inception." I admit I was mixed on his work when I first saw the film, feeling that he could've done more to explore the lighting possibilities of each of the multilayered dreams. I think he could've flexed his muscles a bit more. However, he did do a good job of making coherent what was a very complex story structure, and I just love the guy to death for keeping 65mm alive (albeit on life support). So my vote would be for Wally Pfister, and I think Inception will clean up in the technical categories year. BR PS: Ditto on Fiore and Avatar. Biggest crime in the cinematography category since Jack Cardiff was denied a nomination for "The Red Shoes."

But couldn't you work around this through creative location scouting and set design? For me the classic example of this is in Vertigo, wherein Judy's hotel room is near a green neon sign that bathes her room in a soft green light. The resulting scene, where Judy emerges as the reincarnated Madeline is both otherworldly, yet explicable. I find myself wishing there would be more of this thinking, like, "Can't we have this scene outside of some place with a neon sign so we can have some color OTHER than yellow?"

Overall I was rather a bit underwelmed by this year's batch of nominees, especially compared past years which gave us "There Will Be Blood," "The Assassination of Jesse James," "No Country for Old Men," and "The Dark Knight." Roger Deakin's is sorely overdue, but "True Grit" was not his best work (the green-screened midnight ride climax was painful to watch), and I want him to win for an undeniable masterpiece, something on par with his double nominated work back in '07. If he wins, it won't be because his work was the best, but because he's overdue, and I just KNOW he's got another masterwork in him. At least. Regarding "Black Swan," I felt many of the stylistic choices made were the wrong ones. The lighting was not what I thought was right for the film, and the inconsistent grain structure from shot to shot (sharp one minute, a swarm of gnats the next) was distracting. And I just. really. **(obscenity removed)**. hate. shaky-cam. I was struck by "The King's Speech," and in this case that's not a good thing. The odd compositions (wallpaper anyone?) and the almost fisheye wide angle lenses drew attention to themselves, but I'm mot sure they served the story. It felt like he was trying too hard. "The Social Network" felt utterly conventional to me. As I wrote in a different thread, I'm really getting burned out on the whole trend of lighting every night scene piss yellow. It just feels derivative of Pfister's work, and I'd rather give an Oscar to the guy who sat on the forefront of this style, rather than someone who just rode his coattails and appropriated it without adding anything new. Which brings me to Wally Pfister and "Inception." I admit I was mixed on his work when I first saw the film, feeling that he could've done more to explore the lighting possibilities of each of the multilayered dreams. I think he could've flexed his muscles a bit more. However, he did do a good job of making coherent what was a very complex story structure, and I just love the guy to death for keeping 65mm alive (albeit on life support). So my vote would be for Wally Pfister, and I think Inception will clean up in the technical categories year. BR

It only worries me when it starts to become reflexive and unconscious in its usage (like how shaky cam has become the standard for immediacy, realness, etc). It's worrisome when the DP isn't asking WHY he's using this lighting scheme, and merely doing so because it's "purdy" and it's what everyone else is doing. The best DPs build on the de rigeur, or even subvert it. What worries me more is the current trend of shoot night scenes bathed in yellow (see "Social Network" or practically anything shot by Wally Pfister). Yes, it functions on a realist level, since outdoor lighting often give's a yellow cast, but not every situation calls for such verisimilitude, and I enjoy as much the subtle use of blues and greens in night scenes as well.

The compression scheme was just fine. It was simply the length, which would naturally take a little time to fully load. When I view a demo reel, I try to assume the role of a producer or director who's got sixty of these to watch, it can be dispiriting when you see the video has yet to fully load, and many will just move on. Same goes for websites. When I check a DPs website, I like a nice professional, but SIMPLE layout. When i come across one loaded with flash, that I get a loading message before the main page, I tend to skip it. A 1:00 video will load in no time, so I'd say stick with the compression you've got. Best, BR

That's an interesting video, though he really doesn't intercut footage much, so much as lays it side by side. Even in the small window, it was apparent the Red contained more info, had better sharpness, and resolving power. It compressed a bit better than the other stuff. Ultimately, I'll have to do some tests and put them on a big screen...it's hard to make a objective decision based on a seven inch wide window in vimeo.

Great idea! I hope soon to do some camera tests with him, and it'll be a great chance to do a side by side, since he has a friend he can borrow the DSLR from. BR

A director with whom I've worked in the past plans to start shooting a feature this May. It's your usual low budget affair, 10k to 15K, but he's a good guy, and we're part of a group of dedicated collaborators, so it'll be another fun experience, which money can't buy. But the concern I have is the director wants to buy a DSLR to shoot it with. I think this is a mistake. He's after that shallow DoF, because he "wants to keep the focus on the actors." I think this is rather a weak justification to invest in all that additional gear, especially when what he's after could be done just as well and with far more artistry through lighting, composition, aperture settings, position of the camera and focal length relative to the subject, etc. But he's still leaning toward DSLR, or getting a lens adapter and some primes to go with the EX1 he already owns. I've found the EX1 can get a nice shallow DoF without spending $$$ on adapters and additional lenses...frankly I regard that stuff as junk anyways, and anything you place in front of the camera's lens is just going to decrease image sharpness and contrast. Next time we chat I'm going to try again to get him away from the DSLR, because I don't think it's right for the production. Gonna just give him a laundry list of reasons: Rolling Shutter issues The extreme shallow DoF makes tracking shots and glidecam (which he wants to use) more challenging, and demands follow focus, remote control (i.e. more $$$) Audio is very problematic Compression also not ideal, and will require transcoding And in general, his money can go toward better areas than buying a camera for the production, especially one which I think would be a poor investment, given the newer models in the works, and competition from Red and Panasonic. What all do you think? What else can I say to convince him DSLR is not the way to go to do his feature? Best, BR

This can get tricky. On the one hand, I totally get why you want to use the logo. It's a classic, and carries a ton of nostalgia. Once or twice for some short, comedic films I made, I threw on at the beginning a British Film Censors card. You wouldn't think it'd be a problem to lovingly use a classic old logo for a film which pays homage to Cinemascope, right? Of course, we also know the folks in Hollywood can be a wee bit litigious. So unless you want to license it, I'd say you can't use the Cinemascope logo, especially if you haven't licensed the process. But if you take the original logo, and alter it enough, I believe you'll be covered by fair use, which allows for parodying or referencing a copyrighted work, as long as the new creation has been altered enough from the original. Hope this helps! BR

Hi Tom, My apologies for not contextualizing why I'm keen on pull processing. I'm preparing for my next documentary project, which will involve interviews, reenactments, archival footage, the whole nine yards. I want to shoot 16mm BW for the 60s sections, but since Kodak has discontinued its finer grained BW stock, I'm stuck with using the double x. I've shot with this in the past, and while the grain has a very interesting texture, I don't feel it's right for this project. I want something crisper. So my thought was pulling the film, to tighten the grain. On youtube, a fellow posted footage of some 50D color which he pulled 2 stops, and it was remarkable in its clarity and richness. If the same could be done in monochrome, fine grain and deep blacks, that would be a nice result. Hence the inquiry. Ultimately, I plan on doing some tests so we'll see what happens. Thanks all! Best, BR

Okay, I think I have this worked out, but help me if I'm mistaken. Now, per an earlier discussion, the general concensus of opinion is that film should be overexposed around 2/3 of a stop to ensure fine grain and good colors. Makes sense. Now suppose I want expose film with the idea of pulling 2 stops. So for arguments sake I'm using 100 ASA film. I would therefore rate it as 25 ASA. But would I still want to overexpose that additional 2/3 stop I would if I was using film normally rated 25 ASA? Would I therefore rate for 3 stops slower, or 12 ASA, pull two stops, and arrive at film that has been properly shot with around 2/3 overexposure? Or when pulling the film, would you discard the 2/3 rule, and expose per the meter for a given reading? Ultimately I will do camera tests to see for myself, but if any of you have done this, I'd sure appreciate it to hear what you did. Thanks! BR

Way ahead of you ma man. Just finished going through my books, and made sure to add all this to my taxes. I sure hope I'll get SOMETHING for the work. It may sink our country further into debt, but as long as I get my refund check, to the Bush tax cuts I say, "Flame on!"

Well at this point I'm pretty much stuck with getting them something finished, as much as I hate to say. But since they're not paying me, I'm not taking too much time on it, and I'm gonna trim their overlong script. For what they want to do, the resulting video would be too long. Gonna give them a nice 90 second piece, and if they have a problem, I'll say, "Well, here's the raw footage if you want to go elsewhere, but I guarantee you they'll charge more than me. If you want me to do it, these are my rates, on top of the $X,XXX.XX I've already donated, so those are your options." If they ask me to do another video, my answer will be: "Great, here's my rates." I hate doing stuff for churches as is, so it sucks worse they're too cheap to even pay me :( I know, I know, I' going to hell. But if all that I've read is true, heaven must be pretty boring anyways, what with all the interesting people in hell! ;) Back to editing.

Share your production nightmare. Here's mine. My mom asked me to spend a few hours filming a health fair at her church, where people can get low cost or free eye checks, hearing, bloodwork, etc. The idea was to get some raw footage to entice local broadcast news to do a story...they say, "We've got footage already," etc. I say okay, even though I have my reservations since I typically rent gear, and since the job is a freebie, I'd have to use my XL2, which might not meet the standards of the broadcaster, depending on whom it is. And the slide down the slope begins! First, the pastor helping to run the thing says it might be good to get some on-camera interviews. I said I'm not an audio man, and don't have the gear for it. She still thinks it would be good to do. I concede, but say they'll need better audio gear than what I have. Since this is a church, and it's a charitable thing, I go out of my way to rent a lav mic from a colleague. I get it for 20 bucks, so it's not bad. First, it turns out the turnout at the healthfair the first day is weak. So they ask me to come back ANOTHER day. I comply. Because it's a church, and it's a good cause. Come back the next day, there are a few more people, and I film the goings on. The interviews never happen, because the pastor suddenly balks about appearing on camera. She suggest we do the interviews another day. Oh god. Ultimately, the interviews never happen, so my 20 bucks was wasted. In the meantime, I'm asked to EDIT the footage into a film for them, because they want to take the film around to show and drum up support. And I say yes because it's a church and it's for a good cause. And instead of interviews, the pastor writes a script, which is too long, and asks me to record the voiceover narration! Again, I'm asked to do audio work, when I don't have the gear for it, and can't rent any. This time, I more vocally express my opinion that i shouldn't be doing voiceover. They insist, saying my voice is fine...they think I'm being self conscious, when really I mean, "It's not my DAMN job to do your VO" but ultimately I say yes because they're in this far already, and it's a church and it's for a good cause... Now at the moment I'm editing this piece. What was once a single day, grab a little video type thing for a good cause has turned into a multi day full blown shoot and edit. And in the last email, containing the overlong script, the pastor says how blessed they are to have someone like me with my skills. Blessed nothing, you just took advantage of my charity, and asked a little more, and a little more. When this is all done, I intend to give them an invoice showing them what all the work I did for free was worth. They got in excess of $1000.00 for nothing! And next time, I'm gonna be more firm. I won't say I'll never do charitable work again, but in the future, I'm gonna draw the line. I'm going to do what is asked of me, and nothing more, at least, not without some compensation for the added work. Whewwww, that feels nice to vent this stuff. Now back to editing. Now let's hear from you all. Ever gotten into something, and found you can't get out? BR

It is a weird choice, and the wrong one, I think. He certainly didn't consult me on this, because I would've advised a DSLR or and EX1/3. He said he got a good deal, but I can't imagine he somehow got a Red for the weekend for less than the price of renting one of those other cameras. The RED is a bewitching camera...

Why, I was composing my shots like that in film school. My professors got on my case about it, but "the King's Speech" just goes to show I was ahead of my time! ;) BR

Kind of bummed this evening. Found out a director I've worked for had shoot tomorrow. I hadn't heard anything about it, and sent a "Good luck on your shoot, what's it about" kind of message, to learn more. Turns out it was one of these commercials we had discussed me DPing for him. But he told me that rather than use me, they opted to rent a RED, and spend the remainder for an AC to handle it. Basically my duties are being spread between a director and an AC, and a camera which they presume will produce a slick image (though shooting Red for a low budget commercial seems like overkill...) Maybe it's a one time thing, and I'm probably overthinking things, but it's this kind of thinking that has me worried. With cameras that produce increasingly high rez, slick images, and perform better and better with available light, in low light conditions. Is all this going to diminish the DP's role, as was done here by basically redistributing the money to better gear, and delegating a DPs duties to the director and an assistant? Or am I just bummed by being replaced for the time being by a piece of equipment? :( BR

I was quite amazed at their use of wide angle lenses, and what they were able to do in small spaces. Does anyone know how much of the film was shot on soundstage, versus on location? I hope this film gets a nom for Best Art Direction, because I sure had trouble figuring out which were sets...everything look marvelously lived in and didn't have that feel of open space outside of the frame that usually betrays a set with no ceiling.

I've also found Kubrick's use of handheld to be quite exceptional. He knew just when to use it, and married it with many other camera techniques so it never felt trite or overused. Sheesh, is there nothing this guy WASN'T good at...except producing films at regular, timely intervals....

I thought the ending was botched by the camerawork and editing. It was difficult to really take in the choreography, and yet at the end we're asked to accept that she gave the performance of her life. It felt like cheating. And when Aaronofsky said he wanted the film to feel real, hence the use of shaky cam, my respect for him fell several orders of magnitude. It's such a cliched thing to say. Who says shaky feels real? It's simply that it codes for real because it's a techniques coopted from 60s documentary cinema. And it's not like THEY were striving for an intentionally shaky image, but rather the shakiness was a functional byproduct of necessity. They had to go handheld to get the shot, which gives it an immediacy. I was reminded of the 20 minute bravura sequence in "The Red Shoes." There, the camera really allows you to take in the ballet, and you're entirely convinced you've witnessed a magnificent debut by this ballerina. Of course, that ballerina was a LEGITIMATE dancer, while Natalie Portman was at best a "never was." So it's like casting a jogger to play an Olympic distance runner. You have to cut around their lack of ability I'd imagine the creators of "Black Swan" wanted to avoid retreading the ground covered by "The REd Shoes," but they would've been well advised to follow the lesson of that film: less was more. Let the action unfold, and don't muck it up with so much stylization.

Jean-Louis, when I first read your post, I thought, "Oh my god, he's dead!?"

I too really love the colors. I hope to be shooting some 16mm soon for a documentary, and would love that kind of saturation. Am I to understand you exposed normally and did not employ any special processing, like pulling? The color saturation levels were adjusted in telecine? Bets, BR

First, you'll wanna fix your link. You left in a stray punctuation mark which forces to link to direct to an error page. Delete it and it'll work fine. As for the video the main critique I have is that it's way, way, way too long. By three or four orders of magnitude. The best demos I see are nice and tight. With yours, I admit skipping a few times to see how long it is, and you DEFINITELY don't want a prospective client to have to do that. Because they won't. They'll just toss it aside. You want something that'll grab the viewer, something that'll load fast. I have a great internet connection, and it still took a while to load. Your client may not be as lucky, and if he has to sit and wait for the vid to load, he's not gonna. Simple as that. But man do you have a great body of work! Such fantastic imagery encompassing so many forms! The opening shot was gorgeous. They say the first shot should be the best, like a demo for the demo, and you do it! You could easily construct several, excellent, tightly edited videos with all the content you have, and each can be geared to a different purpose. You could have a video just for your music work, another for commercial, another for shorts. You've got a surplus of great stuff to choose from, which is lucky. I've seen demo reels that were utter poop, that maybe had one good shot, which doesn't a demo video make. The only thing I could tell the person was, "You need to go shoot some more, because there's nothing here." But man, this is one of the best demo's I've viewed, including those of seasoned professionals. I've been at this game eight ears and haven't shot anything half as good. I checked your IMDB, and I can't believe how fast you've risen in a few years. Goddamn. I'm envious, truly. Best, BR