Bill DiPietra

I agree, but you don't need to know everything. I think everything can appear rather daunting when you are using only one method of learning. In my case, I never attended a dedicated film program. My major (in both undergraduate & graduate schools) was Media Arts. I've always loved the theoretical aspects of film, but the production classes in both programs were extremely limited. After undergrad, I began reading a lot on my own. The first book I read was Cinematography by Kris Malkiewicz (before David had made his contribution to that book) and I really learned a lot. So I found reading, combined with practical use to be the best of both worlds. When I purchased my ARRI-S - as well as some lights & grip equipment - that's when things really started to click. So I guess I learned a lot on my own. Mind you, you always need to be reading, practicing & learning. And of course, this forum has been an invaluable source of knowledge over the past 16 years...

Be that as it may, it's worth discussing. The primary mark of a great cinematographer is that his/her photography serves the story. There are certain cinematographers whose work is so immersive that their photography disappears into the film. Roger Deakins is one them. To contrast, I love Robert Richardson & Janusz Kaminski and their respective works, but you can definitely "see" their styles in virtually every one of their films. With Richardson, it's the over-exposed top-lighting and with Kaminski it's often the powerful white light coming through the windows. All three are styles. All three serve the stories in different ways. But I think Deakins falls more into the class of Haskell Wexler, William Fraker, Vilmos Zsigmond, Conrad Hall and even Gordon Willis in the sense that he doesn't use any more than he really needs to to tell the story. Unless it's been highly publicized, I often need to see the credits in order to now Roger Deakins shot the film.

A very good read. Thanks for posting.

This forum has been straying WAY OFF point for a while now, but this takes the cake. Now, one member is telling another how to raise his kids?!... It's called cinemotgraphy.com for a reason. Keep the threads & posts within acceptable parameters, please.

This is the first time you've mentioned anything about this thread being in furtherance of a thesis. If you'd started the thread out like that, I think the responses would have been quite different. When you give limited information - especially on the internet - all people can do is make assumptions. As to your original query - "What makes a good student film?" - it's kind of like asking someone what their favorite color is. Everyone will give you a different answer. As someone mentioned, you should be thinking about what makes a good "film" in general. Don't limit yourself to student shorts. The films that inspire me range from the early silents to some of today's indies. I'm even inspired by some of the shorts I see on Vimeo, every now and then. There are some interesting shorts on there.

I got mine at the ASC and it was worth every penny. With the exceptions of Cyan, Magenta & Azure (he talks about Black, Grey & White instead,) he discusses the different histories, meanings and philosophies of the other seven colors in great detail. As you are a great admirer of his work, Alexandros, I think you would find it a very worthwhile purchase.

Hey Mitch! Great to see you back, here! :)

I think you're doing yourself a disservice with the rapid-fire editing. Your work is really nice, but it's rather hard to judge it fairly since the shots are so quick.

Oh yes! The teddy bear!

I was just thinking about this film today. It's one of my favorite period pieces.

Very impressive, David! The premise itself looks like an interesting one.

LOL...fair enough.

You have over a century of films to choose from and you pick three from 2001?...

When I first saw the 1956 original as a kid, I was looking under my bed for a seed-pod...

I'm really not sure what the general consensus is on these, but they are definitely more like B-grade movies or/cult classics: Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) The Thing (1982) Day of the Dead (1985) Pumpkinhead (1988) King of New York (1990)

And if all else fails, there are tons on ebay.

That's awesome, Robin! Just saw your dad's credits!

Getting back to this, did Knight of Cups every get a theatrical release? It looks to be on it's way to DVD in June...

Also, ColorLab in Maryland does mag transfers.

That's a very different complaint than the one you mentioned in your original post. At that level, the last thing anyone should be is lazy (especially in film school)...

Congrats, David!

Hi Kurt. As Rob mentioned you would record the sound on a (1/4" tape) Nagra reel-to-reel recorder and then the lab would transfer it to a magtrack, equivalent to the size of the film gauge you are shooting on. Check ebay... Nagra 4.2

Like most other students who have been gracing this forum as of late, you seem rather judgmental of your peers' work considering you too are still in school. Maybe it's a generational thing, but when I was in college I had a very open mind about everything I watched or made or helped make. That doesn't seem to be the case these days. Sure, it's fine to think "Well, he did 'A' but I would have done 'B'." It's important to start thinking critically. Furthermore, if the films you've been working on are so weak in the fundamentals, what have you been doing to improve them? It's a team sport. You're in school. You're there to learn.

Is that so?...

Nice, Justin! Congrats!