danny young

Nice interview from 2002. I liked very much his perspectives on working with actors and actresses, and particularly his approach to rehearsals. Thanks for putting up that link.

I didn't get that feeling really. It strikes me more as an appreciation for those works, and their particular look.

Hi pradeep, Here's a little article that you might find helpful... the basics of exposure :)

Come to think of it, I should have put this in the "Lighting" forum. Can one of the Mods please put my post in "lighting"? Thanks.

Hi. I'm going to be filming a story beginning next month and I'll be using a cameflex. For certain scenes, the director would like to see the performers in silhouette and semi-silhouette, and often backed by the sun. This may involve low camera placements into a high angled sun, eye-level placements with a low-lying sun, and even some handheld work with, again, the sun. There may as well be some static landscapes in which the sun will be visible. I'm not concerned about issues of lens flare or exposure; I would just like to get through this without destroying my eyes.:blink: I'll be using primes, mostly in the 25mm to 35mm range. It's unlikely I'd be using anything greater than a 50mm, but there is a remote chance that I might. I say this because I am somewhat under the impression that as the magnification of the sun decreases, so too does the danger that it can pose. I would appreciate learning what basic steps one should take when the sun can enter the frame, and under what specific conditions one must be particularly cautious. Thanks. B)

And not necessarily to the detriment of the final result. I would rather wait for the sunset.

I'm finding the back-and-forth here of interest. Some of what Brian is saying rings true for me. Some I just find difficult to understand, but I don't fault him for that. This thread perhaps should have been opened in "off-topic", but I am appreciative that it is being tolerated just the same.

The budget was $32,000,000. So for that price wouldn't you think they'd have planned a full theatrical distribution in the planned aspect ratio? I don't see how you can compose for 1.66 with the idea you're going to let it go off in 1.85. Well, maybe I can. It's not so distant after all. I was also wondering if they might have tried releasing with the 1.66 embedded in a 1.85 or scope release so that the full frame height could have be guaranteed. From what I saw on IFC, it looked right for 1.33. Though Bordwell says it looks like it was staged and composed for 1.85. But then Bordwell isn't a cinematographer, and neither am I. Well not yet anyways.

I actually found an with Hedges. Maybe it's the one you saw. He says that he brought his film in for less that 300k, and that while he could have equaled it for 7mil, he could not have done better, which is actually a pretty cool attitude. So now I see where that 7mil figure might have come from. He also noted that he wrote the story to be filmed on digital video because he wanted a "home movie" sort of look, which is sort of interesting. Rather than trying to get a film look out of digital, he decides to use the native look to his advantage. And this was 2003. When I ran across that interview, by the way, I also saw that someone has put Hedges’ entire film up on youtube in 10 minute sections. How is this possible?

I was sort of wondering if the 1.66 made it more difficult for domestic distribution. While the theatres might have had no problem projecting with a 1.85 mask, I wonder what the director/cinematographer would have thought about that. I suppose if you're going to burn down your theatre, Fitzcaralldo would be a fitting final film. I think that hard matte was a good idea; I was in France some years ago and went to see an early Hal Hartley film. The projectionist had the 1.66 mask in and for a good part of the showing, the microphone was visible. It was awful. (But the film was good!)

Hi Craig. Wikipedia is showing a budget of $300,000 with a $2,360,184 gross revenue. IMDb shows the budget and weekly gross. As far as a detailed budget goes, I would have no idea.

I built one of these for my cm3 awhile back. If you like, I can go dig it out and take some photos for you. I used one of those miniature square-formed board cams that use tiny lenses and have composite video out. I ran it into a cheap small lcd monitor. I think you would need around an 8mm lens on the tiny cam to get a full image through the eyepiece; at least that is what I think I used for my cm3, but it took a bit of experimenting to get it right.

I happened to catch part of Soderbergh's 2006 feature The Good German the other night on IFC. It was broadcast in 1.33 so at first I assumed that it had been cropped, which seems unfortunately too often the case with IFC these days. However the compositions appeared so compatible to 1.33 that I began wondering what the original aspect ratio really had been. As it turns out, according to wikipedia and imdb, the film was composed and released at 1.66! So my question is this: How was the release accomplished in the USA where 1.85 and 2.40 release formats rule? Also, another point of confusion is that David Bordwell claims the film was released at 1.85. Bordwell writes "...shots are closer and compositions less compact than in the sort of 1940s film that Soderbergh seems to be mimicking. These factors are probably due to the fact that he had to shoot in 1.85 and couldn’t stick to the 1.33 proportions of the newsreel-montage credits." http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=66