Darrell Ayer

You're appropriately bagging it. I enjoyed it visually and left feeling it was okay. When I got into a discussion about all the plot problems I slowly realized it was kind of crap. I mean everything was wrong with it from a writing perspective. It was really pretty though. I'm worried that with the last few films that Scott is just recalling his classics for a paycheck so he can retire with a nest egg. Robin Hood was cashing in on Gladiator, this is cashing in on Alien, and next he plans to cash in on Blade Runner. As a person who grew up on these films from childhood until now, I feel kinda cheated. I blame Lucas for showing everyone how to cash out.

KH, Not to be a purist snob, but please read the books and see where the character comes from. Daniel Craig is an almost perfect match to Fleming's original vision. Also the books aren't lighthearted or cheeky in the slightest. Darrell

Taking a moment from talking about the camera work, did anyone notice that the characters where introduced in lighting designed pulled from their origional films. The lighting when you meet Hulk called on Peter Menzies work in "the Incredible Hulk", the same with Thor's intro matchiing Haris Zambarloukos BSC's work and Captain America's intro using that warm classic look Shelly Johnson ASC used. I was really impressed with how that visually "tied" the charaters from their own films into this one. It's was fantasticly respectful of the choices in the previous films' cinematographers and nodded to them before taking on it's own feel. The look for this film was also fantasticly epic and it was the best "super franchise" film I've ever seen. I'm glad Paramount and Marvel really took their time out to make this one espcially great. This was the first film in easily a decade that I walked out of wanting to buy another ticket and go back in.

A fantastic new resource I just finished is "Shooting Movie without Shooting Yourself in the Foot." One of the best books on the responsiblities of a cinematographer. I also found 5 C's to be lacking, you can all of that info in Malkiwicz's (with a little help from Mr. Mullen ASC) Cinematography and more... http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/book_review_how_to_shoot_movies_without_shooting_yourself_in_the_foot/

I would do everything in your power to shoot this scene from the angles from the first 2 pictures and wait for afternoon light (or morning depending on the angle). The location from the angle of the first 2 shots keeps the mood of a spy location, the reverse has very little "spy appeal". Cool location.

I'm seeing it tomorrow... I can't wait. I really love the look from the trailers an the book was awesome. I'm sure more will be posted by me after that... I wish I had something of value to add.... sooon.

I'd keep the ISO at whatever gets you an exposure and I'd get a C stand and a boom arm to hold the china ball or a little tape. And I wouldn't recommend the 30w after seeing the photos, I would say that you need to get your own bulbs in there though unless you want them to be different colors...

Thought I should look at your photos before posting. too. I like the feel of the room as you have it. Use a bit of negative fill on the camera side to strengthen the contrast. Keep lights off the entrance an throw a back kicker on. All in all just use the bedside lamps.

I would keep it dark, put low wattage bulbs in the practical lamps (30w?) and shoot it with a china ball an some other light. I'd keep it overhead an a little behind the lovers, keep spill off the walls with flags. Back light the guy as he comes in so he walks into the light from the hallway. I'm also a huge fan of a light fog for light rays. Good luck.

Tim, You can go at this from any number of ways. Your concentrating on equipment when you should be concentrating on emotion. What is going on in the scene? No one here is going to solve your problems for you. We can give advice but you need to throw something our way. You haven't given day or night, scary or romantic. I would look into reading Film Lighting by Kris Malkiewicz. It'll give a bunch of insight on scenarios. Also, great space to shoot in.

Thanks David. It's funny that I was just reccomended to watch that film earlier today... As always your a fantastic help. Darrell

I have yet to really do any tests but I figured asking would be faster. I'm curious if there is any effect differance in the look of florescent lighting when you use tungsten or daylight film. I'm curious if there is a blue green to the tungsten film as opposed to a warmer yellow green? I became curious of this with the fact that florescent is higher on the Kelvin scale than tungsten light, and therefore cooler with the green shift. And because it's warmer on the K scale than daylight... Thanks for the help.

A quick look at CineGrain isn't a bad idea either... I haven't seen anyone post about it on here. It's real grain shot for the purpose of being overlayed onto video footage to give it a bit more "life"

I was actually stating something less customizable, so you can get a CG "happy accident" much in the same way that Himpstamatic creates a simulation of those effect from Polaroid photos. It would also get it so you can go, "put the 21mm on there." I think there is too much anticeptic in CG. I'm sure the Flare generation is profound now adays though.

This is probably the most helpful Step by Step guide I know of for building lighting. http://www.amazon.com/Shot-Dark-Creative-Digital-Lighting/dp/143545863X Good luck, and stay safe. Darrell

I personally think that someone should come up with a range of SIM-Primes. A range of glass simulation that has specific characteristics much like real glass... as well as defects, not so much a bunch of variables but hard simulated rules with Plug and Play capibilites in redering programs. Make a set of anamorphics or spherical. Make them flare if not properly flagged from 3d lights. A bunch of small issues that can create happy accidents, even in a CG world. In the way hipstamatic makes these things happen on an iPhone (though mind you not the same effect). I wonder if that would have any use in computer work as I'm sure people are fairly anal when building worlds.

Chris, I am refering to the use more for perspective correction than for some focus effect. I'm moving from photo to cinematography and I have a friend who does alot of 4x5 view camera work. I'm just curious if this is distracting or if it has a knowen place in motion work. I love Baraka, and I'm going to look for shot where this could have been used. I just have a feeling it was used in classic Twilight Zone episodes and other things...

I'm wondering if it's totally uncommon or ever been in practice to use a tilt shift lens for extablishing shots. I'm not refering to that "miniature" effect that has become a fad but the use of these lenses to produce a more architectural style for exteriors. To straighten out the perspective lines and give a formal look to building exteriors? I'm interested in examples of this technique being used or if it has even been attempted?

I would agree with you except the CG close up model in the "batpod ejection" shot is a full CG Tumbler, batpod, and batman. The shot matches perfectly with the model shots, and the practical shots, in IMAX no less. As far as motion rendering, this can be changed if they look into the soft edge of the shutter blade, much like Tessive Time Filter is doing for video cameras to clean up the motion artifacting...

IMO the arguement against CG versus practical models is a moot one. If you don't put the time in either can look like poop. I'm sure there is the arguement that since models include physical camera work and training, there is an emotional attachment. In terms of the look, there isn't really a difference at this point and time. The level of artistry that goes into CG effects is simiar to that of models. As is has been said, the right tool for the job works the best, either model or CG or a mixture. Look at Stan Winston's school, they teach a course in intigrated creature design, a hybrid of CG and Suit-monster. I think that as we get into a more fuild interfact with CG sets there will be the ability to have the cinematographer present, look at what cameron has done with Avatar, with his practical camera rig to dictate it's movement in the computer. I think that this will slowly be the way it works in the future, with a traditional (real world) interface dictating the movement, much like a racing controler for a videogame. I'm also sure that lens simulation will advance since effects companies realise how important it is to intigrate shots, and "warm them up a bit." There is already the inclusion of cinematographers to light animated features, because there is an artistry to this job.

My favorate thing about this trailer is that they're going back to the look and feel of the original movie. Even if the Nostromo had a data card punch key based computer and everything in this has giant graphical interfaces... but I digress. I'm impressed with the ash rain look of the planet surface and that they found a way to maintain the original Giger design elements of the alien ship while making it functional (who knew flipping it would be the way to go). I am cautiously excited about this film. In the CG versus model arguement, I feel that both work well nowadays. Especially now that the animators are paying attention to lens defects and the life that brings to a shot. As a kid of the 80's though, something is to be said for the Stan Winston, early ILM days of practical effects. I feel in coming years that CG will be less overdone in the same way that all inovations in film calm down after the first decade or so of use.

Christian It sounds like you need to replact your HDMI cable or check the connection on the T2i. If you need to, plug the camera into your TV with the HDMI to rule out both. If the prolbem happens on the TV then replace the cable (as it is the cheaper item and more prone to failure) 9/10 that's what it is. Also check the hdmi port on the camera as that is also quite weak. Good luck. Darrell

http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2008/07/18/stead-as-she-goes/#comment-1295 “For me, it was doing an overhead Steadicam shot on a moving crane in Road to Perdition,” says Scott Sakamoto, SOC. “Dollying backward, looking straight down and then jibbing down to ground level, stepping off and walking into a room locking onto a mirror reflection. All this done, with the set wall and ceiling dropping into place, coordinating the dolly move with the grips, and the actor (Tom Hanks) for hitting mark and swinging the mirrored door in the precise position.” This could help too...

Phil, If you're not interested in the scene or how it was made why did you click into the thread to begin with? There's no reason you need to bash the technique. One day this could be relevant to anyone reading it. Also,Dole, there's no real reason for name calling... this isn't DVXUser. Michael Tsimperopoulos SOC, that explantion is why I love this forum as well. Regards, Darrell Ayer

There's a few shots that I am in love with in this movie. The turning point behind the American Flag and lighting of the bar scene at the end where he confrots Clooney. The classic, thought out look of the movie had me floored.