Gabriel de Bourg

I'd say... don't allow so called common wisdom or practice define how you relate to your director. When shooting something what matters most, and what you will enjoy most, are the relationships you develop with your director and all the other lovely people on set.

 

Each director is a different person, hence the relationship you will build with her/him/them shall be unique and different to the ones you build with others. Follow your instict and don't forget it's a group effort. As a DP/cinematographer your responsibility does not stop with getting a technically correct image or move, you are telling the story. From this fact one thing derives, the one I personally enjoy most, and it's that you are expected to have a vision for the film just as the director has. You are the Director too, in fact, you should have a solid grasp of the editing and of the visual flow, so that your boss can focus and all the other gazillion aspects of the production.

 

Actually, and I'm talking from personal experience, I appreciate a director that can and wants to operate. It'll give me a much firmer understanding of what the grammar and style of the film are, an understanding which is very difficult to communicate with words. Sometimes, and here's when I do enjoy most, this switching of the roles leads to a healthy competition to see who gets the best shot.

 

Look at this picture, these two have known each other since high school and they're creating the cinema of the future. Do you think they care who operates what and when? Their relationship is way beyond what the rule book says it shoud be! And maybe that's why they keep creating such stunning work...

Well said! Our job on the set is to serve the directors vision and if the director sees his or her vision while operating the camera (and are skilled enough to do it themselves) I see no reason not to.

Spielberg is another director who operates the camera a lot. Heck he's even an honorary SOC member. Just look at this footage from Jurassic Park (one of the best Behind the scenes I've seen, as it's not edited, but really shows the work going on) and you can tell that he knows what he's doing:

http://vimeo.com/27123661

Great document, as always. I love Slocombe's way of lighting, old school and moody, with lots of backlight (the way I like it). I think he's one of the few DPs (Dean Cundey is another example) who use hard light in a "realistic sense" (which is usually associated with soft light) but still keep it stylish and moody. In an age of Kino-Flos and large silks I love looking at Slocombe, with his 10Ks and strong backlight. His work is truly timeless, harkening back to the studio and black and white lighting, while still being modern. Just like the films themselves.

Super 35 was already available as a shooting format when James Cameron shot "Aliens". "Greystoke" and "Silverado" came out first in 1983 and 1985, and "Absolute Beginners" and "Top Gun" around the same time as the "Alien" sequel. It has been stated somewhere that Cameron refused to shoot "Aliens" in Super 35 because the lab people told him horror stories about how grainy and dupey the picture would look if he had used the new or "revived" format. In fact, "Aliens" is still remembered as one of the grainest looking 70mm blow-ups ever, and has looked very grainy until the recent digital restoration for the Blu-ray, which included lots of "creative" noise reduction. Cameron claimed on the DVD audiocommentary that now he would shoot the picture in 2.40:1 if only to match the aspect ratio of the previous film, but he didn't make clear it that meant he regrets having avoided Super 35 2.40:1 or if he would have shot it with anamorphic lenses. He only switched to Super 35 when he figured out the trick was to overexpose his negatives, plus by the late 80's, when he made "The Abyss", Kodak had already released their T-Grain stocks.

You are absolutely right, I should have clarified that better. Super 35 were however not as common at the time. And Aliens is a very grainy film (I've seen it projected in 70mm and the grain was very apparent) and on home video the movie didn't really look "good" until the Blu-Ray (which I really enjoy, I love Adrian Biddle's cinematography in that film, so it was nice to get a good upgrade and I preferred it to the 70mm print I saw).

As Dave mentioned slightly, I think compositing and visual effects definitely had some input there as well. Anamorphics were a lot harder to work with for visual effects, with all their "flaws" and distortion. For that James Cameron picked 1.85:1 because of his many issues with shooting the effects sequences anamorphically on Escape From New York, but said in an interview he would have preferred to shoot in 2.39:1 Super 35 if it had been available. CGI at the time had not been done on any anamorphic movie (The Abyss was shot in Super 35). Home video would of course also have been a contributor (Jurassic Park was open matte on all the non VFX shot on VHS). A pattern is Spielberg often using anamorphics for his less visual effects heavy movies of the time (the Indiana Jones trilogy being more heavy on stunts). Cundey was of course used to working with both formats (and has admitted he prefers 2.39:1 aspect ratio), shooting anamorphics on his work with John Carpenter and Romancing the Stone with Zemeckis, again not a VFX heavy movie. He and Zemeckis would after that switch to 1.85:1 on the Back to the Future trilogy and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, both of them heavy on VFX work (albeit optical).

I would guess it was therefore partially picked for techincal reasons and the other being to accommodate the height of the dinosaurs (as David said). This was the reason Joss Whedon and Seamus McGarvey picked 1.85:1 on the The Avengers, to better frame The Hulk in shot.

What he means is lens distortion that happens horizontally, not vertically (like barrel distortion). Here's a good example of cylindrical distortion:

Gabriel. the Fuji Vivid stocks have a punch and great contrast . You are looking for a 80's look for your movie yes? in the 80's Kodak [which most films were shot on] still had that. Now no longer , but Fuji's Vivid range have captured that again so Vivid 500 is the one you need. Its a terrible loss that are stopping production of Motion Picture products . Good luck.

That was what I was thinking too (I like a lot of the Vivid stuff I've seen as well). Thank you for your help John!

Prices for new stocks are going up, but for overstock it's cheap.

And John: why would you tecommend the 500 Vivid? I love your articles and was looking more at the Vivid anyway so I'd love to hear some input.

I will soon be DPing a short on 16mm. The film is a horror film made to look like a horror film from the 80s (the biggest influence has been Evil Dead II). Because Fuji will be shutting down soon, we get very good deal from their clearance.

But then comes the question of choosing a stock. The whole film is set indoors at night, which means I'm looking into different high speed stocks. The three I'm looking at is Eterna 400T (8683), which I can get for the best price or Eterna 500T (8673) or Eterna Vivid 500T (8647). Also, I've been recommending overexposing the 500 stocks and rating them at 320, would it be a good idea to rate the 400 at 250 then? I will also finish it digitally and do a grade there.

It depends on the shots. Rule of thumb is basically that the bigger and wider the shot, the more light is needed. With an ND9 you could probably get away mostly with Kinos without too much of a problem in Medium and Close ups.

I actually don't think 48fps is a bad idea for 3D. I always feel that the smoothness of film isn't the same in 3D, where it seems kind of fake. As the idea is to immerse more, well, then doing it in 48 makes sense to me.

A great look. Loved your document on Cronenweth (big fan of his work) and now Biddle, one my greatest influences (probably second to Dean Cundey) and one of the first cinematographers I liked. Great read, with great quotes. I love Biddle's work with colors and mixing very soft fill with harder "natural" sources to shape the faces. Like him, I like to light night scenes with tungsten, something I do quite a bit. This quote was something that struck me, as it is essentially a way that sums up my way of working:

‎"I find a source of light for each shot and build on that. You get artistic buzz from it, but a lot of times it's just working at it and doing your job."

For me, that's how I think. I work around what the natural sources are, shine light through windows, use walls and ceilings for bounce and similarly to make it all feel natural, then add splices of color from practicals, or a light shining in from another room, a streetlamp outside the window or something else, to create mood and feel.

This might sound counterproductive, but you could drop the shadows in post a lot. While it's not good to "fix" in post, I do that on my GH2. It looks best if you keep it within a 5-stop range (two over, two under), as then it is basically noise free. But I want even deeper blacks, I will adjust accordingly. So say I have a place in the shot where I would just want a smaller 4:1 ratio, then I would light it with a 2:1 ratio, then knowing it will be darker in post. It's a way of avoiding noise, but still getting deeper blacks. While you want as much on set, if you plan on doing something in post and shoot with that on set, it's a different beast, as it isn't "fixing" it in post, as just knowing how to do it in post.

Is it very important that they are native 4/3s lenses? Otherwise I'd recommend getting an old Nikon 55mm 2.8 Micro, lovely Macro lens and for a fisheye, Samyang/Rokinon has an 8mm 3.5 that I hear is nice.

I forgot one film, even though that's 11, but what the heck!

L.A. Confidential: Dante Spinotti did magnificent work on this film and I prefer it to his work in Heat, as I find it more refined. He gets the feeling of sunny California of the 50s, but without it feeling old. It also has the most beautiful zoom ever seen, when Exley and Bud White face down with each other on the street.

Here are some of my personal favorites (in no particular order). Some might seem like odd choices, but these are often films that I refer too and use as an influence.

Jurassic Park: Dean Cundey is my all time favorite DP and I consider this to be his greatest work (with Roger Rabbit a close second). Makes great use of the 1.85:1 frame, with fantastic compositions (my favorite being Muldoon standing with the shotgun and Laura Dern next to him), great use of Cundey's characteristic fill light from underneath and camera moves and blocking so well thought out that they become invisible. The cinematography in this film is in many ways invisible, which is why I think it's so great: It never gets in the way of the story. Some films are made to beautiful while some are stories told through a camera. This is one of the greatest examples of the latter.

The Empire Strikes Back: Peter Suschitzky does a marvelous job here, from the scenes on Hoth, with huge soft sources to the low key finale on Cloud City with great use of smoke, shadows and warm light. Not only the best Star Wars film, but the best looking one too.

The Godfather I & II: Whenever I need a character to look mysterious, having questionable morals or show that it's a dingy, low lit locale, I often specify "Godfahter-eyes". Willis use of shadowed eyes is of course just one part of the puzzle, the other being his use of underexposure (for example when Michael is overlooking the lake in II, as a silhouette is just beautiful) and the amazing brown-red colors.

2001: A Space Odyssey: Kubrick is a great visionary director and all his films deliver great cinematography. The one I enjoy the most is 2001, which is just a feast for the eyes (and ears).

Blade Runner: Jordan Cronenweth created something few people can: A movie that's almost black and white and at the same time filled with color. It's a deeply layered movie, with strong use of contrasts, almost in a black & white sense, but with splashes of color and neon creating an atmosphere that wraps it all up.

Apocalypse Now: While I can have split opinions on Storaro as a person, I can not say anything else but that he is a true mastermind as a cinematographer. Apocalypse Now has some sequences (to me the bridge attack and Playboy show) where I just drop in awe. To see this film in it's original 2.39:1 aspect ratio on Blu-Ray really brought the point home, as the extra frame really proved what I've been missing during these years.

True Grit: For me it was either The Shawshank Redemption or this and in the end, I think True Grit is Deakins best work (so far). He captures the rough, hard nature of the west in a way that's very natural, but still with great style.

Inception: Of course, Pfister beat Deakins to the Oscar last year and while one can argue which one deserved it the most, it was not undeserved. Pfister is a master of creating dynamic cinematography, going between a steady tripod shot to a handheld shot, just when it's needed. And the environmental shots in this film are truly epic.

Drive: Newton Thomas Sigel really proved to me what the Alexa was capable of with Drive. Even with the less need for lights, it shows that you still need to light for character. And boy does he. His faces are in some cases almost perfectly split between light and shadow, here taking out the duality of each character. Funnily enough, there is almost no handheld in this film, but the camera is almost always on a dolly or jib, always being able to move around and follow the action.

Touch of Evil: While Kane is amazing, Touch of Evil was one I found more interesting. Kane made great use of depth of field, but it was almost too much. Touch of Evil is scaled back and very raw, especially for an older film in some scenes, but makes great use of wide-angle. And of course, there's the opening crane shot, where one falls in love with the rest of the film.

I'd recommend reading some of Art Adams articles:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams

Especially this one:

http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/aadams/story/fill_light_the_underdog_of_lighting/

It talks about fill light and I can tell you that it had a HUGE impact on my way of thinking. After reading this I found out the best place to place my fill lights... Underneath!

This is also a nice breakdown of a few shots by Janusz Kaminski, very nicely done.

http://thetwopointeight.tumblr.com/

But lastly, something that really helps? A set dresser. The best lighting I've done is when I haven't just lit persons, but rooms. Then you focus on bringing out the room and letting the actors move in it. This means setup takes longer initially, but little to no time between shots (you sometimes just adjust some lights for close-ups, but other than that, that's it). But the problems is that most rooms you shoot are... Boring. Getting a set dresser in there, creating something means you suddenly have something to work with!