Frank Gollner

I've always wondered why the aspect ratio of 1.33:1 or 4:3 was settled upon in the early days of cinema, with the Lumiere Brothers in Europe and Edison and Co State side. Does anybody know? Did it have anything to do with the then state of lens manufacturing, poor by todays standards, which resulted in optics that could only direct the light to an aspect ratio approximating a square, without resulting in some vignetting? Thanks in advance for any insight.

I hope I am not to late with this suggestion, but if you can access back issues of American Cinematographer, there is an interview with Roger Deakins who was the DP on the Coen Brothers "The Man Who Wasn't There" He shot the film in colour, as insurance against the Studio backing out of the idea of releasing it in cinemas in B&W, then converted to Black and White in post. The article provides some interesting insights, both pro's and cons to this approach.

There is another ingredient that needs to be factored in when discussing frame rates and that is the physiological aspect of human perception. There are two concepts I encountered when reading a book titled "The History of Narrative Film" Sadly I no longer have the book so I cannot recall the author, but as I recall the first chapter dealt with a brief history of human perception. Over the centuries, scientists psychologists and more recently neurologists have come to an understanding of how the human brain and eye, work together to enable us to see the world we see. On a very basic level I was introduced to two terms "Persistence of Vision" which is the brains ability to retain an image for a fraction of a second after the light has been absorded by the eye, and "Phi Phenomena" Using the books example, Phi Phenomena allows us to take a colour wheel painted with equal thirds, red, blue and green, spin the wheel at high speed so that the individual colours appear as completely white to the human eye. It is this same phenomena that enables 24 individual still images to be run on a projector at 24 frames a second, with the projected light passing through a shutter with a 180 degree angle that allows a frequency of 1/48th of a second. Anything slower than a frequency of 48, the human eye will perceive as flicker. In fact this is where the generic term "flicks" that referred to movies or film in the early days of cinema came from. Because celluloid wasn't cheap, especially in the beginning and to save money, camera's were hand cranked at roughly two rotations of the handle a second, giving a rough speed of 16fps, well below the minimum of 48fps, which when projected back at roughly the same speed appeared to "flicker" when viewed by the audience on the big screen. So it isn't just all just about the technology and what it can and can't do, it is as much about the physiological effect it has on the people watching as well that must be taken into account, I understand one of the benefits of filming and projecting at a higher frame rate is it places less strain on the peoples eye's when viewing in 3D. To quote a personel example I couldn't understand why my Mum and Dad didn't want to see any recent films projected in 3D, I asked why, and they told me that when they watched 3D films in the 50's and 60's using the old antiquated technique of viewing through the old red and blue glasses it left them with a headache. It took me a while to convince them that the technology has moved on in 50 years, but the perception still lingered.

On the original and superior 1986 film The Hitcher, starring Rutger Hauer, there ia a commentary with DOP John Seale ASC, ACS and first time Director, Robert Harmon. The Special Edition of William Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet there is a commentary from the crew including DOP Donald McAlpine ASC, ACS. The recent release of the B & W silent classic by F W Murnau, Sunrise A Song of Two Humans onto DVD, features among others a commentary by an ASC member who's name escapes me right now. I will have to dig the DVD up. Hope this helps.

There are two excellent educational sources I can recommend, which emphasize the importance of image over dialogue. The first is F W Murnau's, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, an American B & W Silent film released in 1927. Superb cinematography and a very moving story, told entirely in images. The other is the book, David Mamet;s On Directing. A short and sweet read where the playwrite turned Film Director, summarises a series of lectures he gave on film directing using Sergei Eisenstein's theories of juxtsapostion of images to move a story forward and only resorting to dialogue to add to the scene and not just for the sake of using it. I have watched parts of film at home without sound to see if I could follow the plot still and found it difficult, unlike Sunrise. Also it made me realise how much sound and music add to the power of a scene. For me sound and music is the real third dimension that adds depth to a scene.

Hi Marcus. I to am influenced by Christopher Doyle. In The Mood For Love, one of my all time favourites, as a cinematic experience. I also highly recommend Chungking Express and it's companion piece Fallen Angles, there is a nice carry over joke between these two films. I think there is a documentary on Chris Doyle on Chunking Express on the DVD, featuring his photographic collage artwork, but I have yet to track down Fallen Angle's on DVD, which I am desperate to do. Also if you get The Limits of Control, there is an excellent fly on the wall making of documentary of the film released on the UK version, which features Doyle at work, at one point showing him using his interesting, custom made, hand held rig. I believe there are some interviews on You Tube with Chris Doyle and Director Wong Kai Wai, discussing there collaboration on In the Mood for Love, while at Cannes Film Festival. Hero is another film that Doyle lensed, this time with Director Zhang Yimou, which incorporates the use of colour themes throughout, personal, stunning and epic all rolled into one.

I am surprised there has been very little recognition, as far as I have seen, heard or read, about the fact that Hugo is the first film in Hollywood Oscar history to have won the award for Best Cinematography and not to have originated on film stock. A testament to both Robert Richardson artistic and technical skills and Arri getting it just right with the Alexa.