Satsuki Murashige

You might also try university libraries - a film school like NYU might have something. I checked at my school, San Francisco State University, and they had issues archived back to the 1930's (hard copies, no scans). But then they started organizing last semester, and they put all the old issues up to the 80's into storage! And once they go into storage, they never come out, or so I was told. I can't tell you how bummed I was. As a side note, it was interesting to see all the old advertisements. Ads for the Canon Scoopic 16MS were in every issue in the late 70's/early 80's!

In this sequence, Kubrick crosses the line for a specific reason. If you notice, he cuts from the wide master to the tighter reverse master just as the waiter reveals himself as Delbert Grady, the former caretaker who butchered his family. Shot 1: Wide master. "What do they call you around here, Jeevesy?" "Grady, sir, Delbert Grady." Shot 2: Reverse master - Grady and Jack switch places in the frame, as if looking into a mirror. Jack is Grady, and Grady is Jack. Jack: You chopped your wife and daughter into little bits, and then you blew your brains out." Shot 3: Back to the wide master, switching places again. Grady: "That's strange sir, I don't have any recollection of that at all." Jack: "Mr. Grady, you were the caretaker here." Shot 4: Back to the reverse master, switching places again. Jack's grin falters. Grady's voice changes, suddenly commanding. Grady: I'm sorry to differ with you sir, but you are the caretaker here. You have always been the caretaker." Shot 5: CU of Jack. Shot 6: CU of Grady. So Kubrick is using the line cross to reveal the theme of the double, which appears in many of his films. Whether he did this conciously or not, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that was his main motivation for shooting it in this way, not just that the bathroom looked better from one angle or the other.

The SR2 has a fixed shutter (non-adjustable). The regular non-high speed version has a 180 degree shutter. Don't know about the high speed camera. There might be versions of this camera with adjustable shutter angles, but they're not stock. Changing the shutter angle from 180 to 45 will decrease your exposure by 2 stops.

Nice shot, Will - is that your kid? Charles, my 55mm f1.8 lens is piss-yellow, I just thought that's the way it was supposed to be! I'll try leaving it in the sun for the next few days.

I own this lens, but it's in K mount (bayonet). Did Pentax make this lens in M42 mount as well? I have a 55mm f1.8 regular Takumar (no super-multi-coating) in M42, but it's not as sharp as the other lens.

I prefer the Aaton for handholding as well, but I find the Sachtler quick-release plate from the tripod always digs into my collarbone, so I have to use a shoulder pad of some sort. Do you guys find this as well? As for handholding the SR, you can use an Arri bridgeplate to balance the camera on your shoulder, since it tends to be front heavy with a zoom lens. Makes it a bit heavier though. The pistol grip for the SR2 doesn't stick out far enough for good balance.

As for the cinesaddle, (if that's what it is), maybe the camera gets back-heavy with a big mag on the back and a small prime lens on the front? Or maybe he's filming the POV shot of a fat, drunk character and is doing some "Method" operating.

Hi Tim, I have this book, and have found it to be a great resource. It's not written by Sven Nykvist though - it's more of a collection of essays on the cinematographer's role in European filmmaking, with Mr. Nykvist contributing a few pages to the chapter on "The Cinematographer's View." Other contributers include Jack Cardiff, Luciano Tovoli, Guiseppe Rotunno, and Bernardo Bertolucci. The majority of the book celebrates the cinematography of 100 European films, from 1914 to 1995. Each film has a one page article about it and several film frames in their correct aspect ratio (some films have more than others). Every color film (even color-tinted B&W films like "Cabiria") has full color stills. Each DP only has one film on the list - Nykvist's entry is "Cries and Whispers." I love the book because it contains many films that I've heard of but haven't seen yet (and many I haven't heard of at all), and seeing the frames gives me a reference for the discussions we have on this forum. For example, Ossie Morris's desaturated Technicolor work on "Moulin Rouge" (1953), Sergei Urusevski's wide-angle compositions on "The Cranes Are Flying," and Geoffrey Unsworth's scope compositions on "Tess." Here's my favorite still from the book: Director Jean Renoir holds Curt Courant steady for a shot in La Bete humaine (1938). Courant is using a Cinex camera, one of the first hand-held cameras, made by Bourdereau in France. Looks kinda like an Arri 435 to me.:)

Well, it couldn't hurt, could it? As far as rewiring sockets, you should know that stuff anyway. (I was asked on set recently if I could help rewire sockets for a few china lanterns - I didn't, but I'm camera dept, so I was okay :)). The best way to get ahead quickly when you don't have a lot of set experience is to impress the department head with your general knowledge, ability to listen and work quickly, and to show up on time every day. Here are a few good reference books you should own: http://www.amazon.com/Set-Lighting-Technic...TF8&s=books http://www.amazon.com/Motion-Picture-Video...TF8&s=books I doubt if most film electricians bother to get licensed for general electrician work - set electrician is pretty specialized work.

Hi Matthew, I got interested in making films because of my dad, who is a big film fan. He's Japanese, so I grew up watching Kurosawa films on pirated VHS tapes. He also took me to see my first movie, "Return of the Jedi" when I was three; apparently, I freaked out at the Rancor scene, then asked to go back and see it again the next week. I think this planted the seed in my mind that films were something special. In high school, I had artsy friends who were into Monty Python and Kevin Smith, mainly because their work seemed to suggest that anyone who was clever enough and could find a camera could make a film. So we tried to write horrible rip-off scripts and I storyboarded them. One of my friends had a Hi-8 camera which he had been making stop-motion films with, so we decided to make a short film for U.S. History class about the moon landing. We built a moonscape out of clay, shot a "flying-though-space" sequence with a toy spaceship on a stick in front of a screensaver, then a landing sequence, followed by a claymation sequence of "moon men" attacking the astronauts. I then edited in bits of "Apollo 13" and a moon landing documentary from the public library on two VHS tape recorders (this was right before everyone had desktop editing). It was a big hit, and I was hooked. All of my friends eventually turned to other artistic endeavors and I stuck with filmmaking. When I got to community college, I discovered Super 8. I then borrowed my Dad's old Pentax SLR (an SL)and took up still photography. I learned about exposure and lenses, and decided to be a cinematographer. I took a bunch of classes and shot short films for a few fellow students. About a year and a half ago, I got on an indie 16mm feature shot by Barry Stone, CSC as a PA, and after the first week, got bumped up to 2nd AC. I learned a lot about working on a set (also made tons of embarrassing mistakes) and found that the 1st AC had a great job, always being able to touch the camera! So I decided I wanted to be a professional AC, and eventually work my way up to DP. So that's where I am now (I'm not a professional AC yet, but as soon as I finally graduate from college this semester, I'm going to plunge myself full-time into AC and DP work). Oh, and I'm also left-handed.

Sweet, I'll have to try and get off of work for this. Anyone else from SF on the board want to get together for this one?

Hi Richard, I think the lighting looks great overall, and I like the camera movement - the dolly/steadicam shots are atmospheric. The shots with the Skeletor-esque villian were cheesy, except for the one near the end where he's in the priest outfit (great make-up job on that one). I also didn't like the shot of the girl where she says, "I just woke up and I was here" - it looks a bit like a press-kit, behind-the-scenes interview. I like how you used the audio from the shot as voice-over though. Structure-wise, the trailer starts to fall apart after the "I believe in evil" shot (which is a bit over-lit, IMO). I like how you use quick cuts of MOS shots over the music, but I think you need to add more story moments and quick flashes of your set pieces - guy and girl get together, guy and girl get chased, guy and girl get separated, villian appears, monster jumps out at them, etc. I would take suspenseful static shots like the girl on the staircase from the 2nd half of the trailer and insert it into the 1st half, then include more fast moving dolly/steadicam shots to the latter half. I also thought the "bimbo" shots stuck out like a sore thumb. Hope I don't seem too negative to you, because I'm really impressed with what you've been able to do on such a small budget, self-financed no less. It's good to hear that the film is getting some industry attention. Good luck! David, maybe Richard will be able to get Naomi for the sequel, a la "El Mariachi"/"Desperado"? :)

Yes, thank you for posting that! I just read through all of the threads and had many of my own questions answered. Mr. Deakins' thoughts on working with actors and his own working process were particularly insightful. I don't blame him for not posting recently - it looks like he's very busy right now, according to IMDB. :) A very generous gentleman.

One of my favorite cinematography class exercises was to "light an emotion." Each group of three or four students was told to shoot 100' of 16mm color neg, and each student would have about 20'-30' for their one shot. The students would each crew and act for each other. The shot had to be taken from a tripod, no handheld, MOS. This forced us to attempt to create a specific mood with light, while at the same time logically motivating our light sources. I think the key was that each of us had to direct, light, and operate our own shot - I've taken other classes where one student lights, one directs, one operates, etc. While this has its place, I think that having every student be on equal footing as DPs created a very creatively stimulating atmosphere. Plus, in rushes, we were able to see 15 variations on the assignment, and we learned as much from our fellow students' projects as we did shooting our own. It was really amazing to see what people came up with - you could really see who had a natural talent for art direction, operating, directing, and lighting.

Christophe, It's the only lighting diagram in the Alekan chapter, unfortunately. The book David mentioned is only available in a French edition, I believe. I guess that might not be a problem for you, though.:)

You could also try shooting exteriors without an 85 filter and light interiors with HMI's, then time out some of the blue tint when you go to print. This would help desaturate fleshtones, which are primarily red. Use it in conjunction with 2/3 - 1 stop overexposure for more contrast and richer blacks, along with monochromatic art direction.

Teehee ... wonder if they left it on purpose. Take that, HD broadcasters! Those camera ops do an amazing job pulling their own focus.

Yes, but how would you get it on a C-stand? On second thought, let's not go there. Greg, full CTB loses two stops.

Conversely, close-ups in classic 1.33:1 westerns were usually framed almost centered - to make room for the hats!

Wow, these frames look really great! I dig your hard lighting approach - it's very painterly and full of nuance. I'm curious as to how these big commerical shoots work. Did you have plenty of time to light these, or were you rushed at any point? How many setups did you have to get through a day? Also, how did you like the Canon primes? They seem to have a very rich, cinematic look to them.

Here's one of Alekan's lighting diagrams for Beauty and the Beast and its corresponding frame from the book "Reflections." The frame is from one of his "slop prints" which were made from "negative test frames as a way to previsualize his lighting." I'm not sure if that means they are printed from a clip test of the 35mm camera neg, or if they are printed from a large format neg. I would guess that they're contact prints from a 4x5 neg, but I could be wrong. Apparently, Alekan didn't even own a light meter, and lit everything by eye. He tells a funny story about being embarrassed into buying one on Anna Karenina and not knowing how to use it. The British electricians thought he was odd for not using one (although Douglas Slocumbe, BSC apparently never used one either).

Sam, are you saying you wouldn't overexpose because the pull process is slight enough not to lose significant shadow detail, given that we're going through a DI? If you don't overexpose the neg by 1/2 a stop, given that you're underdeveloping 1/2 stop, wouldn't your Zone III become Zone II 1/2? Or is there another reason? Christopher, I think Sam's idea was to use the 1/2 stop pull in lieu of using fill light (when finishing with DI), making the process of lighting B&W neg potentially faster on set. But I agree with you that if time allows, lighting to the proper light levels is ideal.

Well, you could take several approaches based on what you're trying to say with the film. Since she's the subject, I imagine that the look you choose will depend on how she sees herself today - if she's a delusional Norma Desmond type, then you could either show her as she sees herself, or as we see her (a potentially cruel approach, I know). With the former, I would research her old films and try to emulate the photography of the period (Diffusion? Hard/soft key? Angle of key? Key/fill ratios? Focal lengths?). With the latter, I'd go for a more modern realistic approach (Soft key, no fill, no diffusion, shorter focal lengths, mixed color temps), and not go out of my way to make her look good. I wouldn't recommend this approach, but it's an option. If she's a clear-eyed type that has come to terms with the disparity between her past and present appearance, then you might take a more naturalistic approach, making her look as good as possible but not trying to make her look 25. (Soft key, moderate fill, very light diffusion, long lens, balanced color temp). If she's vacillates back and forth between these, then I'd light her in both styles depending on what the topic of the interview is, and which side of her is most likely to come out.

Interesting idea! It'd probably be grainy as all hell though. Also, wouldn't you have to overexpose the neg to get enough shadow detail if you were doing this, negating the benefit of the lower contrast? (Processing to a lower gamma is essentially pulling the film, right?)

Why do they even bother with 2.55? Might as well replace that with 2:1 Univisium (or whatever Storaro's aspect ratio is called).