Chris Cooke

On "One Night with the King", Steven Bernstein, ASC used real torches. He had about 3000 made for the production. To help in the foreground, he had polished large reflectors made, from pounded thin sheet metal. He got his crew to cut a hole in the bottom, put a torch there, and it projected the light onto the faces of the actors. He put one on each side of camera, kind of like an obie light. You could probably downscale this idea and come up with very realistic results. You'll have to use a fast stock like 5218/7218 or video and shoot wide open though. I've created a fairly realistic look by spinning a clear water jug filled with water in front of a hard key light with CTO on it and then supplemented by real fire.

It would be good to see a picture to know for sure what you're talking about but I'm guessing that your white light is washing out your blue. You also might want to try using full CTB as your fill light and not let any spill from your key hit any area of the set or person that you want blue. This will ensure that all of the shadows will have a blue tint to them.

The thing with Source 4 ellipsoidals is that the biggest light is a 750w. You can though put K5600 Joker Bugs in them to give them more output. I love ellipsoidals especially for set wall effects. Pars are just a lot more cost effective and usefull in more situations. You can stick any kind of lens in to give them different effects, they output more light (per watt) than fresnels or ellipsoidals, they're relatively cheap and they're less fragile. I like to use mfl pars behind diffusion frames and nsp pars for backlights when shooting live music shows and such. The great thing with ellipsoidals though is that eliminating spill is very easy using the shutters and you can get very crisp edges from them or defocused soft edges. Both pars and ellipsoidals are very useful but we're compairing apples to oranges.

I looked at Steven's page on cameraguild.com and found an interview which was mostly about this particular film. http://www.cameraguild.com/index.html?inte...htm~top.main_hp QUESTION: Was there a discussion about format for this film? BERNSTEIN: We knew straight away that this is a film about big ideas, so we wanted to do something on a grand scale. We decided to compose in 2.4:1 aspect ratio in Super 35 format. We felt it was most appropriate for both the visceral emotions expressed in the story and the scope of endless horizons in all directions in the desert. QUESTION: Why Super 35 rather than anamorphic format? BERNSTEIN: I always advocate anamorphic, even though the lenses are inferior to spherical lenses, because you have one less generation in postproduction. But, now with the improvements in digital intermediate, that?s really no longer a concern. QUESTION: It sounds like you are a DI advocate? BERNSTEIN: Yes and no. I?m concerned about the compromises some people are making. You want to do a digital intermediate at 4,000 lines of resolution and someone claims that 2,000 lines is good enough. They say you won?t be able to tell the difference, or that you can?t tell the difference between Super 16 and 35 mm film, or between film and digital cinematography. The moment we make that compromise, we are on a downward spiral. It?s our obligation to produce the best imagery that we possibly can. I recently saw a remastered print of Lawrence of Arabia in 70 mm format. It was spectacular! That should be our goal.

I didn't even know you were there David. I wish that I would've known before hand. Were you the guy with the camera (I think it was a Z1U)? I flew in from Calgary, AB Canada to see this screening and I'm glad I did. The first person that I saw when I walked through the door was Steven Bernstein, ASC. I got to talk to him a little bit which was a huge deal for a Canadian DP such as myself. Thank you so much for the invitation Steve, I really enjoyed myself. I loved the use of mixed light sources throughout the film. Especially the first time Esther enters the King's chamber. I haven't read much about the technical elements concerning this project yet but I'm assuming that this was a Super 35mm film (as opposed to anamorphic) in order to keep the first AC from having a mental breakdown. It looked like half the film was shot using torch light as the main source which must have meant a very low stop resulting in shallow dof. The strong points in this film were the cinematography and sets. The main actors did a good job especially the girl that played Esther but some of the supporting roles were a little weak. BTW, Steven gets to play the part of Esthers father (for flashback scenes). It was kind of odd but really cool to see him act. The directing and editing had really strong moments but at times took me out of the story. Overall, very good film and every person on this site needs to see it if they want to watch a masterful piece of cinematography. I decided to go to Otto Nemenz this morning to check out some equipment and talk with their support staff. I ended up getting some major favor and meeting a man named Fritz (sp?). This is the guy who works with all the major DP's that come into the shop including Steven Bernstein. He took me on a forty five minute tour of the facility and then took me into his office to chat. I was really impressed with everything that they do there. They are a major player in the industry and yet they still cater to the individual needs of dp's, operators and first ac's. Fritz is good friends with other major dp's like Roger Deakins, ASC and Christopher Doyle, HKSC. I told him about this site and I hope that he comes on some time. Thanks again Steve, I hope to see you again.

I'm no ASC member yet so I can't give you a ticket but I'm also wanting to see this film. The production manager here got a DVD of the trailer in his mail box the other day and told me to come take a look. I really liked the look and feel that Steven Bernstein, ASC created. It's very "Lawrence of Arabia". It looks like there was a lot of creative energy put into all aspects of this film (including the story for once). I'm a little surprised though that it's not coming to theaters in Canada. I'd really like to see it on the big screen.

I like Rosco #72 Azure Blue.

Light the chocolate to a 2.8-1.7 depending on what your lens can handle and then back up a ways so that you can use a telephoto lens. This will ensure that the parts of the frame that you want in focus will be sharp but everything else will drop off. It can be nice to light it with a big source from behind and just off to the side. You'll get some texture this way and a nice big hilight on the chocolate.

How hot does the 800 get compared to... lets say an Arri 1.2k HMI? They're ok to put in softboxes and chinaballs, so I'm guesing the heat is reasonable. I'd like to try it in one of my source four lekos. That'd be quite the output compared to a 750 HPL.

I'm looking at purchasing some smaller HMI's in the near future. I got looking a k5600's lights and was quite impressed untill I got a quote from a nearby dealer. The price on just their 400w is $7,449.00 CAD (a 1.2k Mole Richardson Par was quoted at $3557.00). I like the features listed on their website (http://www.k5600.com/index.html) and I like their sleek black look. Does anyone have experience with k5600 lights?

Try taking in a flexfill to open up when you need it and bounce your HID into it for a slightly diffused key. A torch is a good idea too, maybe you could hang it behind the talent in the shot and use it as a backlight/kicker.

Didn't you mean 1080i? 1080p pretty much wins over any HD format.

Very nice work. I saw it in theaters a couple months ago and then got the chance yesterday to see it again on DVD. I love that scene where Akeelah is reading a poem on the wall everything came together so perfectly. The lighting, the camera, the acting... absolutely beautiful. Who was that quote by? I think that it's very meaningful. I watched the special features and saw you a few times but I was hoping to hear at least a sound bite from you or something. I don't know why there's always extensive interviews with the producers who do very little creatively or technically but we barely ever hear from the cinematographer. The "practical" dinos in the final bee are super sweet. Not many dp's would've taken the chance of putting them in the shot.

Check out the movie called "The Visitation". It's based on the Frank Peretti book. I thought that it had decent cinematography. All of the flashbacks had that "Domino" type cross process look which turned out nicely and the lighting throughout the film from what I can remember was quite moody. If you care to see part of a Christian music video that I shot about 2 years ago, you can click on the following link and then click "The Huron Carol". http://creationarts.ca/2005Festival/2005_screenings.html

Looks great Steven. The colors and contrast are beautiful. I especially like the picture below. If you don't mind giving away a few secrets, how did your practical Fx team get that green flame and such good looking snow without doing it digitally? Also, did you time the picture photochemically or digitally? What did your workflow look like? The_Formorian.bmp

Exactly. Actually, a lot of those lights aren't even aimed at the talent, they're for background hilights and overall background exposure/color seperation. It looks like they're using a lot of 2K fresnels and I see one image 80 kino flo as their key light. Do you see that light really low next to the cameras? That's their eyelight. Whose the televangelist? Does he like to walk around? Is it a one camera shoot? It's really difficult to create nice molding on their faces if your throwing between two or three cameras but the show becomes boring if you leave it on a single shot of the guy the whole time. High-key lighting isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's going to draw the viewer into what the talent is saying. Just don't forget to create some sort of contrast in the frame. I normally light televangelists fairly high-key with a nice eyelight and a simple but not to in your face backlight and then have fun with the background.

True, but Graeme was refering to 169 Lilac Tint which is a lighting filter, not a camera filter. And I know you understand this John but others may not: Lighting filters (gels) are not optically pure so you will get unwanted aberations and vignetting in your image especially at a deep stop and/or close focus such as macro.

The problem with putting diffusion in front of the light after you focus it is that the angle of incidence changes (the light can and probably will change direction) once you put diffusion in front. Remember, the diffusion is now your light source, not the light.

Filmmaking is illusion. Lighting is at the forefront of that illusion. The cinematographers job is to visually support or enhance any particular story. Lighting can create mood, it can hide things and reveal things, it can make a woman more beautiful or an antagonist more ominous. Shaping, moulding and enhancing light should be a passion of every cinematographer. These are some examples of the importance of lighting: A man walks up some old rickety stairs into an attic. As he enters he sees a box, everything in the room is dark, the man is silhouted against a window where a slash of moonlight enters and strikes the box. A man walks up some old rickety stairs into an attic. As he enters he flicks on a light switch. The room is flooded with light as we see boxes, old chairs and paintings. This is the exact same scene as the previous one, the only thing that changed was the lighting but did you notice how it made you feel completely different than the previous scene? What if you want a particular T-stop and use a particular film stock when shooting a night scene lit only by moonlight. Let's say it's T4 on 200t film (because of DOF and apparent grainyness). You're not gonna get that with moonlight alone or even a 1000w open face light from home depot. You're gonna need an 18k HMI on a condor from 100 feet away for your establishing wide shot and then maybe use a 5k HMI for the closeups. What if you don't want that harsh toppy sunlight for a day exterior when your at the pinacle of a love story and your lead characters are about to have their big moment of realizing that their meant for each other (I know, cheesy but you get the point). You're going to need a big 20'x20' butterfly to diffuse the sunlight and then use that as your backlight. Bring in an 18k HMI to fill out another 20'x20' frame to key your lead actress and then your going to have to switch everything around to get the reverse angle of your lead actor. This will look more natural than if you shot it with just sunlight because the sun is always changing. There are many variables that a cinematographer has to think about for every camera, lens, lighting package, operator, focus puller, director and most importantly story. To me, great lighting can make nearly any format look good but a good format (35mm, etc.) can not make poor lighting look great.

I agree. About five minutes in, I thought to myself, "this was a waste of money and time." It ended up not being a complete waste because John Seale, ACS, ASC did some good work. I got some ideas from the way he lit the scenes where the flashlight was the only source. Also, the opening shot was quite impressive as it appeared to be a mix between CGI and an in camera shot. The shot went on for what seemed to be about 2 minutes. If you're going to see a good story, acting or even get entertained... I wouldn't recommend Poseidon.

Going back to the safe factor, a made for tv movie or dramatic series often uses very typical color correction/timing and lens filters (if any at all). CSI is an exception. When making a feature, don't be afraid to process the negative in a way that will heighten the audiences experience and tell the story in a slightly more cinematic way (remember people are going to the movies to escape from reality).

There are quite a few films now that have visual effects DP's such as Alex Funke, ASC in Lord of the Rings (Andrew Lesnie, ACS, ASC was the DP). Also, an example of a big film with two big name DP's is Titanic. Caleb Deschanel, ASC got replaced by Russell Carpenter, ASC because "there was a lot of tension and a lot of difference in working style between James Cameron and Caleb Deschanel and he didn?t know how long things were gonna go before one person or the other said he?d had it." http://www.moviemaker.com/issues/29/29_carpenter.html Deschanel shot the begining and end of the film where all of the old survivors were reminiscing.

Any more news on the 416? I just contacted my Arri rep here in Canada about it but he hasn't got back to me yet. Those ultra 16 primes look great but where's Zeiss' s16 zoom lens with a PL mount? I found an Angenieux 7-81 HR lens that I think will work well with the 416. Does anyone have experience with this lens? These are the differences between the 416 and the 416 plus straight from Arri's website. I'm glad to see that the 416 can be upgraded. I wonder what the price difference is. Q: What is the difference between the 416 and the 416 Plus? A: The 416 has the same connectors (BAT, REMOTE, RS) as the 235, plus a standard LEMO timecode connector. The 416 Plus has additional accessory electronics integrated. You can plug lens motors directly into the 416 Plus, and it contains a radio for wireless remote control of camera (RUN/STOP, fps, preferences, ramps) and lens (focus, iris, zoom). Q: Can I upgrade the 416 to a 416 Plus? A: Yes. The difference between 416 and 416 Plus is the right side of the camera. The whole right side can be removed and the 416 right side can be replaced with the right side of the 416 Plus.

Jesus Christ - Jim Caviezal William Wallace - Mel Gibson

Here's a couple pics of the band taken a few hours ago during production.