Justin Hayward

On 7/30/2022 at 11:08 PM, Wilson Graham Skinner said:

I've shot 2 features already both with Alexa cameras and really enjoy the workflow and color.

Nice!  Can we see them?

To answer your question to the best of my knowledge... yes, I have heard of cinematographers buying a camera people are using these days and getting cinematographer jobs because of it.

10 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

 But generally you're in a white void for a heavenly light-is-everywhere effect so flatness seems OK.

And if the background is pure white, then anything in the foreground that has any sort of color (even skin tones) will feel like color contrast and not flat in my opinion.

I know you specifically said "narrative DP's" and because you labeled yourself, "cinematagrapher", not "director", ... I want to preface my point with where I'm coming from which is the advertising world...

In advertising the storyboards almost never involve the DP.  The first boards are drawn up by the agency and then go out to directors for them to pitch their ideas through a phone/zoom call that gets narrowed down to the top three.  Then the director writes a treatment ( or hires someone to) that involves loads of sample images.  Then if the director wins the job, they do their own boards with their own storyboard artist.  

Obviously it's all totally different in feature films.  For me personally, if I get to make a feature from any one of the scripts I've been working on, I would board the whole movie and shoot and edit the boards with sound and everything to show people for feedback.  Then I would collaborate with the DP on their ideas for shots and lighting.  I'm excited to get to that point... the collaboration.  

On 11/28/2021 at 2:05 PM, Phil Rhodes said:

This is now so bad that it's actively preventing people from going to movie theatres because the sound experience is positively disagreeable. It's not entertainment, it's something you want to be over because it is actually nasty. 

I agree, but I wonder if it's something new or something we forgot about due to the pandemic lockdowns.  When I built my home movie theater (which I'm very proud of and have mentioned several times on this website, because I'm a huge jerk:) when I built my home movie theater and installed the sound system to it's specs according to what the filmmakers intended, the first thing I noticed was if I turned the volume up so I could hear the dialogue, the moment any sort of action happened, it knocked our socks off.  It was so loud I had to scream at the top of my lungs to my wife sitting three feet away from me to pass the popcorn.  After a certain movie blew two of my speakers I decided to do some of my own sound mixing.  I turned up the center channel almost four times louder than the rest of the speakers.  That way I could hear the dialogue nice and clear, but wouldn't blow the rest of my speakers the moment something got a little louder and I could talk to my wife in a almost normal voice in the loud scenes.  I'm old and I like it better that way.

I lived with that set up for a year and a half in lockdown.  Then vaccinations showed up and I went back to the movie theater after a full year and a half...  And yes, the sound blew my hair back and I was totally shocked how freaking loud it was.  But I had to ask myself if that was because I accustomed myself to my own personal sound system for a year and a half and forgot about what movies in theaters actually sound like... OR... was it my shock of reality getting back to the world?

Or have big film directors decided to blow our ears out with sound in movie theaters simply as a way to remind us why we all need to go back to movie theaters in the first place?

I don't know the answers to any of these questions, but I totally agree the sound of some of these movies in theaters is too loud.

3 hours ago, Gregory Irwin said:

It’s being reported that the loaded gun was placed on an open cart where the First AD, Dave Halls, picked it up without either checking with the amourer if it was ok to take it or checking if the gun was loaded or empty. If true, he needs to be thrown out of the DGA

Yeah, it's not like he grabbed a prop cell phone and handed it to an actor just to keep things moving.  It's mothertrucking gun.  It's heavy, deadly, gun. You're right, it seems like common sense was tossed out the window.

12 hours ago, Gregory Irwin said:

Congratulations Justin! You’re in the best guide in the business!

G

So I've heard!  Sounds like they treat their members well.  They sent me a package full of cool stuff to go thru... nice letters... magazines... all sorts of cool stuff.   Like I said, my 12-year-old self is beaming. ?

18 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

Congrats Justin!

Is that Jonathan Demme? 

It is.  And that's Denzel Washington in the background which means this is a behind-the-scenes shot of "Philadelphia."  I'm a little surprised it's not Howard Hawks or John Ford or whoever since they essentially founded the DGA, but of course Jonathan Demme is a great director in my opinion, so... ?‍♂️

Thanks!  I am excited about it.  Don't think it will help me get my feature made, but it's cool to be a part of a somewhat exclusive club of people that do what I've wanted to do my whole life.  Feels nice.

It doesn't change my life all that much other than I get some cool screeners and a pension, but my 12-year-old self is super excited.  ?

I think I’m safe. Google “Justin Hayward“ and see what you get.

edit: and no, my parents did not do that on purpose.

I stand corrected.  The 4:3 with extra headroom looks better in my opinion.  Ugh... ?

I want to see a movie shot in 2.40:1 aspect ratio with anamorphic lenses that’s cropped to 4:3 in post and the only camera moves in the whole movie are pan and scan.

edit: for artistic purposes 

6 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

But...why?

???. Yeah and I watched the original version before it. The filmmaker in me had to compare the directing choices. I couldn’t help myself. 

I’m watching this movie right now and I would be really impressed by anyone that could give me a good artistic purpose why this movie is pillar boxed to 4:3 for any other reason than being noticeably different.

Edit: I feel like whole performances from actors were pillar boxed out of this movie.?

2 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I think it's because a lot of newer theaters put in 1.9 : 1 screens to follow DCI specs for digital projection, and don't use curtains or borders to adjust the size of the screen. It's a shame -- 2.39 should be bigger than 1.85 horizontally, not shorter vertically.

It wouldn't be so bad if they at least masked the letter-boxed area with something.  They don't even bother doing that anymore.  Just looks like a giant TV.  For my projector room I cut strips of foam core, painted them dark brown to match the walls and stick them to the letter-boxed area with clear velcro for 2.39 movies.  Much more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion.?

9 hours ago, Dom Jaeger said:

because he had fallen in love with the squarer IMAX native aspect ratio 

Ever notice the aspect ratios that were meant to provide a "bigger" experience are now providing a smaller one?  2:39 was meant to be a "wider" viewing experience in theaters.  You swapped to the scope lens, the curtains would open, and the screen would get physically wider.  Now they just letterbox it... even in a lot of chain theaters, but always on home viewing which is all we get now, so the 2:39 image is actually smaller than if you had just shot 16x9.

Lately IMAX movies shoot 1:33 for a much taller/bigger image in the theater than 1:85 or 16x9, but this movie isn't going to IMAX, it's going to HBO Max where it will be pillar-boxed to literally be the smallest aspect ratio we could possibly watch it in.   If I ever get to make a movie I think I'll shoot 4:3, then letterbox it to 2:39 so there'll be a small rectangle in the middle of your TV.  Then I'll recommend you watch it with binoculars for the full viewing experience.  ??

Does anyone have any idea why this might be 1:33 aspect ratio other than a way to differentiate it from the other version?

1 hour ago, Phil Rhodes said:

I think it might be at least as difficult to make digital formats look good, i

 

Totally agree.  It's very difficult to make anything look good in my opinion, but I don't believe a lot of people in this business have an honest subjective opinion if something looks good or doesn't. Now that digital has democratized the process (as Tyler put it) now you only have to eyeball a decent exposure and tell everybody it looks good and they'll believe you.  With film, you had to have some experience in the technique just to get a decent exposure.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm not a crazy film nut.  I don't think I've shot on film for ten years.  I'm just saying in the days of film, 24 year olds weren't getting $3500 a day to DP anything.

1 hour ago, Phil Rhodes said:

 

I think we should also be a little cautious as regards lionising 35mm people. It's only possible to shoot 35mm effectively with absolutely massive support, from camera assistants to the entire lab and transfer apparatus, so it's more likely than ever to be an issue of relying on other people

I said in the eyes of the layman, not other filmmakers or support crew.  I'm always thinking in terms of commercials these days, because that's pretty much all I do and the "layman" in the commercial world are agency people.  Trust me when I tell you, they don't know what a focus puller is.  I spoke to a gaffer not to long ago that was on a multi-million dollar commercial with a 24 year old DP that didn't understand ratios between dimming lights and adjusting the stop. That would never have happened in the days of film.

This is the only reason I miss anything considered professional having to be shot on 35mm film.  There was a technique to it that had to be learned and the person that could put film into a camera and spit out a beautiful image the next day was thought to be a magician in the eyes of the layman.  Those days are GONE... Gone... gone...

On 1/7/2021 at 5:00 PM, Phil Rhodes said:

Suspect I'll be the most remote involvee, my schedule is alarmingly flexible at the moment.

Obviously if it's the weekend, it's going to be a little easier.  We could do a LA-11am, New York-2pm, London-7pm (if that's the right time difference). Or a LA-3pm, New York-6pm, London-11pm... if that's not too late for you Phil.  Or somewhere in between.  There's really no way for Phil to do the morning without the rest of us going really late or Phil getting up at like 4am, so...  Whatever you all think works for me.

Time frame on my little "movie club" has been one of the hardest things to negotiate.  New York to LA is a three hour difference and we all want to do evening.  Obviously the other side of the world is a bigger issue.

As far as picking a movie... there's not much to it... something streaming.... something people would talk about.... I'll give five I just watched that I feel are worth talking about....

"Blue Jasmine" A fantastic take on "Streetcar Named Desire" in my opinion.  Streaming on Prime for $3.99

"Agatha" which I just reviewed on my movie club based on a facebook post by David Mullen.  I'd never heard of it and his ranting and raving about the cinematography made me take a look.  Streaming on Prime for $1.99

"Catch Me if You Can". A near perfect Spielberg film (in my opinion) streaming on Netflix right now.

"Goodfellas". Obviously a movie we all love, but when I watch it in my old age, it feels like a horror film to me.  I'm scarred to death of this movie, as much as I appreciate it. Netflix

"Chef" streaming on Netflix.  This may be one of the best movies on the craft of cooking I've ever seen.

I watched it on Prime on my projector and the blacks looked really washed out, but it just occurred to me the movie opens with that slow push into that old super washed out black and white TV which turns into the actual movie.  Maybe he wanted to maintain more of a washed out TV look from the 50's, but in a darker, low-light, modern, style?

And I'd be down! Especially if it's only once a month.

13 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

 

Maybe it was just my Netflix stream, but the blacks were heavily lifted and for many scenes the only shadow detail was in the lifted toe. I do realize this was a very low budget self-financed film and there were budgetary and technological limitations to lighting all of the night exteriors, but I really want to know if the lifted backs was an artistic choice, or if maybe the Netflix execs just decided that nobody would sit thru the film if most of the frame was pitch black and made the call to radically re-grade the film? 

 

Because the whole movie looks lifted, not just the darkest scenes, and the rest of the director's choices were so bold (long takes followed by rapid fire edits... fading to black for long chunks of a dialogue scene...) I took it as an artistic choice.  But there's no question it could be the latter.