Hrishikesh Jha

Hey guys Thank you for your replies and opinion. I am on location here since the time I made this post and couldn't reply. I'll reply in detail in a few hours.

This has been planning out for a year now but finally the check is in my hand, I have 100k(USD). I am shooting my first feature(horror) and have already secured a local distributiin(in the state I am filming as incentive) which will recoup 60k as soon as I deliver my print. I am talking to every facet from development to festivals and distribution deals. Even if I make bare minimum I will have recouped the sum and started my career. Now I am talking to a post sound guy and he is advising me to not shoot on 16mm film. Actually everyone from my DOP to editor is telling me I am wasting my funds when I can buy a blackmagic for 3k, But I am firm. But my sound guy said: I don't know enough about cinematography or the look you're after to judge if you have a strong enough reason to shoot 16mm. All I can say is that you do need a strong reason not to shoot in digital because of all it's advantages. As mentioned, you could easily run into sound sync with 16mm. Sound sync he emphasized a lot. The ADR will have to be done, we talked for an hour on this. He's in Macedonia and I am in Mumbai. It can be done is what we have decided but can anyone here tell me about this: Shooting on 16mm and sync sound issues? And any other general-technical or otherwise-tidbits from your experience that will help me on location. Thank you.

But some of the greatest films have long takes and few cuts. In fact most films I prefer have atmosphere over cutaways. Tarkovsky or John Carpenter's films for example. Even Terminator 1 seems to just flow on atmosphere. I always liked scenes where two characters are walking far away and we hear their dialogues. A master shot that makes the location a part of the story. Of course not always or even often, but I notice the structure of a scene and probably one cut-away and then a good long take or two is enough. Of course all this matters on the shot and vision.

Have you ever known while filming that the final product won't be as good as the director thinks it'll be?

Why not shoot on film? I am shooting on 16mm, going today to discuss costs with Kodak and my DOP. Trust me...it'll be cheaper than high end digital

Nah. I politely disagree with most of you. I first chanced upon imdb in 2002 and there hasn't been a single day since that i haven't spent time on there in some capacity. You are only pointing out the troll threads....what about the innumerable threads discussing cinema? The audience has unique insight and I have learnt so much through them. Any great film has some unique educative thread, and many have multiples. I learnt the technicalities of film, the philosophy behind a film and came to see way more movies just by reading the recommendations on there. Besides I was waiting for the day random strangers would discuss my film on there. I'll miss it and it is a massive misstep by imdb.

Is there a list of most film shot for a feature film? I've heard Apocalypse Now has some record related to it.

I often wonder how much film stock hed pay for before shoot? The price of the whole film process would have been similar back then (right?) So he'd be spending a lot even if he were averaging 40 takes.

Tye, Rishi here, could you email me that presentation too, I'd be grateful.

I love his style. I was rewatching Solaris which I love and I have loved it since I saw it more than 10 years ago. The ambient mood is fantastic. This reviewer sums it up: It is on the technical side of things in which Solaris becomes a masterpiece of science fiction. Soderbergh, acting as his own cinematographer and editor (he also wrote the screenplay), once again shines through. Whether it be an extended docking sequence that brings to mind 2001: A Space Odyssey or a feverish and hallucinatory climax that (again) would make Kubrick proud, the camera is as much of a character as Chris Kelvin. Long takes and minimal editing also aide in putting you right in the middle of “what exactly is happening on this space station?” and some truly disturbing and frightening sequences elevate the already tense atmosphere. So my question is....Does he have his own department of people under him? Why don't other directors do this too, especially auteurs...even Orson Welles didn't know much about the tricks of cinematography on Citizen kane.

He says he has shot film and has a showreel. But I feel he loves digital a lot. He has a few REDs he owns. I have only made 3 shorts in my life but I got into a certain rhythm. Try to get everything on location with few shots. Not storyboard exactly but a thorough examination of each scene and how it should be recorded. I worked on sets here on television and hated the amount of shots they took from every angle. I felt the actors were distracted and it just felt mechanical and like a chore to get the work done before sun sets. So each day I would divide the pages, the shots and make sure I only take what I want. Maybe it will work when I shoot on 16mm(I am taking a 7:1 ratio and a few cans I got for free in case I need more footage). My dilemma is...what makes a cinematographer? If I know what angles and shots I could do it but... technically I am not sound. Lighting, Lenses...I'll leave it to pros.

I have always wanted to shoot film. It is the look and feel which cannot be explained in technical terms, more of a a feeling. I have been lurking here for a year or so, posted questions and know a few people well enough. I am shooting my feature film here in India with my own money. About 3 months ago I went to the local film stock holders...... Bollywood films, like any other, were made on film till about the late 90s but since digital no one even touches film cameras. I was shocked to see so many 35mm and 16mm cameras that you could buy even, just lying about. Anyway I did the math and as it turns out I can actually buy and process the 16mm film and get it transferred cheaper than if I hire a medium to high end digital camera(the daily rental itself is absurd, like 1500 dollars a day). I can actually buy a 16mm camera(bolex) for 2,500 dollars but will be just renting. I want everything sorted in pre production and the DOP was the top priority so I got in touch with this guy through e-mail(He is American). I have a mansion on rent here in Mussorie which is a snowy north Indian hill stations, to me the "look" is very very important. So this is what we discuss on email; and now he simply refuses to shoot 16mm. The thing is he also rents or carries his own equipment and he tells me the RED is the one to go. I don't know if he simply wants to make money but he doesn't seem like that kind of guy, besides I feel cinematographers are artists and not people who'd take you for a ride. My film is horror and inspirations are any horror film from the 60s-mid 80s especially The Woman in Black(1986, TV movie), The Changeling(1980), Exorcist. So I just feel my imagined image will look better on 16mm. I am happy I am sorting all this out much much before production as I am also producing. 16mm seems perfect. 35mm seemed a bit daunting and more importantly it is much much more expensive, I simply cannot afford it.

No. My would be DOP with whom I am having lengthy discussions. I want everything sorted in pre production. This was an email.....He is vehemently against shooting on 16mm and only wants the best for me. I am a first time director whereas he is a veteran. However I also feel he is controlling me already so i have to see where it goes. I know 16mm is very expensive but I want to shoot on 16mm.

Just because you shot in film doesn't mean jack if you dump to digital. If you want the film look, it's colorspace and dynamic range, you need to stay in film, through post, right on to delivery. If you dump to digital, you're just shooting in digital. You're now dealing with the digital colorspace only available in digital reproduction, which is different than what you'd have with a complete film production flow. Not that I think digital is bad, but it is different. Digital is actually superior to film today, but film zealots can't get out of the delusion of film being somehow magically better. But you're free to continue believing that it is. I'm 60 years old dude. I've been around, and I got news for you. Film is dead. Get over it. The only people keeping it alive are the old boy Hollywood network. Once they're dead, you better have a good grasp on digital. Nobody in their right mind shoots film today other than old boy network directors and their ga-ga'd fanboys. It's utterly stupid to waste your precious limited production funds as an indie filmaker on the medium. You shoot on film and..........................digitize and do all the post in digital. Then it gets played back in theaters on digital projectors being fed highly compressed digital files. Yep, film isn't dead...delusions need to be kept in check. I am a DOP and I know how things work.

I was just watching Ocean's 11 and I love the lighting of this movie. Its similar in Solaris and the Ocean sequels. Very atmospheric, neon lights, just a great vibe. I noticed it in Ex Machina also. Is this a style?