Felipe Perez-Burchard

My feeling is that there ARE spoilers, but you have to have them and I wouldn't want them taken away, because it is the story that is informing the choices the DP is talking about. Personally, I wait to read the article after I've seen the movie... unless it's a movie that I don't think I will see in the immediate future; then I might read it and hopefully by the time I see the film certain story details will have been forgotten. It can get tricky ; on this months issue, I had to read the Jesse James parts and skip the No Country for old men parts in the Deakins article... I can't wait to read it, but more so I can't wait to see the film, so I'm not daring to read just in case... Anyway, nowadays trailers give a lot away sometimes so you are going to movies already half expecting what is going to happen. Just my 2 cents. :)

I finally saw the film... actually I just got back to LA from a trip and went straight from the airport to the cinema (there was a lot of traffic, and it was a better idea... but that was just an excuse anyway). WOW... I was blown away! First of all, I believe it is Ang Lee's best film to date (I heard about bad reviews and "too long" quibbles, but I felt none of that). Secondly, I think Rodrigo has shown us a new side to his work, yes, like David points out, some touches are reminiscent to Frida, and all artists will inevitably return to similar devices if they serve the story, but here Rodrigo and Ang created something that stretched more than either of their common ground. It reminded me of the visual energy and ideas of The Conformist and it felt truly in service of character & story. One interesting thing is that I felt a heavy influence from the work of Diego Velazquez in the Shanghai portion of the film and as David mentions of Sven Nykvist, something that is probably not the first impression one thinks of China, but it works extremely well given the genre. (I find it completely unrelated and to any of WKW work, which I absolutely love, other than the fact that Tony Leung is in it). I was extremely lucky this summer to work with Rodrigo's Hong Kong crew and was pestering incessantly about what they had done and had heard a few things, and so already had high expectations of the film (which can many times be a bad thing because if the film doesn't deliver I am terribly disappointed) and am happy to say it delivered and exceeded my hopes. I am positive Rodrigo will be nominated, along with many of his other collaborators and the leading lady will take home the statue... but who really cares about awards anyway. Congrats to the filmmakers... And go see it before it leaves the cinema. -felipe (One a side note, I did see some DI problems twice... some "banding" I saw on Deja Vu, but it wasn't too distracting ; Did any one else see this? I was surprised because I feel EFilm is the company that does DI's the best -- well, they do too many is the only problem).

just a quick correction that Sleepy Hollow was shot by Emmanuel Lubezki, but also Super Soft like you say, and like Phillipe Rousselout's work you mention... ;)

Can he be nominated for both Jesse James and No Country? Does he have to decide one film to "submit" does anyone know... I think he'll get the ASC (well, depends there is still a lot of great stuff coming out... I haven't seen "Lust, Cation" yet), but I fear he'll be ignored by the oscars for a sixth time... we'll see ; too early still. **SPOILER** I loved Jesse James and actually thought the ending was quite successful ; maybe because I didn't know much about JJ or Robert Ford, didn't realize how BIG of a person, I loved the bit about his photograph being displayed along the pyramids of egypt and all the other "wonders of the world" -- has anyone seen the Samuel Fuller film of the same subject? The film I'm looking forward to the most of anything coming out is No Country for Old Men. He is certainly a Master's Master. Just my opinion. -felipe.

I saw it at the Landmark on Saturday... WOW!!! Unlike David, the only way I've seen the film has been on Mexican TV long ago (cropped to 4:3), on the Laserdisc director's cut, the DVD (actually the reason I bought a DVD player back in the day) which looks similar to the Laster disc as it was one of the first DVDs available - and quite compressed, and the original theatrical release years later on the sci-fi channel... So to see on the BIG screen, in 4k projection (whatever the method may be) was a COMPLETELY NEW experience for me - it literally changed the film for me... and it was already on my top 10 films of all time list, but it's truly a film made for the big screen, the Trumblall Scope "Landscapes" are packed with details that before I hadn't ever seen, and a lot of compositions have a lot more going on than you see in the background or foreground and because of this, it changes the pace too ; lot of people I've heard complain about the pace (which I personally love), but now I realize its because people aren't seeing it the way it was intended, because now I felt the shots couldn't be held any less time because there was so much to look at. The ultimate atmospheric movie, because I believe everything -- usually I look at movies today, and the moment I see the wide shot with the big CG composite it takes me out of the story because its too jarring / too artificial / poorly comped, this film is 25 years old, and everything seems seamless - people should pay more attention to doing work like this. The emotions felt even better conveyed... I guess I'm just ranting ; I loved it !!! For those in LA , you CANNOT miss it... I hope I can catch it again (Im out of town now) - I heard it will only play for a week, so hurry!! One Question: Did they add more "Jaguar eyes" that in the original cut, or had I missed how many there are before? Regarding Deckards true origin: I don't think the new cut makes it more or less ambiguois and I like it that way... the things that to me indicate that he might be a replicant are less the unicorn and more the implications of: "I dream the music" , "have you ever retired a human by mistake" , and "...but then again who does" thanks. Best, -felipe.

The 30 second picture is really educational in terms of the quality of light of a full moon isn't it ; it might be a bounce source, but its so far away it just looks like the sun when the fill level is the same... I think an important thing in DFN though is using shallow DOF to mimic the effect that our eyes are doing, do you think? I was wondering why you shot the stills at f/3.5, was it just the limitation of your lens? When you say you could get there using 360 shutter and 4000 ASA, do you mean to get to that ASA using say 3 stops of gain on a 500 ASA camera (given that under-cranking doesn't give you more exposure on digital cameras)? Thanks for this great post... its something I think of a lot! :) Best, -felipe

When using the Waveform, you really have to pay attention to this tool in conjunction with your image monitor, so that you can correlate what it is you are looking at within the waveform (skin tone for example) ; movement is especially telling in this regard. Also I would recommend using a PARADE view where you can see the separate RED, GREEN & BLUE channels as opposed to only the Green or a combination for the same reason. Think of it as a Spot Meter that reads everything in the frame at the same time... Hope this helps.

I don't think you can really pick a "best" and like it was said before, "favorite" might change depending on the mood, so out of the films in the poll, my feelings: (unfortunately haven't seen Moriurti or The Professionals, hope to sometime soon) - In Cold Blood: his most remembered (because of the great happy accident mentioned already) - Butch Cassidy: his most groundbreaking (Im surprised this is no ones pick; I would have thought it'd be #1) - Day of the Locust: His most Intriguing work to me - Tequila Sunrise: his most "photographic" ; (meaning where the subject / genre always lends itself to getting great comments about the lighting & photographic aspects (if done well of course) - landscape movies, NOIR movies) - Searching for Bobby Fisher: his most naturalistic - A Civil Action: His most traditional (this is not a bad thing ; also I only saw it once, so memory might be forgetting much about it) - American Beauty: His most romantic - Road to Perdition: His most refined ; I think unlike most artists in any media, Conrad Hall kept improving with each movie (I think many people reach a peak so high sometimes, that the rest of their career is in the shadow of their own achievements), and that is why most people on this forum picked his last work... truly stellar and perfectly cohesive to every other element of the film. Just sharing thoughts. Best, -felipe.

Very true, until we see the film we can't make judgments because we don't know the story; so much is just rumors. Its the filmmaker choice, I just meant I hope it fits in and doesn't feel like a kind of addendum that people will later try to forget it is actually there (Alien Resurrection comes to mind as an example; although visually that does fit the other three... hmmm, maybe I have to think of a better comparison).

Just for people who are unfamiliar, it would be good to explain that the final image does NOT look the same, only has the "same" aspect ratio. To many times I've heard people who don't know ask me what is the difference if in the end you end up with the same ratio. Shooting with an anamorphic lens has very different image characteristics in terms of depth of field, breathing focus, and as David said you have less grain due to the larger negative size and no need for optical step (granted that goes away with a DI, but then there is the whole 2K vs 4K). Back to the topic, the Indiana Jones trilogy has a very present Anamorphic style, I think in many instances to the use of wider anamorphic lenses that most people tend to avoid (there is more distortion) and the lighting style of Douglas Slocombe. I'm obviously keen on what Kaminski will do, but I'm afraid of it looking out of place with the other films if shot on S-35. Just my 2 cents. Best, -felipe

And of course this "format" principle is why I think movies have gotten more and more "Close-UP" in aesthetic; The small TV screen doesn't compare to the cinema, and as the attention was put more and more on TV and its production values have increased, so has the need to get closer, be more "obvious". However I think a reversal is starting to happen in US filmmaking as more and more HD TVs and large home theaters increase, we might see shooting wider. Well, this is just a thought, what do you think? An interesting example I observed in "Children of Men". In my opinion it was the best film of last year for many reasons, and the photography was, among many other fantastic things, very "high-rez", one of the best DIs I've seen. The film was mostly all shot on an 18mm. Anyway, a few friends of mine that I would have thought would really like it (both the film and the photography) saw it only on the small screen (dvd screener or internet downloads) and felt it was too detatched -- the film was shot FOR the big screen I think. unfortunately today the life of the film will be in various different venues... Good topic. Thanks for bringing it up David. Best, -felipe

Hi Kevin, Thanks for posting your tests... from the frame grabs, and given my LCD laptop screen in bad conditions (sorry, away from home) it looks like 5279 enhanced the flaring... on both lenses (but more so obviously on the flare lens) , from looking at the exterior shot in full light. Is this something that was apparent in the print too? or is it more just the angle of the slate? I didn't know the filmstock could change the way a highlight blooms, but I could see it making sense. Thanks! Best,

Yes In fact most DSLR that I know off don't have this function (which seems to be the deal breaker for animators)it is a shame, but well, there is a mirror in front of the sensor... :) If any one knows of one please let me know. On "corpse bride" they attached a small lipstick or security camera to the viewfinder and had a tap through that (not sure of the quality). best,

David, thanks for your post... If you had wanted to reduce the grain (given that it was 400 ASA and the skip bleach might add a bit) would you benefit from using a slower speed stock and pulling it a bit (say a stop) to get the low-con benefits (since they still haven't made a low-con slow speed film) in addition to the underexposure for density compensation? Also, did you use grads for the sky? Best,

However, I recently heard Stephen Burum say that on "Snake Eyes" he shot with the net (pantyhose) in front of the lens, at an f/8, on a 40/50mm anamorphic... I was surprised & asked if he could see it at times, replied with a sturdy "no, never"... however I haven't seen the film recently and mean to re-visit it; The AC article didn't reveal anything pertaining to this. Also, as I recall there was a lot of darkness in the frame, and the netting I bet was mostly used on shots of the actress... So, all the more reasons for testing and seeing what you like, no? Best, -felipe.

one that i found to be quite good was Anthony Minghella on "the talented mr. ripley" , i find it superior to some of the ones I think are really good, many of which have already been mentioned on the thread... ...technical, motivational, anecdotal, a good blend... On the DP side, Alex Thompson is featured a good amount on the Alien3 track, but he mainly talks about the difficulties Fincher had, and on the Seven track, Darious is great, but only pops in between Arthur Max's (production designer) lengthy (but great) comments. I wish there was more DP commentaries around. :)

Hey Annie, glad to hear you like it... In my opinion I hope one day its just LENS in FILMMAKERS HANDS to make a movie, no? One can dream... Take care, glad to hear you are doing well in NY. -felipe.

Well I think it was in one of the interviews linked already here (or maybe not, I've listened to a few now) Cuaron mentions that he had actually called "cut" on this 9 min take when the blood splatteres the lens, but it was in such a low voice (must have been sad) and with all the explosions going off, that nobody heard him, and he realized that maybe he should let it keep going... at the end of the take both Lubezki and Clive Owen where cheering thinking it had been the best take and that the blood was an added bonus. (I'm paraphrasing here). He further explained that they had to then add digital blood to match; the blood disapears when the camera points up at the stairwell, so my only guess is that maybe there is a cut / fuse when Owen runs into the building and the camera quickly pans across a dark wall... This is just a guess mind you. Regarding the amount of takes stitched together in the car scene, there must be a lot of inconsistencies going on here. On the podcast for the fxguide link above, it says they were six shots (5 cuts)... I wonder what it actually is! Best,

Once again, Mr. Mullen, your generosity is vastly appreciated. I saw this film some time ago and enjoyed it and thought it looked great. I was curious; being an independent film shot in so little time (it amazes me that it was only 17 days) with probabaly not the biggest budget, was it a concern to use the ACE or CCE process for the producers, and where you allowed to have all the prints treated this way? Or maybe a better question, is, was the ACE applied to the Master Positive and that way the Dupe neg has the effect and subsequentlly all the prints or is it done in the last printing step in the chain? Thank you for the insight. Best,

I agree holeheartedly... also surprising after reading the AC article that it was shot "super 1.85:1" as I understad the Fountain did that as well, but in contrast gained a lot of noise and the DI became obvious... Mr. Mullen, do I understand the "super 1.85" correctly? basically shooting full aperture like for Super 35mm but it only loses a minimal amount top and bottom and since it goes through a DI doesn't require the grain increasing optical step... So I guess The Fountain was grainy because of the 10% digital blow up? (I know that is what Libatique wanted) ; sorry to mix two films in the thread for one. Regarding Children of Men, I'm wondering if it will do well; it's one of my favorite films of the year, but it seems like not a lot of people outside of the "industry" have even heard of it - I'm not sure if the marketing is reaching the audience and I'm surprised it didn't get a wide realease. Any thoughts on this? Thank you in advance... Best,

In the case of this picture, the shafts of light are real, the smoke is artificial (the SFX department was continuosly providing it). SPOILER WARNING: The shot they are getting is one when that guy knocks out the hero of the pic after the village raid; he kneels towards camera an calls him "almost". If you look close enough you'll see its a 14mm (no matte box) on a dutch tilt head. Given that the shot has a lot of "hot sky" in the background, the illumination had to be controlled a bit. Hope this is useful, Happy holidays...

This is just not true... Dean Semler was able to see the image on set VERY close to what it looked like on the big screen; that was the whole point. He has mentioned he didn't have to go to dalies (but he did of course). The film went through a DI and there the look was fine-tuned since it is a controlled environment, but no more than a DI for a film originated project. I agree with David's assesment that the technology will open up doors for new experimentation and it will never just stay or become a perfect emulation. And yes, the 16mm running footage was shot with a tiny ACAM that the actors or operator just ran with; 100 foot spool is all you get ! Hope this is useful. best,

Just as a note, Dean did tests for running shots and tried the 360* shutter (1/24th motion) and liked it aesthetically ; most of the shots with the smeary shutter were done that way for the effect, which the only way you see it on film is if you're step-printing (from 6fps), in which case the action seems slow; obviously not the desired effect (speed was the order of the day). The gain in exposure was a beneficial side-effect. The lenses used were all panavision primos and the zooms (4:1, 11:1, 3:1), with and occasional lightweight zoom or special lens (nikon 300mm, 10mm, etc.) Best,

Correct, for a flat (1.85:1) finish, cropping the sides of the anamorphic. This month AC or ICG also confirmed that in the anamorphic sequence (Tokyo) they used spherical lenses occasionaly ; I noticed this watching the film and was curious if that is what they did. Rodrigo Prieto was using anamporphic for the shallow depth of field and the way it oblongs out-of-focus objects, not for the aspect ratio.

Yes, that was a trombone shot as well. Yes, Coppola does mention it in the commentary track. The high end technology used was a zoom motor; common place today, but at the time, to do such a SLOW zoom by hand could have easily produced a jerky spot at some point during the take. best,