Felipe Perez-Burchard

I really, really want to stay away from this discussion... but... arghh, I have to say something. sorry man, but that's like saying give me a really good hammer and I can make a house like frank lloyd wright. Or a brush to be Velasquez. also you are saying that better technology makes better artists wich in a sense is also like saying any filmmaker of today would be better than Orson Welles or Kurosawa, or take your pic. the french new wave guys are a testament to the fact that the tools don't really matter, they were using whatever they could get their hands on, creating compelling stories and characters and allowing the freedom gained by the lesser tools to be visually inventive. Filmmaking is the most collaborative artistic medium and anyone who works in it knows that you rely on your teamates; thats's part of why so many filmmaking parterships stick, because the people are better artists put together, trusting each other, cameras can't give you input. just keep in mind that the IMDB is mainly for motion picture films, there are tons of impressively talented people working in commercials and music videos that aren't on there. Just opinions here. And experience does inform talent because it allows you to problem solve a different way and create imagery that you might not be able to have concieved without it. -felipe.

David, thanks again for your wonderfully valuable posts. So was the negative exposed at f/4.0 for the audience? -felipe.

Not trying to steer the topic to much, but this post gave me the idea... I would love to see stills work from the forum users; I know the SMPSP is having a gallery right now and there was a recent show of different DPs stills work acording to AC mag. Anyone? -felipe.

here is my favorite CDF... very relevant and comparable to Hopper's lonely frames at times. -felipe.

I just got back to los angeles after a shoot; I missed one of the events I was most egearly awaiting to attend for the first time by a day :( !!! I'm glad it was fun... I guess I'll go next year if I have a work visa by then!! -felipe.

as everyone has said, you can create tension with all kinds of "styles" a good example of this in recent films (of course its been around forever) is in the work of director Micheal Haneke (see Funny Games). just thought i'd put it out there. good luck. -felipe.

David, thank you so much for your generosity!! First of all, if you ever did want to publish work of your films, an interactive dvd (hd) where you could see the tests, or a scene and get exposure readouts (taken from set) would be an incredible boon. :) I was curious if for your tests you try to get somebody with similar facial structure to one of the main cast members, whenever you're testing lighting I mean. How many crew members usually help on the tests with you? What is a typical budget for a test like the one you did if you dont mind? thanks again. looking forward to the film and good luck in the shoot. -felipe.

The man is a genious, here is a pic of this very situation... Mr. Myles, welcome back, I haven't been exposed to your wisdom in a while... I am doing a project involving this as well... and I'm intrigued about this possibility. Do you mean have the reflectors outside the location, hitting the subjects for our warm candlelight key through the windows, the ambient daylight as fill, the candles more as props (but also for lighting), expose so it looks like night; this might work very well just as long as we don't see the windows, right? but what if we do want to see the windows (and not pretend the blue daylight is blue moonlight)? or do you mean the reflectors inside? Thanks. -felipe.

I wish... No, I read it in a book... "New Cinematographers" by alex balinger. it has a section on Mathieson. Awsome book from Harper. -felipe.

The old vision 5279 500T was used on the interior sets and the exteriors were shot on 5245 EXR 50D. -felipe.

You can find an itemized 3 page list in The January 2003 issue of American Cinematographer (Gangs of New York cover), maybe your local library has it. (sorry, I couldn't get a link) As Mr. Case said, though, it's a collaboration, and it can be put in very simple terms... hope it helps. -felipe.

As I see the vote is 50-50, if you decide to delete, is there A way that I could get them sent to me? (how many MB of data are by the way?) Thanks. -felipe.

What I find interesting about what was mentioned about change is that this time it seems to me that there is no clear and absolute advantage. When sound came along, there were clearly new possibilities in cinema and people like Moumalin, rene clair, hitchcock, Ford, Lubitch, and many others immediately took advantage (sooner than most people think; Don Juan was 1926, The Jazz Singer 1927 and by 1929 greatly innovative sound films were already coming out, which means they were being made immediately after the tech was available). Color, although resisted by many people clearly offered something that cinema didn't have before. Widescreen was a new and exciting procenium to tell a story. Digital technology is great, but the main thing it seems to allow is to facilitate things that have already been done, it's not like matte paitings or spaceships, etc, are a new thing (probably the most valuable tool of digital is the darkroom opened up by doing digital intermediates). Since the change is not that apparent, I think that brings hesitation in many people's minds. The biggest change, I think is that it puts the tools to make movies in the hands many people who would never have access to it before. But in the end, it's all about telling stories, that has proven to trancend any changes in technology. My opinion. -felipe.

I think the biggest problem that Lucas has come up to that is partially why the films are so bad, is that he is so big (poweful I mean), that nobody says "no, that's a bad idea, that doesn't fit within the context. etc", its as if there is no rewriting, just a first draft. Furthermore he is trying to further the craft, it makes since to shoot a film that is almost 100% blue screen to be composited with tons of fx on video. The problem / danger of shooting this way is that it's easier to lose track of the reality that you ultimately want to create: in performances, in lighting, blocking, et all. Plus like someone said, Lucas hadn't directed since the origial Star Wars... Michael Mann said something along the lines of "if you don't keep active in your craft, you go stale" and I think that is true for anybody. (By the way, I think video was the absolute right choice for Collateral). I think it would have been much more interesting and challenging to try to use the great digital technology to achieve the exact look of the originals; then he would prove that the technology can do anything. My 2 cents. -felipe.

Hi, My freshman year a friend and I recreated the very painting that Tim put up in his post. While not wholly succesful (the lens is wrong, the camera needs to be closer to the subject, the table is too big and askew and countless other things), I did learn a valuable lesson; and that is the power that you can get with makeup... I couldn't get the shadows right since the physicallity of our model was no where near that of Caravaggio's model, so I ran out of the building and grabbed as much dirt as I could pull out of the little lawn and applyed it softly to create the shadows I wanted (wasn't totally right either, but I learned from it). I remember only using one big soft source (heavily cut), but looking back at the image, I must have used some fill becasue you can see you specular reflection on the apples (no peaches available). This was on video, so we white balanced to a slight lavander to get the yellow tone. Unfortunately I have never seen a Caravaggio in real life, so I never know what its truly like, the image I saw was much more golden that the one Tim put up (which seems more green). But regarding the blacks, the aging process seems to have affected many old paintings (at least as I've perceived them in books) and I don't really see them as having true black, and in fact more of a veiling similar to underexposure... this is obviously contradicting what some of you guys have said; it's just my opinion, and by no means is it backed by the experience that the other members of the forum have. Just thought I'd share, if it's of any help. Good luck! -felipe.

not necerarily the greatest, but some that I have already pulled into my computer for reference on projects i've done that have influenced me (but there as so many more its embarassing not to mention them). -felipe.

I can't say enough how valuable these recent threads with imagery have been. thanks to all. -felipe.

in my experience, green shadows... and more GRAIN, but maybe it was something else... -felipe.

Ditto to that, for the last four years I've been visiting this and other similar forums (you guys write in all of them, so you know which ones), and I learn every day. I'd just like to say thanks to everyone. -felipe.

On the up side, some of these big money makers and reality tv movies (i.e. the real cancun) are flopping. I saw The Day after tomorrow to a crowd that was laughing out loud at it and walking out and asking for their money back. This in turn might turn studios to take more risks and maybe we are coming up towards a new era of filmmaking... an exciting time to be coming up; its up to all of us to make the next great films! Or maybe I'm just deluding myself with optimism to hide the reality... :>) -felipe. PS - eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, the incredibles, kill bill, the aviator, juat a few hollywood movies that came out this year that I think are pretty great.

This is a great test, thanks for the generosity David & Mr. King. Without ever having transfered on a spirit, 7218 (despite how much better it is from previous stocks), is still too grainy to me (for general use, if the story warrants it of course then that's cool) and looks like these stills. I was curious what the "speed" of the particular F900 camera was, usually I've seen it rated at 320. Maybe a fairer grain comparison (for the non low-light stuff I mean) would be betwen 200 ASA pushed one stop (which I think is not as grainy as 500 ASA). Or is there a reasoning why this would be wrong? (I'm just a sponge here absorbing knowledge). Thanks. -felipe.

here's another herb ritts, really good, but expensive. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=glance&s=books happy holidays everybody! -felipe.

I don't know if other people do this, but I sometimes swich eyes if I've past a certain large number of takes, you have to very quickly re-leran your move, but it almost gives you a fresh perspective on the framing... however this won't work when doing handheld. do you think this is bad? -felipe.

Thank you so very much to everybody for your words of wisdom. -felipe.

Looks pretty awsome! So Greg, what kind of tests did you guys do? if you don't mind me asking. -felipe.