Jump to content

Mariano Nante

Basic Member
  • Posts

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mariano Nante

  1. Thanks for the tips, guys. I'll be checking "Atonement" soon, I've already seen it and liked the cinematography, but can't remember that part. I wouldn't worry about spill because I plan to film the screen separately from the actors, which may make things easier. The whole BETA thing is absurd, but this film is produced by my film school and the standard transfer they give us is BETA. And I don't have the money to upgrade it, so... what can you do about it. thanks again!
  2. Hey guys, Got a tough one. I'm directing a short film where people go to a movie theater, and I have to shoot what is seen on the screen. The film wil be shot in 35mm finishing in BETA (yeah, I know, what's the point of shooting 35 and winding up with a lousy format, but those are the rules of the game) However, what is to be seen in the theater's screen will be shot digitally (not really sure which format, probably HDV with some heavy post) I have analized several options, and it all comes up to: 1) Projecting in HD what I have shot and filming the screen. OR: 2) Projecting a green/blue light for chroma keying What are, in your opinion, the problems I may encounter with either option? I am quite worried about: A_ Flickering B_ The amount of light reflected from the screen to the seats of the theater: if we go with option no. 2, the light will be constant and not ever-changing like a film projection C_ noticeable cropping in the edges Well, what are your thoughts? Thanks in advance! Mariano
  3. Nice connection with Degas! There is also a great influence of American painters like Andrew Wyeth ("Christina's World", above them all) and Edward Hopper ("House by the railroad") Here are some links of those pictures: http://www.bu.edu/sed/caec/images/Wyethpainting.jpg http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/hoppe...er.railroad.jpg
  4. Well, I think it's a good movie, a very brave one considering Hollywood standards. However, I believe Malick's film resonates in a whole other level. The New World is a gourgeous film, as is TAOJJ, but the first one has a powerful idea behind it. Basically, Malick shows that nature is overwhelming because there is something wholy that lies in it. Therefore, the transcendental power of his sceneries and the beauty of his images have a deeper meaning to them, they are not pretty for the only sake of being pretty. In TNW, the princess' connection with nature is sacred, and it is this bond what every good hearted character in Malick's movies strives for but seldomly finds. I'm not saying that TAOJJ is completely void, but I feel that its remarkable stylization is lacking the spirituality of Malick's films. Sometimes it felt a bit imposed, as if the beauty of the image hadn't come from within. Having said that, I think TAOJJ was outstandingly well shot. Roger Deakins is undoubtedly a master and he deserves a place among the greatest.
  5. I thought it was a good movie, but I was a bit underwhelmed because it came from Cronenberg. I feel that he has become a bit to... mainstream (I can't find a better word) if I may say so. I miss the times when he was truly provocative and revulsive, when he faced our society with our deepest fears and our darkest thoughts. Now it seems you can't hardly tell him apart from the average gangster filmmaker. Except for the ending of the film and maybe for the sauna sequence...
  6. If you look carefully, you can spot Malick in the making of. In the part where they are near the sea, Farrell is talking to somebody off screen, the camera pans and immediately pans back, because the operator realised Terry was there. You actually can see a glimpse of him there. And there is another part where Lubezki tells Terry "This is the shot of the movie!" and the camera chooses not to show him. I do not think it is strange for the operators or the DP to do what they were doing. Malick shoots a LOT of film, and his method involves a lot of improvisation, as you may have seen. He wants to find unexpected moments, so he tells his crew to be aware of everything that goes around. If somebody wants to shoot a bird he saw, then he may do that. On The Thin Red Line, he told an operator to climb a hill and shoot the ground while running down. He didn't know if that would be useful or not. His directing style involves amassing a lot of material to help describe the world he has created
  7. Yeah, it's true. You should check out "Tell Them Who You Are" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0420952/ This documentary was directed by Haskell's own son. Halfway through the film he makes his father take the color-blind test and he fails it completely. Then he admits that he is color-blind and that he doesn't like to tell people about it because he wouldn't get as many jobs! ;) On the other hand, his condition allowed him to have an extraordinary sense of tonal range... I wonder what did he do while timing his movies...
  8. Hi, I'm about to shoot a short film with the XH A1. I have access to a 14-inch SONY monitor, which I'm almost certain is SD. I do not really know the specific model. I was wondering if I can plug this camera to the monitor via BNC. Can it be done? Will it be an accurate display? Will I be able to use the vectoroscope and stuff? I also have a 3.0 GHz laptop with Adobe OnLocation, but according to the official requirements it's not good enough for HDV... What do you guys think? Any help will be much appreciated. Thanks a lot!
  9. Watch Lynch's INLAND EMPIRE. Shot in DV. Pd-150. It's a beautiful trip.
  10. Well, for what I have read, Almendros was almost blind in the end of the shoot. That's why Wexler had to step in... And the funny thing is that Wexler is color blind! :blink: But together they made a masterpiece of cinematography...
  11. I think it's supposed to be a joke... not a very good one, if I may say so.
  12. There are tons of threads discussing the crop vs. squeeze mode issue with the DVX. According to what I've read, you loose as much information when you squeeze as when you crop in post. So, I would choose cropping in post, because it gives you the opportunity to re-frame if you need to (and with your shooting conditions, that may be useful). Be sure to mask the LCD correctly. Good luck!
  13. Me again. I found another competitor. The CANON XH A1. It's supposed to have the same image quality as it's bigger brother (XL H1). This one I can get for very little money. What do you think about it? How does it stand against the Z1? Thanks for your input.
  14. Thanks for your kind reply. Yeah, the problem is that I cannot test the cameras, because it would mean renting them an extra day... My shoot is only 2 days long, and that's why I can afford the camera. I am facing all the costs of the production, which are not much because we are all students and we are not paying for anyone's work. I don't have a fixed budget, and I am willing to spend a little extra if something is worth it. By no means will this camera affect any other department; just the overall cost. Let me tell you a bit about the project. Most of the film is still photography, which I intend to do with an analogic camera. These pictures will be intercut with footage of a man alone in an apartment, and they will all be long shots with complex lighting setups. I kinda need a very filmic image, with good detail and latitude. The thing I don't like about the Z1 is its relatively poor dynamic range and its grayish image (I don't know if it's the right word for it). But I've never seen it work in black and white... Thanks again,
  15. Hi, I'm directing a black and white short film two months from now. My university provides me with a DVCAM (SONY DV- DXC D50P), of which I don't know much. Considering that it's 4:3, I think it's not up to the task (also taking into account the size of the production). I've worked with HDV before, and I'm stuck between a couple of choices. I can either get a Sony HDV (FX1 or Z1), which I can get for little money, or I can rent a JVC GY-HD110U for $100 a day. Is this camera worth the difference? Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks!
  16. I agree. The trailer looks absolutely fantastic. There are four things that make me happy about this movie: Paul Thomas Anderson, Daniel Day Lewis, Robert Elswit and that malickian style that reminds me of Days of Heaven. I can't wait.
  17. Great stuff Richard! Fantastic lighting. I agree with Daniel that the title should stay a little longer, but otherwise I liked it a lot.
  18. I've been wanting to watch this film for a long time now. I saw Flandres and liked it, alhough I thought there were a few low blows that weren't needed. If you see the film you'll know what I'm talking about. When it comes to (non) actors, Dumont surely knows his stuff. But he is infamous for treating them really meanly. I only know about what happend in the set of Flandres. First, he made them all sleep in tents so that they were really uncomfortable. Second, he knew that the main actor was madly in love with his co-star, and made a profit out of this, playing with his emotions. He apparently told the guy that she was really in love with him in order to get a scene, or told him the opposite to get another reaction. Third, he mistreated the actress telling her all kinds of things in order to make her cry (and her weeping is quite convincing I must say ;) ). You can see all of this and more in a documentary called "L'homme de Flandres" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0862938/ He may be a good director, but I think he has no work ethics. The cinematography in Flandres is quite flat, but I think it suited the story. One thing that left me quite baffled: there were some exterior shots that had so much grain it looked like super8. I don't know what happened there... it certainly looked as a mistake and not as an intentional effect. Maybe somebody has an explanation?
  19. I had the very same problem while shooting today. It was a nightmare, but after an hour of fiddling with the buttons an reading the manual we got it right. Now, don't you think there is a problem with the camera's design? I think there should be a "full manual" switch, as there is one for "full auto"...
  20. I have seen the film and I didn't like it at all. Nevertheless, Apichatpong's previous work is very interesting and he deserves to be treated as one of the most innovative filmmakers out there. So everybody should not only sign the petition but start watching his films!
  21. Although he is not a cinematographer, Béla Tarr has written a very interesting Artist Statement. Right at the center of a seemingly incomprehensible world, at the age of 32, the question "why do I make films" seems unanswerable. I don't know. All I know is that I can't make films if people don't let me. If I don't receive trust and funding I feel like I don't exist. The last one-and-a-half to two years of my life went by in just such a state of apparent futility - I was given no opportunities to realize my plans through the official channels. Two courses of action were left open to me: to gradually suffocate or search for some alternative. Then followed a terrible year of begging for money and trying to discover whether it's even possible to make a different type of film in Hungary, one that doesn't depend on the official and traditional sources of funding. And once the money's finally all there and I've managed to create some small opportunity, kidding myself that I'm "independent," that's when it hits me that there's no such thing as independence or freedom, only money and politics. You can never escape anything. Those who give you money also threaten you. All that remains is obligation. The film has to be made. Then you desperately clutch onto the camera, as if it were the last custodian of the truth that you had supposed existed. But what to film if everything is a lie? All I can be is an apologist for lies, treachery and dishonor. But in that case, why make films? This also leads to internal conflicts, as my self-confidence wanes, the crew start to leave because the venture appears uncertain and I can't pay them enough. And I am left with a general feeling of anxiety. So I flee from this form of desperation into another - the film. Probably, I make films in order to tempt fate, to simultaneously be the most humiliated and, if only for a few moments, the freest person in the world. Because I despise stories, as they mislead people into believing that something has happened. In fact, nothing really happens as we flee from one condition to another. Because today there are only states of being - all stories have become obsolete and cliched, and have resolved themselves. All that remains is time. This is probably the only thing that's still genuine - time itself: the years, days, hours, minutes and seconds. And film time has also ceased to exist, since the film itself has ceased to exist. Luckily there is no authentic form or current fashion. Some kind of massive introversion, a searching of our own souls can help ease the situation. Or kill us. We could die of not being able to make films, or we could die from making films. But there's no escape. Because films are our only means of authenticating our lives. Eventually nothing remains of us except our films - strips of celluloid on which our shadows wander in search of truth and humanity until the end of time. I really don't know why I make films. Perhaps to survive, because I'd still like to live, at least just a little longer.... -Bela Tarr, during preproduction for Damnation, 1987 Hope it helps!
  22. Well, you should probably check out Lucrecia Martel's previous film, called "La Ciénaga". I think it was translated as "The Swamp". However, I don't think it's as good as "La Niña Santa", despite the consensus. When I think about creative and original framing the work of Wong Kar-Wai/ Christopher Doyle comes to mind. Especially "Chungking Express"
×
×
  • Create New...