Jump to content

Miguel Roman

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    45

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Miguel Roman

  1. Miguel Roman
    Thank you for your comments Dermot! Could I ask you what was your role in Badlands? Did you use to work often with Probyn or Larner?
  2. Miguel Roman
    Thanks for the comments; it is interesting what has been said about experienced actors being sensitive to light and lenses, which makes me think that it should be the same for experienced directors, I mean even if they have not studied lighting, composition, etc, they should have some knowledge after having worked for some time in the industry. But going back to my initial inquire, It comes to mind some early work of Francis Ford Coppola, at least in films like Apocalypse now, where Storaro seems to have a big influence in the cinematography (like in most of the films he has shot, I think)
  3. Miguel Roman
    Yeah, right? At the very least I think that is obvious during some of his early work and the strong style of Gordon Willis's
  4. Miguel Roman
    Thanks Gregory! I noticed you collaborated with him in some of his films; do you know if David O. Russell have no knowledge on the photographic aspect, interest or neither of them?
  5. Miguel Roman
    Hello everyone, I find interesting the work of some filmmakers like Paul Thomas Anderson who seem to be quite knowledgeable about photography in general, but I was wondering if any of you can recall any film directors who are (or were) mostly interested in the content of their work and not so much in the form, letting the cinematographer take full control on the look of the film. Thanks!
  6. Miguel Roman
    You are welcome Robin, I will definitely check that podcast that you mention!
  7. Miguel Roman
    @Robin R Probyn Hello Robin, I found an interview of your father and I thought you might be interested in reading it; it was published on 1975, in the magazine Cinema Papers. I am posting the link to the entire magazine, the interview appears in the pages 73, 74 and 75. https://issuu.com/libuow/docs/cinemapaper1975marno000/79
  8. Miguel Roman
    Thank you!
  9. Miguel Roman
    Hello! I would like to know more about Kodak's Dye Layering Technology, which is something I read in one of the Technical Data sheets from Kodak Vision3 500T 5219: The proprietary, advanced Dye Layering Technology (DLT) provides noticeably reduced grain in shadows, allowing you to pull out an amazing amount of shadow detail. Could anyone explain a little more about about how does this layering technology work? Why does this DLT allow the film to perform better in the shadows? I have not been able to find info on this... Thanks!
  10. Miguel Roman
    No problem!
  11. Miguel Roman
    The other interview, which can be found in the same book of Maher's, it's an interview conducted by Michel Ciment for the magazine Positif in 1975, but there is no direct reference to your father on that one.
  12. Miguel Roman
    This last sentence about the soft technique comes from a transcript of a master class “A Master Class with Terrence Malick” at the AFI, in 1976. It can be found in a book called All Things Shinning: An oral history of the films of Terrence Malick (Paul Maher Jr., 2017). I only have the physical book, so I can not link it; but besides that sentence there is only a few references to your father: He is an excellent cameraman. I mean, he is a sort of pioneer in soft 'light technique, and I had always admired his work. IT was difficult. I mean, he is 55 years old or so, and I was just a kid. And I didn't know what I was doing. this was on-the-job training. But I should right there have taken things in hand, and I didn't, and then the same thing sort of happened with the second person. We sort of mutually got fed up with each other. And the third person, who used to be an instructor here, was my instructor in cinematography. […] QUESTION: Why did Brian Probyn leave the production? Malick: Well, it sort of - he got quite exhausted and developed a bad case of ulcers at the same time that we weren't getting along. It was quite hot where we were shooting. It was what used to be the dust bowl. QUESTION: How much of the film had Probyn shot before he left? Malick: About a third. Each of them [Probyn, Fujimoto and Larner] shot about a third. Almost exactly. It just worked out that way. […] (…) if you get somebody with a documentary background like Steve Larner he didn't need anybody...the people he had, they were mainly to hold things that he stuck in their hands so they could be high school students. But that couldn't have happened with Brian Probyn, for instance, who was used to woking in a different way. His interiors look better, I'm sure, for their preparation than Larner's would given the way he had to work.
  13. Miguel Roman
    About the choice of your father as cinematographer, Malick says “He is an excellent cameraman. I mean, he is a sort of pioneer in soft 'light technique, and I had always admired his work.” So I guess that combined with the documentary background would make him quite an ideal candidate for an independent shooting like Badlands. Please let us know if your brother can find the slides!
  14. Miguel Roman
    It does look like the tree's own shade...but when I look at the sky on the background I can see a difference in the contrast of the top of the image and the middle of the frame, as well as the right grey post at the edge of the frame...
  15. Miguel Roman
    That's quite interesting! About the over exposing in Badlands, in one of his rare interviews Malick says “I overexposed the negative and then printed it with very low contrast, so that even in exterior shots with natural light the characters never need to be lighted by reflectors.” So I guess that's why he wasn't using that much artificial light, although depending on the shots (and therefore, depending on who of the three dps shot them) it can clearly be seen the use of lights. And as you said, Spacek ended up marrying Jack Fisk, the art director in Badlands and most of Malick's films, some of David Lynch's, Paul Thomas Anderson's, etc. Any chance of seeing some of those slides that you mentioned?? That would be great!
  16. Miguel Roman
    Those are great answers! Much appreciated!! I was also wondering about what filters might have been used on the lenses; in Badlands there is one shot in particular where I personally believe a ND grad filter was used, and I would like to ask your opinion on it:
  17. Miguel Roman
    Hi everyone, I am trying to find out what lenses were used in the shooting of Terrence Malick's Badlands, but there seems to be no info available on this topic. I just know that three cameras were used during the production: Mitchell Bncr, Cameflex, and Arriflex. Badlands was shot in 1972, does anyone know what lenses were common for any of this cameras around that time, specially for the Mitchell? Thanks!
  18. Miguel Roman
    That's very insightful, thank you David!
  19. Miguel Roman
    Thank you for your answer Stuart; I read that, in the time when celluloid was the norm, there was an optical step at the end of the answer-print process that could decrease slightly the quality of an image shot in super 35. Do you know if this was always the case? I guess with digital there is no such a problem anymore...
  20. Miguel Roman
    Hi everybody, I have a question related to the film To the Wonder by Terrence Malick. In an interview for the American Cinematographer magazine, director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki says that for “To the Wonder we did some tests and decided on the compromise of going 2.35 but shooting spherical— partly because I really, really love the sharp, clean Master Primes. We also went with spherical because we were shooting in a lot of houses.” Since Lubezki speaks about the 'compromise' of going 2.35 but shooting spherical, my question is: does that mean that they shot super 35 and then cropped the image, therefore loosing some part of the original frame? Thanks!
  21. Miguel Roman
    Hi, thanks for your comments! I apologise, the flashback is not at 02:38:08 but at 02:08:38, with the character of Marty in the swing. To me, the slow motion also appears to have been shot at 48 fps, but since I can not confirm that, I was hoping to find a legitimate source for this info.
  22. Miguel Roman
    I am writing my dissertation about the films of Terrence Malick and I am very interested in the flashbacks that appear in The Thin Red Line; particularly I would like to ask if anybody knows at what rate of frames per second were shot the flashbacks that appear at the moments 00:05:15, 01:17:09, 02:38:08 y 02:34:58. The action on those flashbacks is slower than the usual 24fps but I would like to know the exact speed. John Toll was the cinematographer and there is an article in American Cinematographer (February 1999) about his work in the movie, but they don't mention this information on it. So far I haven't been able to find out about it, so any help will be appreciated! Thanks!
  23. Miguel Roman
    I see, that makes sense, specially in terms of quality; I didn't know it was no big deal to run the film backwards. Thanks!
  24. Miguel Roman
    I would like to know, can anyone explain me why some scenes in films have been shot running the film backwards (using for instance the Arriflex IIC)? Is it not easier to shot it in the regular way and then put it backwards in the editing process? As an example I can mention the scene of Days of Heaven where the locusts take flight (which was done by dropping peanuts from an helicopter and shot in the way I mentioned).
  25. Miguel Roman
    Great, thanks a lot! I can't say about Star Wars or Close Encounters, but for Days of Heaven it seems like they used the new version; the cinematographer Néstor Almendros commented: " A few years ago when 5247 was first released, the results of forcing the film were not very good, but when we began DAYS OF HEAVEN, the response of the new stock had come to perfection."
×
×
  • Create New...