Michael LaVoie

In school after trying every art form except glass blowing, I settled on photography but quickly got bored trying to make up and tell stories with a single image. It wasn't until I found a Super8 camera and started shooting experimental 'stan brakhage' type of stuff in my neighborhood that I began to love shooting film. That turned into a narrative thing pretty fast but if it wasn't for that super8 camera, I'd have probably given up. Video back then was all VHS and it looked godawful. But the super 8 footage was mystical too me. I had no idea why but it just looked great. It wasn't like the movies but it wasn't like TV either. I was hooked.

Project Blu-ray next to SD DVD's on a 5x7 foot screen and you'll see a noticeable difference when it comes to wider establishing shots where there's lots of small objects in the frame. On the other hand, with closeups, you won't see that much of a difference. It does depend on the player though. The PS3 upscales DVD's beautifully. Projection really is the way to go with Blu-ray.

The Life Before Her Eyes shot by Pawel Edelman. Definitely a standout for cinematography of 2008.

Does anyone custom baffle put put genies anymore or modify them to run crystal sync? Seems like a thing of the past.

Just saw on the criterion DVD an interview with Slawomir where he addresses this issue. Apparently there was a difference of opinions on the look. Krystof and the producers were actually against the greenish look and wanted it more warm yellow. Slawomir felt disappointed and wanted a green look. It seems this Criterion collection edition is faithful to Slawomir's goal. But again who is right in this scenario? I feel like being true to the DP in this case is actually detrimental to my own appreciation of the film. In the interview he doesn't explain the reasoning behind the choice of the color other than mentioning casually that he had a tendency toward green. The other motivational factor seems to have been the steadfast determination to limit anyone's ability to time the film later on. Both of these reasons seem somewhat questionable with regard to the responsibilities a DP has toward a production overall. I was always under the impression that as a DP you contribute to the look of a picture but aren't there limits to how far you should impose your overall artistic sensibilities. I suppose DP's are beaten up all the time in the DI suites on movies but this is an example of the exact opposite of that. I'm curious to know what others think of this.

If it is intentional I'm hardpressed to see the motivation for it though. Why would anyone deliberately filter in camera to make windows look lime green? It's the same as making them fire-engine red in that it's not natural or realistic at all. In most of the exteriors daylight is referenced as white light with a brownish sort of undertone that seems to indicate fall. It's beautiful and natural and doesn't distract you. Then you see characters move indoors and it looks like the outside viewed through windows is another planet. If this is a matter of artistic expression alone it brings up an interesting debate over what is appropriate and when does a DP go too far. In the end I suppose it's a matter of opinion but this is interesting to me because it's a case where a film I loved for years has turned out to be something entirely different when seen in a remastered HD transfer. I have to look at it differently and think about differently and try and understand this radical break from conventional cinematography. I don't think I've ever seen a movie with a story taking place on earth where daylight is shown as sourapple green on purpose. If anyone else has, please give an example.

Picking up this thread 2 years later, I've just rented the criterion collection edition of The Double Life of Veronique and was so struck by the odd look that I searched the forum for a post explaining it. I love the film and it's in my top ten but when I first saw it, it was a VHS copy many years ago and it didn't look like the DVD. It had the yellow look but it was the kind of yellow that borders on sepia and so it felt organic and appropriate. This new version represents daylight in many scenes as being lime green. At least, daylight as scene from interiors. Exteriors are a bit more normal but still kind of off. I find it difficult to believe that Idziak intentionally colored windows so that they look like Mountain Dew. Skin tones look like he had chocolate gels on all of the lights. This had to be some kind of error in the transfer. I've seen the same sour-apple hue used in night scenes in Gattaca and I bought it in that film cause it's a futuristic cityscape. I just don't see the motivation for lime green daylight. At least, not in a film like Double Life. I've noticed a similar sort of hypersaturation in the 3 color trilogy. I saw all of those a few times in theaters but the DVD's are way oversaturated. Just wondering what happened? If the same people from MK2 had all of the newer transfers done and whether they're responsible for the bizarre look.

Just a thought. This little HD camera was $700. It's a JVC Everio so there's a post process involving converting .tod's into .mov's but if you can live with that step, you can shoot up to 5 hours of 1920x1080 60i to an internal drive. Not bad for learning basic stuff. I've projected the image via HDMI to q.c. detail and compression and it's surprisingly clean. Of course it doesn't shoot native 24P. But that's a pretty easy conversion. I would say that this is the cheapest setup you could possibly get to shoot cinestyle HD on a budget. I attached it to a set up I usually use with an HVX200. The Letus 35 and I've got a Sigma 24-70 constant 2.8mm. Chrosziel Mattebox and Cavision Follow Focus unit. All in all, the whole package is around $6000 but again, the camera is only $700 and can be swapped out with almost anything. That's the best way to go. Keep the camera cheap and replaceable cause they change too fast. Or buy a red. But expect to spend at least $6K even when using some low rent accessories. Chrosziels not bad but Cavision's the worst. Still, the follow focus has no more or less play than I've seen in rented Arri's.

From what they mention on the DVD set, the first 3 seasons are shot on film and it switched over to HD I think in the 4th and 5th. I don't know the brand of lenses but they stated an aesthetic preference toward wider primes.

The other argument against 2.35 is that there are no 2.35 televisions and very few home projectors that accept anamorphic lenses so you're always wasting screen space on the letterbox bars. It's still only a "movie theater" friendly aspect ratio. I'm not saying we should avoid shooting 2.35 for those reasons but rather put pressure on festivals and smaller theaters with HD projection to invest in anamorphic lenses. Companies like Optoma and Epson, Panasonic etc, need to start making affordable anamorphic adaptors for their home theater projectors.

I think it's a question that everyone can answer differently. As either the viewer, or the author of the images. For instance, if you take it personally, the cinematography that's your best is when you're connected to the story enough that you can offer choices to the director wherein you're expressing your own artistic sensibilities in relation to the script. If the director then decides to use those suggestions because they feel it's adding to his or her vision of the film, then that's as good as it gets. That's good cinematography whether the audience likes it or not. It's a cinematographer bringing something personal to the table that's in sync with the directors vision. On the other hand, from the viewer's perspective, I agree with the aforementioned posts about how the cinematography should go unnoticed. Whether it's beautiful or ugly it shouldn't distract from the experience of the film. Case in point, In The Lives of Others was gorgeous to a fault. I thought it looked way too good. On the otherhand, In The Valley of Ellah looked godawful. Both films distracted me at each end of the scale and threw me out of the stories for different reasons. Both films had excellent cinematographers so I can only assume the directors were after specific looks. For me personally, both films failed on that level. But for others, they might have worked. In the end, it's all subjective.

Maintenance and repair of equipment mostly. Fun experiments with consumer cameras.

I can back up the endorsement of the company Full Spectrum Solutions. They're great and the bulbs (BlueMax) are the ones you're looking for. CRI is 93 but I've noticed that even with that high CRI, I'm still adding 1/4 minus green and 1/4 CTB to get them to match my HMI's. I wouldn't sweat the flicker. I've never seen it with these bulbs. Though I have noticed a lot of flo-flicker lately in movies. Seems like either HD cameras aren't handling it well or people just aren't changing out the practical flos anymore. Either way it's getting a lot more common. Along with letting tungsten practicals clip out to pure white. Something else that's annoying and seems sloppy.

I think that a big part of success in this business especially is luck. You can be the nicest, most talented, hardest working individual out there but if you don't meet the right people and get the right opportunities, you still may never "make it" as a cinematographer. By "make it" I'm referring to obvious success like being a known name in the industry, winning awards, ASC nominations, constant tier 1 work etc. Any DP who enjoys the work they're doing can consider themselves a success but many people associate success in film with fame and recognition. Toward that end, hardwork and talent account for a lot but luck & timing can make or break it. The thing is you never know who or where those opportunities are so keeping a positive attitude really helps. Like anything else, it's the people you meet and the connections you make that matters the most.

I didn't mean to suggest that 10-1 or 10-2 could be mistaken for a stinger that actually exists. It was meant to clarify that it's not an electric reference at all. If he heard of a 12-3 etc, he might assume someone saying 10-1 was grabbing a cable.

Btw, if anyone mentions that they're "10-1" or "10-2" it's referring to them leaving the set for a bathroom break. lol. It's not a reference to a type of "stinger"= (extension cord).

In answering that question of when does a movie beg to be shot in B&W, I guess, it's a good question being that as cinematographers, it's not largely up to us to determine that. Generally a director will insist on something like that. I've suggested shooting B&W on almost every feature I've shot. Not as a rule but more just out of curiosity to see what the director would say. 9 times out of 10 it's been taken as a joke and never really considered for more than half a second. Occasionally people will think about the idea but no one has ever taken me up on it. After finishing a script, the first question I have is generally HD or film which almost always is determined early on by the budget and rarely a matter of what's right for the script, then aspect ratio and then handheld vs hollywood style. etc. I don't make the B&W suggestion seriously but I always hope it gets considered. I wish more directors considered B&W and it was a question that came up more frequently. Especially since indie filmmakers don't often deal with the same sort of restrictions that studios deal with in relation to distributors general aversions to acquiring B&W films.

If you look at the daily rental of an HVX200 which may go for $425 with batteries and cards from a rental house. That same rental for a month would not come to 30x $425 or ($12,750) as that would not make any sense. This is why weekly and monthly rental rates exist. However, it should be noted that the days must be consecutive for this to apply. You can't book a "9-12 day monthly" rental on equipment and then space out those 9-12 days over the course of three months, coming in whenever you want and repeatedly checking in and checking out equipment. Those days must be back to back and within the time frame of a week or a month. Same thing with weekend shooting. A weekend rental of 2 days is a 1 day rental. But 2 days in the middle of the week is 2 days. The protocol for owner operators also has it's differences. For instance, if production books your gear for a month on a film and you finish the film in 18 days. That doesn't mean that they have your gear for a week to use on a different film or a music video, commercial etc. Where with a rental house, no one would know or care if they did this, if it's your own equipment, typically, your obligation will end when production wraps. For this reason, it's always good to have a contract with terms everyone understands and agrees upon. Always keep your business practices standard because whether production knows they're doing something stupid or not today, isn't the issue. Eventually, on this project or the next they'll realize they made a mistake and they'll remember that if you took advantage of it.

I'm not saying it makes sense but it was one of the first lessons in cinematography when I was in school. 50mm is considered "normal" meaning closest to human perception. Think about all the film still cameras that were sold back in the day with a 50mm already attached.

In 35mm cinematography, a 50mm lens is considered the "normal" lens. Meaning it's most approximate to human vision. In 16mm it's a 25mm.

I'm kinda shocked by this ad. It's sort of like Zacuto admitting that they have absolutely no idea how to streamline that canoe sized rig despite the fact that the camera is now 2 inches long. It seems like a parody of a Zacuto ad. Is that for real?

Ugly lighting is pretty simple really. Place your key light just above the lens and front light everyone. It doesn't get much worse than that. You will take a hit though as the DP for creating pretty awful cinematography so be prepared. It's really up to hair & makeup to make someone look ugly.

I use a 1/4 minus green or less on the 3200K flo's. The problem with the CRI is that it's usually in the 80's as opposed to the daylight tubes which are in the high 90's.

The international version is online right? As long as the magazine is also webbased, you don't necessarily need it printed.

I was actually thinking of getting that DVD. I've always been a fan of both the book and the film though the movie could have been much better. I had no idea Willis had a commentary track on the DVD. Lately I've looked at some other films from the 80's on DVD and among the standouts were 2 films shot by Thomas Del Ruth. Stand By Me and The Breakfast Club. Both had a similar sort of elegant simplicity to them. I have to say I like the characteristics of certain filmstocks from the 80's. It seemed like the DP's from the 70's were finally able to achieve that natural documentary look without color temperatures looking all faded and wierd. Images were punchy and crisp but not artificially so. Unlike certain looks of today where everything resembles anime.