Ignacio Aguilar

Gonzalo Fernández Berridi, in fact, is a Spanish cinematographer with a long career and that's his real name. He may have used a pseudonym for his works in other countries, though I doubt it and sounds like a mistake from IMDB.

Very sad news. He was one of the most influential cinematographers ever. Rest in peace Mr. Watkin.

I believe Chris Menges and Doug Milsome are members of both the ASC and BSC.

John, I don't like it as much in terms of cinematography as "The Godfather II", "Chinatown", "The Parallax View" or "Pelham 1,2,3" (just to name some 1974 films), but I think Joe Biroc's second unit work was outstanding. John Guillermin's classical & elegant camera work on the first unit doesn't hurt either (I still miss wide-angle lenses and big sets on modern blockbusters), though I've never been a fan of Fred Koenekamp and his lighting remains "too" old fashioned for my tastes ;) Back to 5247 and "Close Encounters", Spielberg told AC how much he hated the upgraded version of the film stock, and even claimed that he would have shot the entire film in 65mm just to avoid it (I think he also said that they used some coral filters throughout the film to warm up the images). It's also interesting that around 1977 some people thought Kodak wouldn't produce a 65mm version of 5247 because the fine grain of the 35mm version made 65mm obsolete (as if 35mm 5247 was better than 65mm 5254!).

"The Towering Inferno" used the first version of 5247 in May 1974 for its special effects shots. Prior to start filming, cinematographers Fred Koenekamp and Joe Biroc tested the new stock together with photographic effects supervisor L.B. Abbott. They liked it for its finer grained texture, but since only a small amount of stock could be processed at the time, 5247 was only used by Abbott for shots involving blue-screen and opticals (Koenekamp used 5254 and pushed it one stop for the rest of the film).

I have seen that effect on some 70's pictures as well, and I've always thought that it was caused by wide open anamorphic zoom lenses. Check out "The Deer Hunter" (the film DP Vilmos Zsigmond shot right after he left "Close Encounters") and you will notice the softness at the top and the bottom a few times during different scenes. DP Fred Koenekamp was another cinematographer who preferred anamorphic zooms over primes, and both "The Towering Inferno" and "Islands In The Stream" often have that blurry top and bottom while it's pretty clear that a rear mounted zoom was being used.

I think "American Gangster" looks surprisingly consistent considering the low light levels and the underexposure & pulling being applied to the negative. Perhaps a few night interiors look thinner than the rest of the picture, but that's it. It's a lovely work, the best I've seen this year, and it fits the story very well. It's interesting, because it may well be the first time the look of a Ridley Scott film belongs more to his DP than the director himself.

I noticed neither the ad or the ASC roster list Kaminski as one of its members anymore. Is it an error or perhaps he has left the ASC? The trailer looks wonderful. I can't wait to watch this film.

I haven't seen it in years, but "Capricorn One" was most likely shot on the standard film stock from 1976 to 1981 (Kodak 5247, 100 ASA) using Panavision C-Series anamorphic lenses, like most films from that period. DP Bill Butler shot both "Grease" and "Damien: Omen II" that year and both look fine from a technical point of view, so I wouldn't blame the optics or film stock if something is wrong with the HD transfer.

"Close Encounters of the Third Kind" used Kodak 5247 (100 ASA) for its non visual effects scenes. Plus it was shot using anamorphic lenses, which most people stop down a bit in order to get a decent performance and more depth of field. Even if DP Vilmos Zsigmond pushed the stock one stop (200 ASA) for the night work, it still means he needed 100 footcandles to get a T/4. Depending on your shooting format, you won't need as much power from your lights as he did.

I haven't seen "Cabaret" in years, but this particular scene may well be my favourite in terms of photography. Beautiful, simple and moody. I remember a lot of smoke on this one, but I think he didn't use the fog filter as much as he did for his later films, or at least, he used lighter grades.

I usually like diffusion as well because it gives you a softer texture and beautiful halos around highlights. I have used some very light Pro-Mists for my last project (Super 16mm) to achieve this effect and still keep a decent contrast and sharpness. For .. we saw some tests shot with the same camera and net prior to start shooting. The final effect, at DVD resolution, isn't as fuzzy and washed out. It will look more or less like a #1 filter, not as diffused as you see in these stills.

.

I admire the cinematography of Richard Kline and William Fraker, but I think people like Wexler and Hall were a bit ahead of them in the transition to a more modern style. Both Kline and Fraker took great risks during their careers (remember those day exterior scenes on the boat in "King Kong"? A big-budget film shot with available light and some bounce cards!), but then their next film would be more conventional and classic looking. Compare Fraker's 1993 "Tombstone" (an overall good looking picture) to Owen Roizman's 1994 "Wyatt Earp" and you definetly will spot different styles and techniques (the later being much softer and natural looking). And Fraker's "1941" looks like an american version of what a much older cameraman like Unsworth was doing those days. Kline and Fraker were no vanguardists in my opinion, just two great cinematographers who had learned the old way and had been influenced in some ways by modern techniques. Here's a quote from William Fraker regarding Conrad Hall (AC May 2003), which I think is interesting (Fraker was Hall's operator for a few films back in the 60's):

"Marathon Man" (released on 10-8-1976) also features some early Steadicam work by Garrett Brown himself.

I found the film a bit too long and slow, but Roger Deakins' work is gorgeus. The bleach-by-pass process added a very organic feel to the images, and though the Cooke S4 lenses are a bit soft for wide shots, the 4K DI retained very sharp grains on the screen. Overall it had a great texture and the negative always looked very dense with great blacks (the bleach-by-pass helped once again) and really consistent exposures. The candlelit scenes were a bit desaturated for my taste, but the train scene at the beginning is so beatiful the reminded me of Conrad Hall's "Road to Perdition".

Ben Affleck's movie is surprisingly good. Much better than anyone could have expected from him. John Toll has delivered a very low-key approach, with a simple, natural and realistic look that never draws the attention to itself. The cinematography could have more slick if it been more contrasty and less pastel, but it's clear that he avoided any kind of stylization. And it serves the story very well.

"Seraphim Falls" is a good movie and John Toll's anamorphic cinematography is great. Too bad it didn't reach the big screen outside a few cities in the US.

I've seen the HD DVD. The early scenes look like a mix of different techniques, depending on the scene: flashed negative, low-contrast and double-fog filters. Plus most of the picture was shot using anamorphic zoom lenses, which contribute to reduce the contrast and overall sharpness. The second half of the film still has some diffusion effects, but less heavier than the first half. Check any other film shot by DP Vilmos Zsigmond from "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" to "Heaven's Gate" to find a similar approach to contrast and diffusion.

You should be proud of yourself, Stuart. I love dark silhouettes and underexposed faces in the foreground against a brighter background. The great Gordon Willis used to shoot this way, but your work seems to be more stylized with smoke and gels. Congratulations. It looks great.

The helicopter shadow? I've seen this film in 35mm projected at 1.85:1, and it was still visible for a few frames. But that way it's not nearly as noticiable as it is in 1.33:1. And I agree, this film looks much better in its original theatrical aspect ratio.

If "The Brave One" was scanned at 4K, then it must have been downrezzed to 2K for the 35mm output. It looks sharper than most Super 35 films, but it lacks the crispness of the best anamorphic presentations. This year I still have high hopes for "There Will Be Blood", the new P.T. Anderson & Robert Elswit film. It's anamorphic, too. If the rumors are true (it's said they're shooting 15-perf 65mm and 35mm anamorphic) we may see the first Nolan/Pfister DI with "The Dark Knight".

This morning I was reading again John Toll's interview in the January 2004 issue of AC, covering "The Last Samurai" and he says that he switched from EXR 5298 (500T) to the (then) new VISION2 5218 (500T) during the shoot. At first I thought that it was an error and he was talking about VISION1 5279 (500T) -because 5298 was discontinued around 1997-1998; "Eyes Wide Shut" got special supplies from Kodak-, but then 5298 was mentioned again, so I don't know. The article is available at the ASC website.

Actually, most of the time he was using a "regular" Fog #2 filter by Harrison & Harrison ;) His former assistant, John Alcott, also used the form "Photographed by" for most of his films. As far as I know, the only other DP who likes to be credited this way is Janusz Kaminski.

I've always thought too that split-diopters were first used in "King of Kings" (1961). In fact, I once read somebody refering to them as "Planer-Berenguer" diopters, after Franz Planer [ASC] and Manuel Berenguer [ASC], who supposedly had invented them. If somebody else had used them before, it had to be Robert Wise! ;)