harryprayiv

It kind of saddens me that people go for this bleach bypass thing as of late. I mean, one of the things that I always wanted to recreat about the real world that I see if the beauty of richly saturated colors. I definitely understand why people do this, but I just love the way that saturated colors look to my eye. I just love it when a yellow caution strip on the sides of the T tracks in Boston blares out at me at high noon. I love it when a lime green or bright yellow has the ability to draw my eye and make me hungry/thirsty. But, maybe I am not as hip as some of the cinematographers in the world and I just value the way that things look in real life too much. Persoanlly, I think that the bleach bypass thing is a total fad at the moment and it's really blase to me by now. Although it (monochomaticism) IS just another way to create a mood, I think it is starting to get overused for dramatic effect and is starting to become part of the whole Hollywood look...especially on movie posters (Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, and others). Just as Amelie was a movie for enhancing and oversaturating colors, movies like Seven, Northfork and others intentionally desturate what the camera may be seeing to bring you into a mood more readily and there's nothing wrong with that. I just dislike when there is no reason except for the film to look glitzy.

hmmmm...now I'm sort of confused. It seemed like you were saying exactly that. ;)

From what I heard Darius Khondji asked for too much money to do 'Amélie' so Jeunet went with Delbonnel. This film will only get released in France at the end of October btw. ahhh I see. Makes sense.....I guess Khondji can ask for whatever he wants. Sucks that it'll only get released in France. I hope they realize that since Amélie, Jeunet has plenty of fans in the US...I guess not enough to warrant a release in the US, but oh well.

Looks like Bruno Delbonnel is Jeane Pierre Jeunet's newly discovered favorite cinematographer and Audrey Tautou is another future fixture of his...he tends to work with the same people...probably because he's supposedly a control freak. He must've picked Bruno over Darius Khondji which says a LOT about what we'll see from Bruno in the future. I must say, the images look good. Although, it sort of looks similar to what Janusz Kaminski's did on Saving Private Ryan from what I saw of the trailer on the Un long dimanche de fiançailles website. It definitely has that yellowish DI look like that of certain parts of Amelie as well. I can't wait until it's released in America because Jeunet is one of my favorite directors because he really has a cinematic mind. I am not sure if his vision works as well in this kind of film, but that remains to be seen. I love his other films for sure though. Anyone in France seen it yet? Here's the IMDB link for yall Also, the photos by Bruno Calvo on the website are astoundingly beautiful. There's this one with a sort of infinite depth of field that made my jaw drop and the battlefield sets look extremely realistic.

perhaps plus green....or perhaps they decided to light him practically with flourescents. Whatever it is, it's obvious that Jeff Cronenweth learned a lot from working on Se7evn with Darius Khondji. Also, I'm sure it had a lot to do with the fact that Claudio Miranda was the gaffer on both.

#1: I dont know they are. The casting Director I talked to told me once the film is funded, that its worth a try to send the screenplay to them. #2: SAG, So fare is treating me good. I have called them several time. they dont seem to care about my age, as long as someone 18 signs the contracts. Or they will let me sign them if I get Emancipated. #3: Lunch will be in the lunch room of Bloomington Center Studios and we will shoot there also. #4: I dont know, I have not met them yet :-) I'll keep you posted. I know what SAG's rules are. I have read there agreements more than once. but almost anybody you hear of it is a SAG member, and I may just have to live with SAG if I want my film to go anywhere. According to the Casting Director I talked to, he said that I had a better chance of getting bigger stars. He said Because 100% of my film is to be shot on Bluescreen, that gives them a flexible calender to come in when they can. I have so much to say, but all I will really say is that you really have a lot to learn. Also, I agree with what everyone (except Landon) has said about Rodriguez and his inability to realize that he is sacrificing the quality of his movies to save a buck (or get more credit for the sub-par work). The film industry works as a team effort because it is impossible for one person to know and think about EVERY aspect of the film. It's just not realistic...unless you want an obviously underplanned/unfocused movie.

Thanks for the reply. Do you know of any places where I can find a wealth of this information in one place. i want to know what each diffusion does BEFORE I get on set, so I don't waste a lot of time in my lighting setups sitting there experimenting. When I work for myself doing lighting though, I usually take as much time as I want for setups and in turn, learn a lot.

Hi there. I am trying to compile a list of all of the different kinds of diffusion you guys have worked with. Of course, I could go to the Lee or Rosco web site to find out about this, but I wanted to see how each of you use each kind of diffusion that you describe. Here's the list of kinds and descriptions of kinds that I have worked with.... 216 (VERY VERY common. To me, it yields an almost similar look to a silk) 250 (denser than 215 and useful for creating a soft falloff...but then again, so are all of them) Hampshire (foggy diffusion that spreads out the light ever so slightly) Soft Spun (a kind of diffusion that I used only on TV sets. does similar things to silks) Cosmetic (has a reddish look to it that's good for human flesh tones and has a similar density to hampshire...I've never seen it on a film set, but used it all the time on TV lighting..probably because of the odd effects it has on color temperature) Opal (the thinnest kind of diffusion I've worked with...does just enough diffusing to maintain a harder look than others)

Thanks for ruining the ending, Marty. That seems to be a trend with this movie.

Yeah. I was using the Bolex for these particular splices, although I like using the hot splicer at school much better. You can be sure it has adhered with the hot splicer. The Bolex thing involves scraping the emulsion away to get to the base and then doing the same on the other side. You lose one frame from it, but it's usually VERY clean if you're using a cotton swab. I have learned my lesson about old cement though. I have developed some rules for future film work though. - always buy you're own - close the cement container at every available moment - clean the splicer/splices/area around the splices often - work quickly I'd say, despite being finicky, cement splices are considered the most archival and solid because they bond two layers of base together instead of adding some glue and plastic on the film. This has been my take on tape vs. cement splices. ps. I used to get good results with Wurker splices (and burnishing the splice with a hard object on the splice seam to) until I realized that cement is much, much better.

Yeah. I was referring to how well it adheres when it is old. I had used some of my school's professional film cement and even though my splices were as clean and precise as most negative cutters' work, they came apart in the projector at every single splice. It was my final too! I had to buy my own cement and re-splice every single one, losing a frame on both sides of the splice. It was terrible.

sorry to misinform anyone. That is what my teacher said and perhaps I should have researched it before I opened my fat mouth.

You might also consider that most transfer facilities won't accept films with tape splices...they just won't. Cement is definitely better IMO, but it CAN and DOES come apart at the splice. My experience is that cement is actually stronger unless it is old cement. Also, the splices look better with cement and will run through projection equipment much, much more smoothly.

Does anyone have a link to this video clip?

Recently, there have been hundreds of UFO sitings in Mexico. The U.S. government even acknowledges it. I am not syaing that aliens are real, I am saying that they very well could be real.

NOt really I thought the video was good. Keep up the good work.

good luck!

American Cinematographer's Article on the Terminal ~Click Here~ It's a good article, although I don't ever imagine needing as many lights as Kaminski ended up using! But then again, he's one of the most in demand cinematographers of today.

Gee, you are really very tolerant of people who don't share your opinion. You know, it is very useful to every once in a while listen to people who don't have the same taste as you do, it might actually help you to expand your horizon... I second that.

It is possible with an SR3 as far as I know. I've never had the time just to try it on set and have never had the money to do tests, so don't take my word for it... anyone?

I just don't think that the colorspace available on a DI is at the level it should be at yet...at least compared to what actual film stock is capable of. Also, I was not referring to the harbor shot...that didn't bug me at all...I was talking about in Peter Parker's apartment in the final scene...you know, that "go get em, tiger!" part? The lighting in the background was interesting, but also stuck out like a sore thumb as studio lighting. I was only saying that a sunset would never cast this color light and then, when Spiderman makes his way around the city in the final part (with helicopters and a completely CG city) it looks like a completely different time of day....more like high noon. So back to what I actually meant. What I am mostly referring to is the fake characteristics of a lot of the CG and it's inability to be transferred into the film believably (at least to my eyes/mind)...definitely the way that Maya (or Houdini or 3D Studio Max, etc?) imitates lighting/motion blur/depth/aperture/grain/motion. I just don't believe it in any way and it's not like it's really even trying not to look real. Also, the part where the balcony breaks off of the building in the first Spiderman has severely plasticy skin tones on Kirtsen Dunst's face. And it is my opinion that she is shot really unflatteringly (as far as her face goes compared to other movies I have seen her in) in both movies. I am not suggesting that the amount of negative fill made the scenes too contrasty, but I thought makeup/lighting/skin tones on transfer/DI weren't up to par with how I know Kirsten Dunst can look on screen. I would think that one would want to make the audience attracted to love interest and not paint her in an unflattering light, but maybe I am wrong....I just thought she looked........"busted" in the film. Sorry, but that's the word that came to my mind throughout both films.

I actually thought that this movie fell way short of great cinematography because of the skin tones the DI produced. I mean, the second one was much better than the first as far as this point goes, but it still had that unnatural, platic skin tone that I so loathe. Also, I found the amber kicker in the final scene completely unmotivated since the rest of the movie didn't really strive for the comic book look (see Batman Forever for a good look at some consistent comic book lighting). Just my two cents.

How true. I'm not getting paid yet and I've got a LOT more knowhow than a lot of DP's I've seen. I guess I need to beef up my reel.

You can start by doing everything in CG if you want THAT look. Sorry, I am just really bitter about how the production of all three LOTR relied too heavily on a technology that is "not all there" yet, and no one even cared about that...I think it's a crime to rely so heavily on CG at this point, but seeing as how most of the characters and scenes would be REALLY hard to create without CG, I can uderstand why it was done. If you want to see some good battle shooting, an excellent movie for that was Braveheart. I'm not sure what they did, but merely watching it might give you alot of insight into it

ya beat me to it. I thought Shrek 2 had a great use of motion blur.......like at the end, when they do freeze frames to credit actors/actresses, you can see some motion blur in those stills...especially in the shot of the princess.