LOST IN TRANSLATION - HIGH SPEED

[Ckulakov]

Dear Filmmakers,

 

As far as I have read and seen, (CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG) "Lost in Translation" was shot without real movie lights. It was shot in the normal indoor/outdoor conditions and lights of Japan. It was also shot on high-speed 35mm film as far as I know. Due to the low lighting conditions the images of the film looked very grainy and shallow focus in many of the night, indoor/outdoor shots.

 

Most of you see the grain as a bad thing but it feels good to finaly see what nightime indoor lights look like on film. You can see what the key to fill light ratio is and how the image looks and its color temp. BASICLY I love seeing natural, normal light effects captured on film, especially when you have beautiful hotel lighting the way it really looks but on film.

 

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

PLEASE LEAVE COMMENTS ON MORE OF THE SHOOTING SPECS?

[Filip Plesha]

I love that film

 

It was shot on 5263 (if that's the right number), a 500 speed low saturation and low contrast stock (even lower than vision expression at the time), AFAIK the stock lasted for about a year or two until it was discontinued for some reason.

 

In the Kodak DVD documentary it is mentioned that they shot the film on the limits of underexposure latitude (they rated it higher than 500ISO at times), which is probably what made it grainy.

The DP didn't say it like that, he said something like "the stock is faster than what reads on the box",

but either way, the way he used it would make it more grainy than out of the box.

 

But light levels have nothing to do with grain. If you properly expose the film (hit it with enough photons) the grain will be the same wheather you use a night reading lamp or 4K HMI.

It gets grainy if the low light levels forced you to underexpose the film, like they did for Lost in translation.

[Mike Williamson]

Some of the underexposurer was intentionally done to reduce color saturation. DP Lance Accord talks about this in the book "New Cinematographers", saying that they shot some night exteriors at T4 or 5.6 because he felt that it gave the color saturation a softer quality. And Filip is right, they shot on 5263 which has been discontinued for awhile, not sure how long it was on the market for.

 

I personally love the film, I saw it several times when it was in the theater. I remember thinking that the DVD felt a bit clean compared to the texture of the film print, but I haven't seen it in awhile.

[Alex Haspel]

Dear Filmmakers,

 

Due to the low lighting conditions the images of the film looked very grainy and shallow focus in many of the night, indoor/outdoor shots.

Most of you see the grain as a bad thing but it feels good to finaly see what nightime indoor lights look like on film. You can see what the key to fill light ratio is and how the image looks and its color temp. BASICLY I love seeing natural, normal light effects captured on film...

 

 

hi.

 

i love low level / natural lighing too.

if you liked that.. i just shot a short using a similar lighting philosophy, it was lit entirely with practicals.

take a look and leave a preferably nice message :)

 

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...showtopic=12127

[Boone Hudgins]

In the January '04 issue of American Cinematographer, Lance Acord says he usually rated the 5263 at 1,200 ISO, but that he was able to underexpose the midtones two stops for night scenes.

[Craig Agee]

lance acord is a great photographer,lost in translation was a really good looking film.He does have a very natural way of lighting scenes,very basic it looks like (i could be wrong) if not hes doing a good job of hiding a complex setup and making it look natural.Adaptation was a great film and i really liked buffalo 66