Jump to content

My next job is a change of pace


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member
So, are you involved with the final transfer?

 

You mean final tape-to-tape color-correction -- the film is transferred everyday to HD-D5, then downconversions are made from HD for DVD dailies.

 

I don't know -- they don't do the final color-correction until after the whole season is finished shooting and editing, sometime next spring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
You mean final tape-to-tape color-correction

 

Yes, I was curious if you had any say whether or not they blew out the highlights... in the end, or whether or not you wanted them to.

 

I don't know -- they don't do the final color-correction until after the whole season is finished shooting and editing, sometime next spring.

 

 

I meant are you involved with the "final" correction? I guess not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...since he's under a rule that he can't allow any clipping in the transfer...

 

david, or anyone else,... do you know if this is now standard procedure for tv (telecine full range, then tape-to-tape grade from the edit)? it certainly makes sense from the producers' standpoint. but is there ever any percievable loss in image quality (particularly "almost banding" in the mid-to-shadow pronouncing the grain) in the final color graded hd masters? (i'm assuming they're mastering in hd for the future).

 

it seems like they could use the EDL to re-telecine for the final grade, or is the cost savings that substantial?

Edited by Jaan Shenberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Wow, Dave I didnt know you were the DP for that show! Im happy to say I get to be the guy that brings you a lot of your camera gear throughout the week, I work for Panavision.

 

Maybe next time I pop in if you're not too busy I can say 'hi'. (I got to hang out and watch that scene last week where they were having the barbeque out by their pool at night, it looked really good, btw. I like the way you guys light that swimming pool)

 

And to the other guy that posted about the location, that WHOLE house, complete with a swimming pool built right into the stage floor and a front a back yard is built to scale on that set, it's pretty amazing. I dont really watch that show, my girlfriend LOVES it and I must say it looks fantastic, HBO puts such production value into all their programming, I love it.

 

But I still havent gotten to see Harry Dean Stanton yet. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

One quetion for Mr. Mullen that was never totally touched on:

 

How is this whole 2 DP thing working?

Are you completely collaborative on everything? If so, could you describe the on-set work flow for a 2 DP shoot?

Or are you prepping while he's shooting and then vice versa, ala Law and Order?

 

Thanks much, and again -- congradulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Well, it's obviously been a little less smooth with the illness and then death of my co-DP, James Glennon. I had to shoot Episodes 2 & 3 back-to-back, then Haskell Wexler came in to sub as a personal favor for Jim Glennon on Episode 4, then Jim passed away on the last day of that episode... then I had to shoot Episodes 5 & 6 back-to-back, then William Wages was hired to be the new co-DP.

 

So it hasn't been the alternating system it was supposed to be, although now starting with Bill Wages shooting Episode 7 and then me just finishing Episode 8 last week, we are back on an alternating schedule until the end of the season.

 

The "look" has sort of evolved over time in subtle ways (not drastically though) simply because of the personalities involved. I took my cues from how Jim Glennon was shooting the show, since he also did Season One (with co-DP Russ Alsobrook), but of course my own style has been merged into that. Haskell just did one episode but now that Bill Wages is alternating with me, he's mainly taken up the approach established so far, but of course bringing his own tastes into the mix, and to some degree, I'm responding to what I see that he's doing based on watching dailies, talking with the crew, and occasionally being able to sneak on set and watch his episode being shot while I'm in prep on the next one.

 

I'd say that a lot of the differences between Jim, myself, Haskell, and Bill are esotertic ones that only cinematographers get excited about -- the overall look has to conform to what's been established, and the show as a whole is naturalistic, realistic, not heavily stylized. In my mind, I basically have three things to remember: keep it natural, don't get too heavy in mood, and flatter the actors. There are a lot of other things to remember too, of course. There is sort of a loose style based on longer lenses and rougher compositions, shooting frames within frames, moving the actors, keeping up the pace, etc.

 

Jim Glennon wasn't so fond of the single soft source look that is so common today (and is part of my style.) He liked to key from one side but then fill from a 3/4 frontal angle, lower, sort of a second key that wrapped around the face. He also didn't use hot spots in the frame as much as I like to. But I learned a lot from him, in particular how filling from lower than eye level was more flattering to the actors. What I added to the mix was probably a stronger sense of source light in the day interior scenes, stronger sunlight effects, etc.

 

I've learned from watching Bill Wages work -- he lights almost exclusively with bounced light, mainly Source 4 ellipsoidals bouncing off of white bedsheets and white cards stapled all around the set. It's an unusual approach that he learned from shooting documentaries. So lately I've been using the Source-4's a lot more, sometimes to add hot spots to the set, other times for controlled bouncing. But other times, I still prefer lighting through frames, especially if it keeps the room more clear for the actors to move through.

 

Haskell's style could best be described as "minimalist" -- I watched him shoot in a warehouse and he mainly used the available light in there -- a few hanging Cool White fluorescent bulbs mixed with a few tungsten worklamps -- and shot at T/2.0 on primes rather than build-up the level for the zooms. Looked great. He's sort of fearless, which is admirable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm sorry to hear about Mr. Glennon.

 

The transfer is optimized for tape-to-tape, so it holds all the info on the negative. If there is a lot of bright highlight detail, this tends to drive the image down in the transfer -- conversely, darker night scenes end up brighter than they are supposed to look.

 

It's a little annoying because your brightest scenes end up looking darker than you want and the darker scenes end up looking lighter than you want. Sometimes it works to my advantage in that I can expose a day interior normally but have it look a little darker (which I like) because of a bright window in the shot.

 

The dailies colorist is not allowed to use any tools like soft clipping (knee compression), power windows, secondary color correction, etc. He's working under the requirements set by the senior colorist who will do the final tape-to-tape.

 

You would think that a "flat" transfer would just look flat and low-con, and bright, but actually sometimes it looks "down", dimmer and duller than the snappy look I prefer. I'm glad I'm shooting Expression 500T because it helps keep the low-end areas of the frame from getting crushed-looking. Many sets have medium-to-dark paint jobs so they can fall-off too quickly if you're not careful.

 

I find this aspect of the entire filmmaking process very fascinating. In my own very low budget way, I use a Panasonic MX-50 digital switcher and I can in real time adjust a betacam sp source tape, really tweak and adjust the clip levels for both white levels and black levels and it's fascinating to make even an unlit shot "pop" by clipping the hot spots and doing some other techniques I've learned, all in real time. It's interesting how this aspect of production has been thrown out the window for the NLE beginners yet it's still being used in the upper echelons of Broadcast production, only in the Broadcast world, it's a two stepper. For low budget NLE editing, it's really too late to do this kind of video level adjusting once a clip is on the time line and has become intertwined with other shots via dissolves and rendering. Some claim it's easy to do even after the time-line is rendered, but how many actually do it, and do it effectively?

 

NLE is supposed to be what we use and nothing else. NLE followed virtually none of what came before and in the process I think it's bastardized low budget editing to the point where it's all about layering and adding cool effects and less about just optimizing the actual visual frame based on how it was originally shot.

 

In my not so humble opinion on this particular subject, the no clip rule could be modified to differentiate between a blown out image that is on the actors body, hair, or clothing, the props and set pieces; versus practicals that reside in a shot. Those two clip scenarios are very different and should not be branded as being the same thing. If a practical is in the shot and they are using that as their guide for the no clip rule, they may be underrepresenting what is actually on the negative to some degree. If however, the clip rule is to prevent Chloe's hair from blowing out, or white clothing from blowing out, than it's a good rule. Sadly, sometimes these two clip scenarios get "dumbed down" and combined into one so that nobody can claim they misunderstood the no clip rule.

 

Just depends on if I'm available at that time to come in -- I don't think they'd be adverse to me being involved.

 

Is there a separate published pay rate if you do get involved in the post color timing since it's technically "easier" in the sense that you don't have a full crew, actors, mishaps and tight schedules to deal with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Most DP's are never paid for the time they put into post, which is nuts. I easily put in nearly a month of work finishing a movie for print and video release, yet I just have to volunteer that time. It's silly to sit in a D.I. suite for a couple of weeks surrounded by the post supervisor, director, colorist, editor... and all of them are being paid to be there except the DP.

 

A few lucky DP's get it in their contract that they will be paid for post work, sometimes a flat fee -- for example, Andrew Lesnie was paid for putting time into the post for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and "King Kong." But I remember when Remi Adefarasin told me that he spent a month in Los Angeles doing the D.I. for "Haunted Mansion" on his own dime more or less. And that's the more common scenario.

 

Even on an indie movie like "Northfork" I put in at least a solid week on the home video transfer, 8-hours a day for five days, plus several trips to the lab to see answer prints, wedge tests for opticals, etc. that occur over a three-week period. So basically a month of my time is tied up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Most DP's are never paid for the time they put into post, which is nuts. I easily put in nearly a month of work finishing a movie for print and video release, yet I just have to volunteer that time. It's silly to sit in a D.I. suite for a couple of weeks surrounded by the post supervisor, director, colorist, editor... and all of them are being paid to be there except the DP.

 

A few lucky DP's get it in their contract that they will be paid for post work, sometimes a flat fee -- for example, Andrew Lesnie was paid for putting time into the post for the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy and "King Kong." But I remember when Remi Adefarasin told me that he spent a month in Los Angeles doing the D.I. for "Haunted Mansion" on his own dime more or less. And that's the more common scenario.

 

Even on an indie movie like "Northfork" I put in at least a solid week on the home video transfer, 8-hours a day for five days, plus several trips to the lab to see answer prints, wedge tests for opticals, etc. that occur over a three-week period. So basically a month of my time is tied up.

 

It's the weirdest part of this business, not being paid to supervise transfer sessions. The DP should be paid something, even if it's just the lowest day rate allowed or something that at least covers per diem and basic daily overhead costs of living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

 

I'd say that a lot of the differences between Jim, myself, Haskell, and Bill are esotertic ones that only cinematographers get excited about.............

 

I've certainly gone to school on how you light so that everything "in frame" looks like it was lit with natural sources no matter what equipment it took "out of frame" to get that look.

 

Jim Glennon wasn't so fond of the single soft source look that is so common today.........

 

I've learned from watching Bill Wages work -- he lights almost exclusively with bounced light, mainly Source 4 ellipsoidals................

 

This certainly encourages a tack I've been on, since I own 32 S4's in my theatrical stock and have been experimenting lighting interiors bouncing my S4's. I've tried key lighting with the S4's through cheap office flourescent fixture prismatic lenses which combined with S4 bounce can look surprisingly professional.

 

Haskell's style could best be described as "minimalist"..............

 

I would gladly sell my soul to the devil to have his eye for making "everything" out of a little.

 

Is there any chance that when the season wraps I can find out who shot which episode, watch reruns, and go to school on your comments about the individual lighting styles and working within the need to maintain the show's "look"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

When Season Two is broadcast, the DP's credit will be right up front in the main titles for each episode, although we all end up shooting bits and pieces from each other's episodes. Last week I shot a scene that will be in Haskell's episode and an establishing shot that will be in Bill Wages' episode, and he shot a short scene that will be in my first episode.

 

What I sort of like about the two DP system is that I get to see how another DP handles the same sets and actors as I do, which keeps things fresh for me... just when I think I've lit that set (or face) as many ways as possible, I see a new approach done by the other DP and it sparks new ideas. It also challenges me to be as good as the other DP. I've admired Bill Wages' work for a long time, ever since the mini-series "Gore Vidal's Lincoln", and he creates such a natural low-key look that it's great to see how he does it.

 

I have noticed though that the DP's whose work seems the most natural to me tend to work at lower light levels and wider f-stops than I feel comfortable with. They don't have any fear about shooting scenes at T/2 or wider, whereas I worry about a director calling for a tight shot of a moving actor and seeing a lot of swimmy, soft footage... so I try and keep the stop higher when I shoot (plus lately I've done so much anamorphic work where I've had to light to at least a T/4 at 320 ASA.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...