DP's MOVIE SPECS?

[mryendor]

Hello,

 

I have been searching for an online or offline resource that I can go to to know the following on any given movie:

 

Type of Camera Used

Type of Lens Used

Type of Film Stock Used

Type of Lighting Package used

 

I want to use this information to study trends amongst certain DP's as well as genres of films.

I want study DP, Lance Acord's work on Lost in Translation.

 

Any help on this is appreciated.

 

thanks,

 

r

[Tony Brown]

Having just stayed in the Park Hyatt where they shot Lost in Translation I'd guess no lights at all :P . Not my favourite 'style (?)' - looked like they shot it in 10 days.

 

Having said that its a very difficult place to shoot.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Is it really that dark in that bar, or were they underexposing?

 

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

There is no single repository for this information, although reading American Cinematographer and ICG magazines is a good start. IMDB Pro has a lot of useful info as well but you have to pay for the service.

 

Lance Accord shot Lost in Translation using Moviecam Compacts and an Aaton 35-3. I believe he used Zeiss UltraSpeed primes but I could be wrong. He used very little traditional lighting and grip gear, relying mostly on practical lights that he often positioned into the locations. This shows in the numerous underexposed and soft-focus shots. He knew what was happening at the time and he and the director decided that the pros of working in this manner outweighed the cons, at least for this particular production.

[mryendor]

thanks a bunch for the response.

 

I did learn that they shot the film on Kodak 5263 film stock which is now discontinued.

I wanted to learn more about there shoot b/c I am about to shoot a short film and I believe

some of my parameters and criteria matches theirs.

 

Any recommendations on film stocks that's similar to Kodak 5263.

 

I am working on quotes for shooting on 35mm however Super 16 doesn't seem to be a bad option.

 

I was recommended Vision 2 EK 5218.

 

any thoughts.

 

Oh yeah, I plan on shooting this film in Colorado (Denver/Boulder) area so are there any thing that I should consider because of the altitiude and other elements.

 

thanks

 

r

[Mitch Gross]

If you want the lower contrast and muted colors try the new Vision2 Expression 5229 (7229 in S-16).

[mryendor]

Thanks. How fast is the film?

[Brett Juskalian]

mryendor, Have you thought about 3-perf 35mm? If Super 16 is an option I assume you've got a blowup budget or you're not going to print with the film. I'm shooting a project in two months and 3-perf seemed to be the way to go. Aside from a nominal prep. fee (at Clairmont a BL-4 set for 3-perf operation requires a $100 fee) there aren't added expenses, and you'll shoot 25% less film. This is of course assuming you're shooting other than a 4:3 aspect ratio.

 

 

Brett

[Mitch Gross]

Thanks. How fast is the film?

It's a 500 speed film, the newest in the Kodak product line (came out last Fall). It's the closest thing to the old 5263 currently available. One aspect that it does not include is a shift in the yellow sub-layer that was to the benefit of Asian skin tones. That's why the stock was originally introduced to only the Asian market and partly why Accord chose it for the film.

[mryendor]

Mitch, this is valueable information. skin tones is important to me as well because there are some African Americans in me film and I want to pull out the richness of brown.

 

with that in mind, any other filmstocks you would recommend.

 

r

[Mitch Gross]

Mitch, this is valueable information. skin tones is important to me as well because there are some African Americans in me film and I want to pull out the richness of brown.

 

with that in mind, any other filmstocks you would recommend.

The Vision2 stocks are excellent for this as the handle dark skin tones much better than the previous generation. Currently Kodak only has the two 500 speed stocks in Vision2 -- 5218 & 5229 -- but they are soon to release 100 and 200 speed Vision2 stocks.

 

Kodak has some great demo material of the new stocks, available as film prints and on DVD. The film print is best, but the DVD is still useful. Contact Kodak.

[mryendor]

much thanks!

[David Mullen ASC]

Remember that your grain structure is different when shooting the Super-16 versions of 35mm stocks. You might be better off with Vision-2 7218 because it's the finest grained of the 500 ASA stocks.

 

If you're not concerned about grain, I suspect the closest thing to '63 is now Fuji F-400T followed by Expression 500T.

[Christian Appelt]

EDIT: :huh:

 

I got a bit carried away when I wrote the following post, Mryendor's initial question was 100% sensible and deserved helpful answers.

But I had two or three inquiries from aspiring filmmakers the last week about "how to get a David Fincher look" for their first half-hour film, but "at a home movie budget", and they stated that they couldn't waste their valuable time reading stupid technical literature. They also thought that anyone (actors, technicians) should be grateful forever to learn so much about filmmaking by working on their project (no budget, no catering, no insurance etc.) It went on like this for 40 minutes, then I said goodbye and left them alone.

Now let the rant begin... :)

 

/EDIT

 

 

 

 

 

Certainly it's valuable to know how fine cinematographers managed to get a special look or effects. But in my opinion, all this information is absolutely overrated.

 

First, a lot of what people say in the trade press (that includes the American Cinematographer) is not necessarily true. Many professionals will say how wonderful it was to work with this remote head or that new lens. Often they claim that this kind of shot was impossible to do before the advent of (insert whatever technique/item is in fashion now), and how happy they are they could do it now.

 

Then you watch a good film that is 30, 40, 60 years old, and miraculously there's that impossible camera movement (which can only be done by using XYZ's remote head). Wait a minute, it's a 1939 color film with a 500-pound-Technicolor camera on a crane moved by grips... there must be something wrong! :blink:

 

I remember hearing a "lecture" from what is IMHO the most overrated DOP from Europe working for an American director. He presented a new film (in 1993) and raved about how wonderful Super-35 was. He might never have been able to shoot this top shot without the Blahblah wide angle lens which is not available in anamorphic.

I did some calculations and research and found that there were not less than 15 lenses from different manufacturers available covering the same horizontal angle - the DOP was just talking nonsense. He never has shot one frame of anamorphic footage, but he's a star, so why should he change his mode of operations? So he lied, and when two students asked about the lens in question, he smiled like Buddha and said: "Well, let's not get too technical - we don't want to bore the audience, do we?" :angry:

 

NOW. Do not believe every word you read (including these), but here is my advice to any student or beginning filmmaker:

 

1. DOING IS BETTER THAN READING AND RAVING ABOUT IT

 

You will learn tenfold and waste less of your time when you GO OUT AND SHOOT SOMETHING instead of trying to find out what kind of special cross processing Darius Khondji uses when he makes a bowl of salad.

GO OUT AND TRY TO DO SOMETHING. Not on video, because with video you always get an image and have sound to cover what the image lacks. Shoot your own footage on 16mm short ends or recan material, get it processed and go to your lab. Do not just dump it there in the spirit of "I push the button, you do the rest", talk to the people handling your footage. Many of them will be glad to answer your questions.

 

Learn about lighting a scene, because lighting is essential to professional looking material. Read the books that have all the knowledge, like THE 5 C's OF CINEMATOGRAPHY, John Alton's PAINTING WITH LIGHT or Lenny Lipton's INDEPENDENT FILMMAKING. All the information is out there, neatly packed and condensed. Use it. If you want to learn the basics, learn 35mm still photography, this will teach you what film does when and why.

 

I have more respect for anybody who makes a good 16mm short film done professionaly within the budget restrictions than for those smart guys who rave endlessly about the great low budget slasher movie they will certainly start shooting next month, well, at least when everyone has agreed to working for free and not tampering with the filmmaker's creative vision... One year later, you'll find them with a new project and nothing produced in the meantime but hot air. :angry:

 

 

2. SEE THE CLASSICS

 

Many beginners think that today's way of filmmaking is the logical result of evolution. So they watch only new movies, maybe those of the last 10 years. This is like a painter who only looks at what's been done since 1994, missing Rembrandt, Van Gogh, Picasso and all the other masters that form our visual heritage.

 

So if you want to learn about filmmaking, watch older movies, and if you can manage it, watch them on the big screen. In many places old films are screened regularly, and it makes the hell of a difference to see them with an audience instead of watching on DVD/video. What you will learn is that most of what you thought to be original is simply a carbon copy of what the "Old Masters" did. Learn from the masters, not from the apprentices! If you like an effects or style, you still can read about it, but then GO OUT AND TRY TO DO IT YOURSELF!

 

 

3. TOOLS ARE TOOLS

 

In any kind of work, it's important to have good tools. In filmmaking, it is not important to have a Panavision or ArriCam and 20 hats with the logo on it for the whole team.

What you need is a camera with good steadiness and few good lenses. Try them, test them, do not allow yourself to say "Oh, it's only old equipment, I'll pass it for style." You'll go to hell directly, and if not, you deserve it. In art, laziness is unforgivable.

If you have no fancy zooms or Vari-Primes, shoot with fixed focal lengths. It didn't stop Messrs. Griffith, Hitchcock or Kubrick from making great films with breathtaking images, so don't worry that your talent will be hindered! (look at Kubrick's KILLER'S KISS if you want to see a visually exciting low-low-budget film!)

 

Know your tools and respect their limitations. No spectator of your finished film will mind whether the shot came from a 2003 Arriflex or a 1969 Konvas MOS camera - there are fine lenses for any old Arri 35, Konvas or Cameflex that will satisfy you even on the largest screens. If you are the possessive type (I admit I am :rolleyes: ), get your own equipment and become familiar with it.

 

 

All of this is not meant to put down the questions of new filmmakers, but as an encouragement to do their homework. If they are to lazy to read the great books on filmmaking, they will never get a film made. Getting qualified is what makes a professional, not the "professional" gear he uses.

[Tony Brown]

Hi,

 

Is it really that dark in that bar, or were they underexposing?

 

Phil

Its really that (irritatingly) dark - the view is quite amazing however. they also charge 2000 yen just to sit there before you even buy a drink.

 

 

 

:blink:

[Alvin Pingol]

Hi,

 

Is it really that dark in that bar, or were they underexposing?

 

Phil

Its really that (irritatingly) dark - the view is quite amazing however. they also charge 2000 yen just to sit there before you even buy a drink.

 

 

 

:blink:

Wow... isn't that, like, $15 USD? Heh, for that price, I'd sit there all day! :lol:

[Nathan Williams]

"I remember hearing a "lecture" from what is IMHO the most overrated DOP from Europe working for an American director."

 

"So he lied, and when two students asked about the lens in question, he smiled like Buddha..."

 

Are you sure this DOP was working for an American director? I have a guess of who you're talking about, but not if this 1993 film was actually directed by an American.

[oscar jimenez]

:D

Having just stayed in the Park Hyatt where they shot Lost in Translation I'd guess no lights at all :P . Not my favourite 'style (?)' - looked like they shot it in 10 days.

 

Having said that its a very difficult place to shoot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

:D

[Robert Edge]

Lance Accord is on the Kodak DVD The Difference. If I recall correctly, he talks about Lost in Translation and why he went with film rather than video. If it's not on the Kodak DVD, it's on the Lost and Translation DVD.