Jump to content

What is "Cinematography," Now That an 80% CG Movie Has Won Its Highest Honor


K Borowski

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Download a copy of Blender (www.blender.org) and experiment with it. Create (or get someone else to create) a basic 3D scene, and try lighting it. I think you'll get a much better appreciation of the craft of cinematography that does go into making a film like Avatar.

 

--

Jim

 

I've played around with a program just like this one.

 

 

I am not knocking this line of work, just saying that it is still a separate field, like 3D animation. Whether you hire a DOP or not to consult on it, I think we can agree that the best cinematographers aren't always the best "digital DOPs."

 

Why can't we all AGREE that there is a difference between CG environments and REAL WORLD environments. I'd be just as upset if a movie like the original "Star Wars" won a best cinematography nod, because the DOP did NOT do any of that work. It was the SFX department.

 

I don't know if the SFX department consulted the DOP at all on Avatar or not, but I do know that he didn't deserve that award, they did. ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tim Partridge
Why can't we all AGREE that there is a difference between CG environments and REAL WORLD environments. I'd be just as upset if a movie like the original "Star Wars" won a best cinematography nod, because the DOP did NOT do any of that work. It was the SFX department.

 

That's too far now, Karl. ILM didn't light and compose the main unit photography or decide to stick a silk stocking behind the lens in Tunisia.

 

There's great great skill to the photographic work that Gilbert Taylor directed on Star Wars, as any of the working DPs on this website will agree. Even within just Taylor's contributions to the film, it is well documented that he disagreed so much with George Lucas that other DPs had to take over on set, from the operator to the producer Gary Kurtz. Then there was the second unit/additional unit photography by Carroll Ballard and Tak Fujimoto. None of them were ever working as the special effects department, either.

 

What about the argument over a DP taking credit for a second unit's photography and getting an Oscar? Remember David Watkin's famous Oscar speech in which they played location footage from OUT OF AFRICA and he said that was mostly shot by the aerial unit cameraman? Should that have been a joint award venture/credit too? Watkin still made all of the principal photographic decisions that dictated the look of the movie.

 

I disagree about CGI and real world environments being so different in the context of a film. Creative decisions have to be made for both worlds regarding shapes, textures, blocking space, dimensions, colour coordination and contrast, and in neither medium are they automated. Hence Pixar hiring the likes of Deakins to consult on WALL E, or Zemeckis using renowned operator Robert Presley as his dop of CGI films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim, I am not knocking the practical photography of Star Wars. I'm just saying that the "wow" factor was from the models and space battles, mostly.

 

 

YES, if aerial unit cameramen were responsible for the famous shot of the yellow plane flying over the flamingo flock in "Out of Africa" then THEY should be up on the stage getting the awards too.

 

Give credit where credit is due.

 

Delineate between CG, SFX, and live-action photography. They are different fields, hence different people being responsible for each. It's not just a time, location restriction that has some people making a living photographing from planes, or photographing with Steadicams.

 

 

You guys are on here talking about how CG animation is just as "real" as actual photography, and it isn't. It may be more involved than cel animation, but I feel it still ultimately falls short of photography.

 

And yes, I erred. Photography is painting with light cinematography is painting with motion or writing with it depending on how you translate.

 

 

But there are different fields of this craft. The one I have chosen to pursue, as have many on this site involves lenses, T-stops, filtration, and hopefully 35mm film in the gate.

 

You need a camera (not a "camera" interface to more easily facilitate user and program interaction than just writing in lines of code) to make a photograph.

 

And, YES, the predecessor to Toy Story was coded by hand, lines of code.

 

 

 

Just because practitioners of CG imaging on this site are blissfully ignorant of the mechanics of the software they use doesn't mean it isn't still being rendered as lines of ones and zeros at the end. Then again, unfortunately, this is the fate that befalls almost every frame of neg film destined for the silver screen too :-/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an observation (and a new can of worms)

 

AVATAR credits two production designers:

 

Rick Carter, longtime production designer for Steven Spielberg

 

and

 

Robert Stromberg, who had never before designed a film or worked in any capacity of the art department. He was an Oscar nominated visual effects supervisor who had previously spent a great deal of his career as a traditional and digital matte artist, i.e. somewhat of a creator of virtual environments.

 

I don't know what the division of the production designer chores were on AVATAR, I had nothing to do with the film, but it makes me wonder, given their experiences, if Stromberg might have had most to do with the virtual sets, having been so established as a digital environments creator previously? I notice that Stromberg is now credited as sole designer for the largely virtual Alice In Wonderland, too.

 

Was crediting Stromberg as codesigner a stride to recognise the virtual craftsmanship in production design? Or was AVATAR a totally collaborative crossover for Carter and Stromberg? Or maybe it was a contractual reason, such as these things sometimes seem to be (and we don't need to know the details). I am just curious, because it seems rather unheard of to me for a vastly experienced matte specialist turned first time production designer with no previous art department credits winning an Oscar straight away in that category (and it's not like Rick Carter hasn't designed big budget visual effects movies by himself before).

 

By the way, Alice looks great and I cannot wait to see it!

 

 

Just saw Alice last night. Very disappointing. Minimal 3d effects. Go to the 2d if you want to waste two hours. On monday night, the house was packed, almost full, about 700 seats. About two thirds of the way through, I swear I heard snoring. Two of the other three people with me admitted to nodding off twice. Alice is a bore, Depp phoned it in. The digital 3d looked soft and not all that special. Boycott this crap, it is just another way to gouge us for more money. Traditional 2d narrative films are where its at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, this isn't a thread about 3D, or Alice (although I generally agree with you, and I got in for free, with only two other attendees at a private screening).

 

 

This is a thread about a blue-screen movie 80% CG winning "best cinematography." I'd be equally appalled if "Alice" won this coveted honor.

 

 

"Best Cinematography" awards should be awarded, IMHO, to films with a predominant amount of PRACTICAL, on-set photography. They should utilize lighting, diffusion, special photographic effects, to create a look that impresses upon its viewers a mesmerizing sensation of being a part of the story. It should immerse them in the lok and feel of the film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it's not a level playing field. You get so much for so little effort in the real world - surface shading, bounced light, atmospherics - to name but a few. There also isn't a 'make pretty image' button in the computer much the same as you don't get a pretty image by just plopping a camera down, pointing it in a random direction and hitting record. (of course in both incidences you may get lucky).

 

Both are equally difficult and take very talented artists to created beautiful imagery. One group uses cameras, lights, lenses. The other group uses computers and software. One is cinematography, the other visual effects.

 

How can the writer using a pencil possibly compete with the writer using a laptop?

 

This is not the same thing. The end result is the exact same, a written script. This is like comparing a hand cranked camera to the cameras of today. Yes it is much easier to write a script on a laptop, but it's still a script.

 

No. But we're not comparing photography with painting. We're comparing filmed cinematography versus rendered cinematography.

 

Filmed cinematography = photograph. Rendered cinematography = painting. No matter how photo realistic the CGI looks, it is still a computer painting. It is visual effects. I'm not saying it has less value, I'm only saying they are different.

 

Justin pointed out that 'the' on the page or screen is still read as 'the' despite whether it's written with a pen or a computer. My point was that a sunset is still a sunset despite whether it's filmed or created on a computer or...

 

Wrong..A render of a sunset is not sunlight, but a computer simulation of sunlight. The word "the" is the word "the" no matter how you write it, but the word "sunlight" is not sunlight. That is the difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think Avatar poses an interesting question, not because of what it is as a movie (plenty of animation-heavy films done... way back in history... "Mary Poppins" anyone?) but purely because of its nomination and awarding.

 

Personally, I find the actual awarding questionable due to the limited extent Mauro Fiore seemed to have been involved. In a way, the Cinematography award was the award that James Cameron didn't get in the Directors stream (based on his workflow and involvement in creating "his vision").

 

And given that Animation awards were created to deal with the "Toy Story" conundrum, I think it's actually a fist-in-the-face wasn't nominated for "best animation" (again, plenty of mixed practical/CGI movies around, from "Mary Poppins" to "Roger Rabbit" to "Beowulf" - a film mostly remembered for/forgotten despite Jolie's appearance).

 

Avatar loosing out in nearly all key categories is also clearly a upcomance, although expected: I never thought the 50% of actors voting - keen on clinging to their jobs and guilt - would vote/would award prices to a movie about steroid smurfs in space.

 

But with more and more convergence between traditional understandings of professional categories on one hand, and digital involvement on the other, I would love to follow up on the two posts by David Mullen and ask if the rifts showcased in this thread are actually discussed at the ASC clubhouse or at AMPAS, and if this might lead to re-thinking the philosophies behind our profession. Or, in fact, if it's business as ususal and union agreements and fighting for the next slot are more relevant that this heady stuff - leaving Avatar as a one-off.

 

If I ever could get an invite into the ASC clubhouse, now might be my favourite time... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this debate fascinating on one level, and ridiculous on another.

 

The Oscar is for 'Best Cinematography,' not Best Director of Photography. It seems logical that 'best cinematography' encompasses the entirety of the film's cinematography including first unit, second unit, CG, models, mo-cap, and so forth. All those element contribute to the cinematography of the film, after all, film making is a collaborative process. We DP's should be among the first to recognize the fallacy of Auteur theory.

 

I think the DP simply receives the award for the cinematography of the movie as a whole. In the Academy rules it states that The Oscar will only go to the credited DP, and cannot be shared.

 

The reason for this is that the majority of Academy voters are not cinematographers. We may make distinctions between what is real or not based on our experience of creating movies and the challenges that we face, but the majority of voters are unaware of this and instead respond to the visuals as a whole.

 

If you want a pure recognition of practical Cinematography look to the ASC awards, but I didn't get into this field expecting the general public to understand what I do.

 

My favourite moment of the Oscars was when Sandy Powell (3 time award winner for best costume design) dedicated her award to all the designers that do work as good as hers, but don't win because they don't work on period movies.

 

Don't expect the Oscars to be an accurate reflection of our craft, just be glad it's publicly recognized in some way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Brad at first said...

 

I have no problems with a voice actor winning best actor in a cartoon. They actor still created the performance with their voice.

 

 

and then when I asked if a cinematographer used the same process on a live action set and was in charge of a CG crew to create CG images, (in other words, using their "creative" voice) he responded...

 

Is a photographer the same as painter? They may look similar but a photograph is photograph and a painting is painting.

 

 

It's illogical to argue that you'd award an oscar to an actor playing a CG character, but not a DP who has worked with a team to create images in the same way they would in a live action environment.

 

Both are equally difficult and take very talented artists to created beautiful imagery. One group uses cameras, lights, lenses. The other group uses computers and software virtual cameras, virtual lights, virtual lenses. . One is cinematography, the other visual effects. virtual cinematography

 

Wrong..A render of a sunset is not sunlight, but a computer simulation of sunlight. The word "the" is the word "the" no matter how you write it, but the word "sunlight" is not sunlight. That is the difference.

 

 

Extending this argument then, you'd have no trouble excluding a DP from oscar eligibility for any representation of sunlight that isn't actual sunlight in live action as well ?

 

Anytime a DP uses a HMI for a shaft of sunlight for a studio interior is simply "rendering" sunlight.

 

Hence Pixar hiring the likes of Deakins to consult on WALL E

 

 

I guess I'd like to see someone hire Roger Deakins to actually DP rather than simply consult. Maybe he doesn't want to and that's fine but why shouldn't there be a DOP automatically on every animated feature ? It's unthinkable to shoot a live action film without a DP. It should be the same for animated films.

 

I agree with Matthew. Awards like the oscars are for individuals that provide leadership over a crew of people to produce a consistent result, be they 2nd Unit, aerial or VFX DP's.

 

In fact, looking at a film like LOTR, I imagine that there were very few frames that WETA didn't have a hand in having some kind of CG imagery. I wouldn't be surprised that as a percentage it was very different to Avatar. We were happy to respect Andrew Lesnie's contribution because the result was visually cohesive, despite having 14 disparate units and WETA probably creating more than half the images.

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and then when I asked if a cinematographer used the same process on a live action set and was in charge of a CG crew to create CG images, (in other words, using their "creative" voice) he responded...

 

 

 

 

It's illogical to argue that you'd award an oscar to an actor playing a CG character, but not a DP who has worked with a team to create images in the same way they would in a live action environment.

 

If there were ever a time that an actor's voice performance as a CG or animated character was so incredible they get nominated for an Oscar, I have no problem awarding the oscar to an Actor because the voice you hear is the actor's voice. It is still acting.

 

The oscar is for best cinematography, not best virtual cinematography. Now, can there be a director of photography on animated and CG movies, YES. Look at the credits, there already are.

 

However, the oscar is for best cinematography, not best director of photography. That is there difference. What is cinematography:

cin·e·ma·tog·ra·phy

   /ˌsɪnəməˈtɒgrəfi/ Show Spelled[sin-uh-muh-tog-ruh-fee] Show IPA

–noun

the art or technique of motion-picture photography.

 

 

 

 

Both are equally difficult and take very talented artists to created beautiful imagery. One group uses cameras, lights, lenses. The other group uses computers and software virtual cameras, virtual lights, virtual lenses. . One is cinematography, the other visual effects. virtual cinematography

 

Extending this argument then, you'd have no trouble excluding a DP from oscar eligibility for any representation of sunlight that isn't actual sunlight in live action as well ?

 

Anytime a DP uses a HMI for a shaft of sunlight for a studio interior is simply "rendering" sunlight.

 

No, I was using the sun as an example. The art of cinematography comes with shaping the light.. real light. Whether you soften, add to it, or block out the light, you are shaping real light.

 

In turn, would you take out all of the light bulbs in your house and use that light you rendered instead? You house would be pretty dark at night. How about you light a plant with only virtual light? That plant's not gonna last too long.

 

 

On a less serious note, this has been fun sparring with you. You are a great debater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not the same thing. The end result is the exact same, a written script. This is like comparing a hand cranked camera to the cameras of today. Yes it is much easier to write a script on a laptop, but it's still a script.

 

The end result is the exact same thing through - an image on film which get shown to an audience.

 

Filmed cinematography = photograph. Rendered cinematography = painting. No matter how photo realistic the CGI looks, it is still a computer painting.

 

You seem to be confusing this with matte painting. CG lighting doesn't involve painting. There are no brush strokes involved.

 

Wrong..A render of a sunset is not sunlight, but a computer simulation of sunlight. The word "the" is the word "the" no matter how you write it, but the word "sunlight" is not sunlight. That is the difference.

 

And the word "the" on a computer screen is also a computer simulation of the word "the". But that is not what I'm getting at - I'm not talking about medium or method - I'm talking about the important part - the final result (in this case - the image).

 

Go to this link and tell me what you see - it's an image of a sunset right? Right? But here's the kicker - the thing you are looking at is not actually that thing - it's an image of that thing. The thing on the screen isn't actually sunlight, it is a representation, or put another way - a simulation of sunlight.

 

http://www.stanford.edu/~jbaugh/saw/studen...psBaySunset.JPG

 

The same with the painted backdrop, that also isn't sunlight, it isn't even real light, it's a oil-on-canvas simulation of light.

Edited by Will Earl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is and is not "cinematography?" It's not black and white... You could argue until the end of time and never come to a consensus.

 

Me, I have two big problems with Avatar getting the award.

  1. The cinematographer simply didn't have to deal with the constraints (time, budget, weather, physical impossibility, working with less than ideal subjects or circumstances) that the other nominees did. Dealing with those constraints creatively is to me the real craft of cinematography. So giving Avatar a cinematography award is like giving Milli Vanilli (or T-Pain) a "best live performance" award.
  2. It's hard to imagine that Fiore had much direct input on the lighting in CG sequences. Nothing against him personally, but I don't believe the award should go to someone who was on a conference call with some Visual Effects Supervisors. I don't think the award should go to someone who dropped by the client couch a few times. If your involvement is limited to consultation and notes, you're a producer, not a DP.

The people who actually lit the majority of Avatar are listed below. Note that these are ONLY the people who have "lighting" in their title; there are plenty of other people who affected the lighting, such as the compositors, matte painters and people listed generally as "CG Artist."

 

I will shut up now, because this list speaks for itself!!!

Edited by Ben Syverson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[*]The cinematographer simply didn't have to deal with the constraints (time, budget, weather, physical impossibility, working with less than ideal subjects or circumstances) that the other nominees did. Dealing with those constraints creatively is to me the real craft of cinematography. So giving Avatar a cinematography award is like giving Milli Vanilli (or T-Pain) a "best live performance" award.

 

It's odd that you think the live-action and CG component of shooting this film doesn't entail any constraints whatsoever and that either part of the "shoot" was somehow easy going and carefree. I'm also not sure what the difficulty of the shoot has anything to do with the art and craft of cinematography. It's also likely that shooting Avatar was much more difficult than you give it credit for.

 

The people who actually lit the majority of Avatar are listed below. Note that these are ONLY the people who have "lighting" in their title; there are plenty of other people who affected the lighting, such as the compositors, matte painters and people listed generally as "CG Artist."

 

All those other CG artists (compositors, matte painters, etc) - they affect the lighting as much as the art director, scenic artist, props, costumer, production designer, makeup artist, etc will affect the lighting on a live-action film.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm also not sure what the difficulty of the shoot has anything to do with the art and craft of cinematography. It's also likely that shooting Avatar was much more difficult than you give it credit for.

In this case, the lighting was mostly decoupled from the shooting. I'm sure the shoot itself was challenging, and I'm sure many things about the CG were challenging, but the lighting was probably not. They had tons of time and resources to work on it after the shoot.

 

And difficulty IS part of the art and craft. If it was trivially easy to light a movie beautifully, do you think cinematographers would even have jobs, much less a category at the Oscars? We call great cinematographers "great" because we know what they do isn't easy. If directors could radically alter an actor's performance in post, it wouldn't bother me, but I also wouldn't hand them an Oscar. Part of what makes an actor great is the knowledge of how difficult great acting is. Awards are there to recognize skill, not patience.

All those other CG artists (compositors, matte painters, etc) - they affect the lighting as much as the art director, scenic artist, props, costumer, production designer, makeup artist, etc will affect the lighting on a live-action film.

With respect, I disagree completely. A matte painter will literally create the "light" in a scene from whole cloth; none of the other jobs you mention do. And compositors often add, subtract and modify light in a much more direct way than any of those positions. In fact, they're frequently called on to take subjects shot in one light and make it look like an entirely different light.

 

I'm not saying all those names deserve DP credit, but my point is that given the sheer number of people who did the actual work of lighting Avatar, I wonder how much input Fiore even had. Maybe he worked one-on-one with every lighting TD; I don't know. But even so, if I was handing out awards for Best Wood Carving, I'd hand it to the guy who carved something by hand as opposed to the guy who stood over the shoulder of a CAD designer with a CNC machine. Just saying...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even so, if I was handing out awards for Best Wood Carving, I'd hand it to the guy who carved something by hand as opposed to the guy who stood over the shoulder of a CAD designer with a CNC machine. Just saying...

 

Hahaha, I love this line! I am laughing, but, in jest, you make a very apt analogy.

 

 

You know what is sad, someone has probably done this: made some wood carving with a CNC machine and actually submitted it for competition.

 

But hey, at least Deep Blue still can't win at basketball, just championship chess ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
What is and is not "cinematography?" It's not black and white... You could argue until the end of time and never come to a consensus.

 

Me, I have two big problems with Avatar getting the award.

[*]The cinematographer simply didn't have to deal with the constraints (time, budget, weather, physical impossibility, working with less than ideal subjects or circumstances) that the other nominees did. Dealing with those constraints creatively is to me the real craft of cinematography. So giving Avatar a cinematography award is like giving Milli Vanilli (or T-Pain) a "best live performance" award.

 

I concur, but for slightly different reasons. I don't think he was given the chance to oversee the visual authorship of the film, aside form the live action component which as we know, made up a smaller part of the film.

 

The people who actually lit the majority of Avatar are listed below. Note that these are ONLY the people who have "lighting" in their title; there are plenty of other people who affected the lighting, such as the compositors, matte painters and people listed generally as "CG Artist."

 

It is disingenuous to simply list the lighting crew and say they lit the film. Is it any different if I grab the electrics list and the rigging crew etc from a live action film ? Your list is the virtual equivalent of listing the crew of a live action film. I'd classify compositors as VFX by the way, as they are only dealing with images that already exist.

 

Of course both groups light the film. The point being that in theory, a DOP oversees the labour of many. Can we not agree that *IF* he had been intimately involved more closely with overseeing the virtual lighting and framing as well as the live action that he would be more deserving ?

 

 

I'm not saying all those names deserve DP credit, but my point is that given the sheer number of people who did the actual work of lighting Avatar, I wonder how much input Fiore even had. Maybe he worked one-on-one with every lighting TD; I don't know. But even so, if I was handing out awards for Best Wood Carving, I'd hand it to the guy who carved something by hand as opposed to the guy who stood over the shoulder of a CAD designer with a CNC machine. Just saying...

 

 

Ahh but we don't make a single film. We mass manufacture films to be enjoyed in aeroplanes, cinemas, DVD, TV and iPhones, on 35mm print, digital disc or as data. We creatively adjust for each medium (if we're lucky) and off they go. If we're really lucky they might not print it on Fuji stock when you've tested and timed for Kodak.

 

Great design can also be mass produced. they aren't exclusive and Im sure someone else can come up with a great example. (personally i still love the original polaroid SX-70)

 

You can carve a great object from wood and then replicate it. Sure it's not as good as the original. But we're always looking at some copied duplicated, DI/IP'd HD'd SD'd downloaded version as well, that's never as nice as the camera original.

 

jb

 

 

EDIT, I should also add that i think that this kind of cinematography should be recognised as a separate category in some way and I don't support the academy's view that this was the best cinematography.

 

If you take a purist approach then that's fine as well, but I believe, having gone through the process of hands on lighting and framing a CG film, that the thinking processes and approaches as a DOP are nearly identical.

 

I consider myself to have above average computer literacy but it still took me over a year to become comfortable just using the interface of Maya, let alone getting a result that I was happy with.

 

If you think it's a simple as flicking a switch then you don't actually know anything about CG lighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I listed all the lighting TDs because I'm strongly inclined to believe that these people placed and adjusted lights in the CG environment, independent of the DP's input. That is not the case with the electric or grip crew. The DP doesn't phone in some suggestions and then review the result after it's shot; he or she is always on set for first unit shooting.

 

I'm no purist by any means. I'm more than happy to call what those lighting TDs did "cinematography," and I've done my share of CG lighting as well. For the record, it's not flicking a switch, but it's also not nearly as challenging as using real lights. In CG, lights can be invisible, hung at impossible-to-rig angles, or made not to cast shadows or reflect in shiny surfaces. You can change the size, shape, intensity, color, or position instantly, and see the results in real-time! Moreover, because all it takes is one person to adjust (versus a whole crew in film), you can spend much longer tweaking and adjusting everything. With "real" lighting, you often have to move on and live with whatever is in the can. So even if Fiore had been involved in every lighting decision, it still bothers me that he had an advantage over the other nominees, because he would have had no physical or budget/scheduling constraints to create the lighting.

 

As for duplication and mass production, I think it's a bit sad that we're considering extending the concept of "generational loss" to artistic integrity. You may be watching a 3rd generation VHS of Apocalypse Now, but you're still seeing Storaro's work. He was there, making decisions, doing the actual work. If you lose that requirement, then every award will eventually go to a manager rather than an artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I listed all the lighting TDs because I'm strongly inclined to believe that these people placed and adjusted lights in the CG environment, independent of the DP's input.

 

In the case of Avatar i won't disagree with you.

 

. You can change the size, shape, intensity, color, or position instantly, and see the results in real-time! So even if Fiore had been involved in every lighting decision, it still bothers me that he had an advantage over the other nominees, because he would have had no physical or budget/scheduling constraints to create the lighting.

 

 

Every CG lighting system I've used won't let you work in real time. You have to render frames to see what the effect of changes are. There are real time approximations of previews but they are crude at best. The full effect isn't seen till you render. And that can be minutes, hours or even days PER FRAME. So yeah no time constraints there. And Im happy to work for weeks for free to get the lighting on a frame perfect because the tools allow me to.

 

Again, you're talking about a specific case with Fiore and by and large I'm agreeing with you. But are you really arguing that because it was a rumoured $500 million dollar film that they had it easy ? That this film had no budget or scheduling constraints ? Do you know why they had so many lighting TD's ? Funny that almost every single major post or animation company seemed to have a credit on the film...where they sharing the love around, or in the last 6 months did they suddenly realise they couldn't finish the job i time and start farming shots out to anyone who wasn't busy ?

 

It's naive and untrue to say that animation / CG based projects don't have budgetary or time constraints.

 

 

 

As for duplication and mass production, I think it's a bit sad that we're considering extending the concept of "generational loss" to artistic integrity. You may be watching a 3rd generation VHS of Apocalypse Now, but you're still seeing Storaro's work. He was there, making decisions, doing the actual work. If you lose that requirement, then every award will eventually go to a manager rather than an artist.

 

 

Well I wasn't inferring that at all. That's your own spin of my comment. You made a reference to an artisan working on one off originals. I made the point that good design can still be mass produced and I drew a parallel with the manufacturing of films which are also mass produced. Films, in the way that we watch them, are not a one off piece of wood that's hand carved. They may start off as such, but for an audience they are most definitely not like the original.

 

And I never said that it was a requirement of any award process nor did I intended to devalue the creative input of any cinematographer.

 

It seems to me that the real issue is the perception that creating an image using a computer is just not considered worthy of those that don't use computers....like it's some kind of cheat that anyone can do.... Real cinematographers are in the trenches and get their feet wet. Nerds that light aren't worthy of the title of cinematographer. Cinematographers that might even decide to claim visual authorship of CG lighting processes amongst their live action work on a film, overseeing a team that collaborate to create a visually cohesive result are just pushing computer jockeys around fudging their way and copping out creating a homogenised result that anyone with the same computer application could do.

 

If that's what you think then just call a spade a spade and let's move on.

 

I do seem to recall though, similar disparaging comments ( even from me ), on these lists when DSLR's arrived, or when rumours of a 4K cinema camera were announced...or video for that matter.

 

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paying one lighting TD to work on a shot for a full day or two (or even a week!) is much cheaper than holding up an entire production for hours as you mess with lights... So while CG lighting isn't free, it's vastly cheaper than physical lighting. The tools are now fast enough that tests can be rendered in minutes and seconds, not days and hours. GPU renderers like Octane are now starting to enable realtime feedback.

 

I would never pass judgment on the use of CG per se. In fact, I'm willing to say you can be a cinematographer without ever picking up a camera (try telling me this isn't cinematography). My beef is that I don't think artistic awards should go to managers. On a hypothetical 100% CG film where every shot was independently lit by a different person, I would say "cinematography happened," but there was no cinematographer. That obviously wasn't quite the case with Avatar, but it was a far cry from the singular, lovingly-crafted work we saw in "The Hurt Locker" or "The White Ribbon."

 

Christian Berger did not walk off the set and say to the grips, "Go ahead and light it -- you know how I like it. Tomorrow I'll see how you did and give you notes."

Edited by Ben Syverson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone on here, but the most zealous, would argue that working with an HD camera, or even SD for that matter isn't cinematography.

 

 

Arguing that animation is cinematography is a real **(obscenity removed)**ing stretch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no beef whatsoever with virtual cinematography. My problem with Avatar is that I felt that even if it had been a live action movie, the colour pallettes chosen, lighting and compositions would still have been ugly. I thought most of the live action interiors seemed like they were high key lit like a sitcom (and not at all like the characteristic, contrasty lighting I associate with Mauro Fiore's work).

 

I completely agree with this Tim. I thought the CG worlds - especially the glowing forrest - were BEAUTIFUL to say the least.... However, the interior practical shots were plain flat, boring, and pretty average in my opinion. And I don't see how you can award even a "virtual cinematographer" in the same category as a "practical cinematographer" because clicking a button and creating ambient lights with no real source, having the ability to move, dim, diffuse, change color, etc of the sun, and just basically do ANYTHING with NO limitations or creative problem solving on set - just doesn't make it even remotely the same category for an award. There should be a separate category for CG lighting/framing supervisor if they want to award it. I mean, I for one can barely create basic shapes in a 3d program, but I could sit there and light the "perfect" set fairly easily. And I could change everything within seconds with no need to be good or efficient at my job - such as on set when you only have 30 minutes to get the shot lit before we have to move on to a new shot... Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to add, after reading this entire thread, I'd have to say its an endless circle of semantic arguments. I do not discredit or disagree with the fact that CG can be beautiful. I also am not arguing that the award should be based on whose job is more difficult, etc. The simple fact is a cinematographer captures real-life images that are printed to either analog or digital medium, then can be morphed, processed, etc in a computer, but it doesn't change the fact that the DoP lit and captured real-life images. Even IF the DoP was in charge of all of the CG lighting and framing, it should still not be in the same category, as it takes a completely different approach. CG is creating an image from nothing, cinematography is capturing images from real life. Two different things that cannot fall into the same category. Avatar should not have one best cinematography, or if it did, they need CG cinematography awards and live-action cinematography awards... so Robert Richardson could have won for live action cinematography :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Let me re-summarize and prove why it's "Cinematography"

 

It's not cinematography because 'The Cinematographer' didn't do it.

The award is "Cinematography" not "Cinematographer". Production designers don't create every prop in a film. They have teams of people who they "phone in comments to" who create the vast majority of the concepts and designs. Just because a film has multiple concept artists and set designers doesn't mean the film didn't have great Production Design. If a film is the product of 1 Cinematographer or 100 isn't the point of the academy awards, and it certainly doesn't make the cinematography done by 100 any less impressive. In fact, it's even MORE impressive that a DP can maintain a consistent and quality look through an entire film while employing 100s of workers.

 

It's not cinematography because it's too easy.

So every cinematographer who has ever shot a film handheld with available light shouldn't be nominated because it's "too easy"? If "too easy" is a disqualifying standard for cinematography in a film (which is impossible to judge from the final product) then I guess we should impose limits on the number of grips, electricians and gaffers. And too easy to what? The cinematography for Pirates of the Carribean required an entire parking lot of generators to power all the lighting in some shots. How many of you have dealt with that kind of production? I guess none of you are cinematographers since you have it so "easy". It's not fair to Pirates that they require 40 tractor-trailer generators when you can get by with with a couple generators. It's too easy also means any film shot on a stage is omitted. There is ample power on stage. If there is a rental house on premises then it's too easy to just go get another light. I think we should also put a max size on grip trucks. Because if your grip truck is too large and has too many options then it's no longer cinematography.

 

It's not cinematography because you don't have any limitations on your vision.

That means anything shot on a sound stage is out. On a sound-stage you can control every minute detail. It's unfair to all of those indie productions which can't afford a soundstage if someone can shoot on a stage and have that level of control over their set. In fact I move that only Dogma-95 films be eligible for Best Cinematography because they had no control over the lighting.

 

It's not cinematography because they can create shots and lighting I can't with a camera.

Boo F***ing hooo. So anyone who uses a technocrane is out now. Anyone who uses cable system is out of academy nominations. Anyone who uses a miniature shoot is out. Anyone who uses expensive HMIs are out because indies can't afford that sort of lighting budget. And as we all know the academy has historically given SPECIAL CONSIDERATION to the budget of a film when awarding best cinematography. At even the slightest hint of using some sort of expensive or complicated system not accessible to every cinematographer they just yank away nominations. Also anything which goes through a DI should be excluded since you're creating lighting and shaping that's impossible in camera.

 

It's not cinematography because it's not 'Photographed'.

You create lights. You create sets. You choose lenses. You set the colors of a light. You set the positions of lights. You set the directions of lights. You set the size and diffusion of a light. You chose the position of a camera. You choose the focal length of the camera. You set the direction of the camera. You set the focus. How is that not photography? If digital rendering isn't photography then neither is shooting on a digital camera since both just record arbitrary digital values from a circuit board. The digital camera determines the values for each pixel based on voltage. The rendering camera determines the values for each pixel based on simulation. Results are results. The process is pretty much identical.

 

This is just a tech demo but fast forward to about 2:00 and explain to me how this is more like painting or drawing than photography.

http://vimeo.com/6715300 (BTW perhaps by the end of the year their card will be out which will allow another 10x faster per card. And you can stack cards. So imagine that but another 30x faster.)

 

If your cinematographer or lighters are "writing code" then you're doing something horribly horribly wrong. Your cinematographer should be presented with lights and cameras and lenses exactly as if it was a real set. With a modern renderer you can ask for an EXACT light and if I have the IES file you can recreate that light in CG. This is one area where the architectural world has actually been making more progress than the vfx world. They want exact lighting from exact lighting fixtures so that they can get government certification even on illumination.

 

If it "isn't photography" because you can break the laws of physics then simply mandate that all renderings must be as physically accurate as is humanely possible. But I'll also say then we have to mandate all films must have motivated light sources only. Not more eye lights. No more large silks just out of frame. All night shoots must also hence forth be pretty much black. I've seen what it looks like at night and it's not natural what I see in numerous best cinematography nominations.

Edited by Gavin Greenwalt
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

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...