Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yeah I was gonna post this. Also, that beach scene? It's stitched together :D

 

Take the bravura extended tracking shot when the family's housekeeper, Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), watches the family's kids at the beach as they charge into the water, then rushes into the pounding waves when two of the smaller children appear to be struggling. Cuaron presents the sequence as if it is one uninterrupted shot. But to achieve that appearance, several shots had to be stitched together and the whole setting digitally manipulated. "We ended up extending the shot by putting in a new middle section from other takes," explains Griffiths, "enhancing the drama and danger."

In effect, Cuaron, who served as his own cinematographer, was following in the footsteps of his frequent cinematographer, Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki, who won an Oscar for shooting 2014's Birdman as if the entire movie were filmed in one continuous take. In that case, Lubezki was able to use doorways and backstage passages to disguise where some of the shots were stitched together. The challenge in Roma's beach scene was that all the shots of sea, sky and sand had to be flawlessly matched to make the manufactured tracking shot convincing.

Several different takes of Cleo rescuing the children were involved, and some takes of the children were repositioned. Certain views of the sky also were replaced. "The time of day was different, so we had to match up and grade the actual water and reflection — it was a tricky shot," acknowledges Griffiths. Cuaron also requested that the height of the water be adjusted so that it would look deeper. "So there was a lot of work to do in compositing in that section," he adds, "and then at the end of the shot, we cut back to the original take."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/how-romas-visual-effects-team-created-intense-ocean-sequence-1169264

Still great though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A story question I had, that my date to the film and I argued about - at the riot, I got the impression that the martial artists were fighting the students on the government's behalf (based on the fact there were army officers at their training camp, I assumed to recruit them).

My date thought they were fighting the government.

What do you guys think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bilingual in English / Spanish and even though there was a dialect spoken at times I could enjoy the film without having to read the subtitles......do you think (not spanish speakers) flicking your eyes up and down from text to image detracts from the experience or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not at all. Actually if the subtitles are clearly visible and kept on the screen long enough to read you quickly lose awareness of reading them at all. It's more like you are hearing a foreign language but your brain is interpreting it into your language.

I'm bilingual in English / Spanish and even though there was a dialect spoken at times I could enjoy the film without having to read the subtitles......do you think (not spanish speakers) flicking your eyes up and down from text to image detracts from the experience or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bilingual in English / Spanish and even though there was a dialect spoken at times I could enjoy the film without having to read the subtitles......do you think (not spanish speakers) flicking your eyes up and down from text to image detracts from the experience or not?

Im also fluent in Spanish and English but I can struggle when watching movies in a language that I dont understand.

This greatly depends on the movie itself, and the balance between dialog and visuals.

Edited by Eric Cardenas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuarón's interview about choosing the Alexa 65 to shoot in black and white and his wanting it to be 'a vision of the present looking at the past' and not choosing to use film cos didn't want to give it a 'nostalgic look' even though he loves film......thats interesting......but doesn't make sense to me........this also brings to mind Storaro and his Sony camera thing......Wonder Wheel on digital - the make up on Justin Timberlake wow u could see it caked on

 

........do you think the big companies 'sponsor' the 'big guns like this to shoot on certain cameras over others? does this happen with cinematographers on that level as it would with say sportspeople to use their brands?

 

yes i know im too much of a FILM advocate im boring myself with it now hahahah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they don't "sponsor" because by definition, an "art" film would make choices artistically -- if the filmmaker were looking for money, they'd do product placement!

 

But manufacturers, rental houses, etc. do help some filmmakers out, I'm sure if ARRI heard that Cuaron wanted to shoot on the Alexa 65, they'd make sure he got one. But it's not like Cuaron puts Kodak and ARRI in a room and tells them that he'll use the product of whoever gives him the better deal.

 

Manufacturers nurture relationships that they think will help promote their product, and sometimes that coincides with what a cinematographer is trying to achieve for a project. But "sponsorship" is a bit more direct in terms of putting cash out.

 

I don't think ARRI really needs to "sell" the Alexa 65 on anyone, particularly since it is not for sale!

 

Of course, there are a few examples of manufacturers and cinematographers getting into a promotional scheme of some sort.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely sure that a experienced director can do perfectly good job working as a dp as well especially if not needing to operate by himself.

 

It is the lighting part of the dp work where their role may start to fall apart.... Directors tend to have no idea about lighting because that would require lots of real dp experience though it would not matter that much if making only available natural light movies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuarón's interview about choosing the Alexa 65 to shoot in black and white and his wanting it to be 'a vision of the present looking at the past' and not choosing to use film cos didn't want to give it a 'nostalgic look' even though he loves film......thats interesting......but doesn't make sense to me........this also brings to mind Storaro and his Sony camera thing......Wonder Wheel on digital - the make up on Justin Timberlake wow u could see it caked on

 

........do you think the big companies 'sponsor' the 'big guns like this to shoot on certain cameras over others? does this happen with cinematographers on that level as it would with say sportspeople to use their brands?

 

yes i know im too much of a FILM advocate im boring myself with it now hahahah

 

 

Not quite the same but in Japan on corp shoots they are very up tight about brands.. my audio guy just had a shoot for Olympus .. and they had to shoot with DSLR cameras.. because they had to show up 100% with an Olympus camera.. .. Ive done work for Sony and its the same.. absolutely no way you can turn up with Panasonic cameras.. even car shoots.. crews will rent a Toyota crew van if they have a shoot in a Toyota plant.. and their own is a Nissan .. Im sure its only Japan has this craziness.. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, they don't "sponsor" because by definition, an "art" film would make choices artistically -- if the filmmaker were looking for money, they'd do product placement!

 

But manufacturers, rental houses, etc. do help some filmmakers out, I'm sure if ARRI heard that Cuaron wanted to shoot on the Alexa 65, they'd make sure he got one. But it's not like Cuaron puts Kodak and ARRI in a room and tells them that he'll use the product of whoever gives him the better deal.

 

Manufacturers nurture relationships that they think will help promote their product, and sometimes that coincides with what a cinematographer is trying to achieve for a project. But "sponsorship" is a bit more direct in terms of putting cash out.

 

I don't think ARRI really needs to "sell" the Alexa 65 on anyone, particularly since it is not for sale!

 

Of course, there are a few examples of manufacturers and cinematographers getting into a promotional scheme of some sort.

The irony is that the AC article says Cuaron & Chivo tested film cameras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am absolutely sure that a experienced director can do perfectly good job working as a dp as well especially if not needing to operate by himself.

 

It is the lighting part of the dp work where their role may start to fall apart.... Directors tend to have no idea about lighting because that would require lots of real dp experience though it would not matter that much if making only available natural light movies

 

Not to mention that Cuaron worked as a DP when he started

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting because I think Lubezki tests film and digital before many productions -- some of Malick's movies have mixed the two formats but in editing, mostly only the film footage remains, while "The Revenant" started out planning on using 65mm film I believe but went all digital. But it seems he starts most productions by testing different formats, film and digital, in order to find the look for the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note, I just saw Roma on 70mm at the Egyptian thursday night. I wanted to save my first experience watching it for that particular print and it was worthwhile. The film print helped negate the "clean" look of digital very much so. It added the typical gate weave and flicker as well, making it feel more like it was shot on film. Of course, the biggest problem with any film print in Black and White is that the print stock is color, so when the contrast changed, there were minor alterations in the color of the print. I saw a lot of yellow and green poking through in some spots and it wasn't really B&W as you'd expect it to be. I gather there are no B&W 65mm processors at Fotokem, so they had to use color stock. Kodak can always make B&W 65mm print stock on special order, but the processing of it is different then color of course.

 

I gotta say it was a very pretty movie, but I also know there are a tremendous amount of visual effects in it. Cuaron even said he had to stitch together different takes to get what he was looking for performance wise. Sometimes you could see it, like the ocean waves scene, they just washed the camera with fake waves to transition between takes. So we're back to the "life of PI" syndrome, where some of the look is generated digitally in post production. I'm sure this is part of the reason why he decided to shoot on digital vs film. He said this movie would have been perfect for 65mm, but I feel he bailed because he would have needed to work with a DP and a larger crew. Plus, those long takes he runs would have been an issue on 65mm, changing rolls between each take. At the same time, I felt the film looked ok digitally, especially on the film print. My beef is that he tried to go after the clean look where he could have gone after the more classical approach, making it less crisp and more realistic for the time period. With that said, I do like the large format look and for a movie like this, it worked well. There were a lot of great frames where everything in shot was perfectly in focus. I think had he shot it on film, it wouldn't have looked as good without a much bigger crew and a lot more time.

 

I will say the movie itself, where for sure an "art house" movie, was quite good. The actors were spot on, the locations were excellent and the story was compelling enough. He didn't hit you over the head with story elements, he let them unfold and scenes where he needed to feed information to the audience, he did it in a clever way. The use of native and spanish tung's was also very cool and whoever did the subtitles knows American's can't read fast, which was nice. It gave time for me to watch the screen and glance at the subtitles without having to worry they'd be gone. There were three really big/powerful moments in the movie that were very gripping and so well done. From an earthquake which seemed very realistic, to a birthing scene and ocean rescue, those three scenes alone were worth the price of admission, plus there were so many other great moments. I guess my only beef with the movie is the pacing, it was a bit slow, but I get it. The film is a true story and it's very realistic, so they wanted to make it feel real ya know? Sadly though, it's not something I'd watch again and that's my problem I guess.

 

Big prop's to the sound mixers as well, they did a very good job. Haven't heard a mix that well done in years, but again it's a quiet movie, so it makes sense the mix needs to be powerful in order to help fill in what's missing.

 

It's for sure a must see and the 70mm print is going to continue it's travels. So use google and find out where it's going next because it's very much worth watching.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The waves were fake! That explains it!

I couldn't for the life of me figure out how they managed to keep the camera so perfectly stable while it was being pummelled by the waves.

Don't know why VFX didn't cross my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The waves were fake! That explains it!

I mean they were still in the ocean, but the big waves that brushed the lens were fake yep.

 

I think they built a ramp out onto a sand barge and ran the dolly shot that way. It was a magnificent shot.

 

The waves wiped the camera to go between different takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuarón on the Hollywood Reporter thing on YouTub talks about the waves shot after Spike Lee asks how he did that shot.....

 

 

...he tells Spike lee it was one shot......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cuarón on the Hollywood Reporter thing on YouTub talks about the waves shot after Spike Lee asks how he did that shot.....

 

 

...he tells Spike lee it was one shot......

 

I'll repost what I posted on the previous page.

 

Yeah I was gonna post this. Also, that beach scene? It's stitched together :D

Take the bravura extended tracking shot when the family's housekeeper, Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), watches the family's kids at the beach as they charge into the water, then rushes into the pounding waves when two of the smaller children appear to be struggling. Cuaron presents the sequence as if it is one uninterrupted shot. But to achieve that appearance, several shots had to be stitched together and the whole setting digitally manipulated. "We ended up extending the shot by putting in a new middle section from other takes," explains Griffiths, "enhancing the drama and danger."

In effect, Cuaron, who served as his own cinematographer, was following in the footsteps of his frequent cinematographer, Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki, who won an Oscar for shooting 2014's Birdman as if the entire movie were filmed in one continuous take. In that case, Lubezki was able to use doorways and backstage passages to disguise where some of the shots were stitched together. The challenge in Roma's beach scene was that all the shots of sea, sky and sand had to be flawlessly matched to make the manufactured tracking shot convincing.

Several different takes of Cleo rescuing the children were involved, and some takes of the children were repositioned. Certain views of the sky also were replaced. "The time of day was different, so we had to match up and grade the actual water and reflection — it was a tricky shot," acknowledges Griffiths. Cuaron also requested that the height of the water be adjusted so that it would look deeper. "So there was a lot of work to do in compositing in that section," he adds, "and then at the end of the shot, we cut back to the original take."

https://www.hollywoo...equence-1169264

The film is filled with VFX, still great though and flawless CG work

Edited by Manu Delpech

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is so suprising this movie won best cinematography wow what a times we living in.

Also i mentioned exact timeframes in previous page :) thought something wrong with the netflix there were drastic exposure changes during that beach scene.Now you guys say it wasnt a single take lol :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda not surprised it won best cinematography. It looked great and was all about the visuals. Plus B&W stuff seems to always catch the eye of the voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kinda not surprised it won best cinematography. It looked great and was all about the visuals. Plus B&W stuff seems to always catch the eye of the voters.

Cold War was B&W too? and visually impeccable

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Wooden Camera



    Metropolis Post



    Ritter Battery



    Glidecam



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    CineLab



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    Paralinx LLC



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Abel Cine



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Serious Gear



    Tai Audio



    Visual Products


×
×
  • Create New...