Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy Lens Filtration

[konstantinos stagikas]

Hello everyone,

 

I decided to rewatch tinker tailor soldier spy the other day just to study its cinematography. It is a very well shot film with a muted, understated look that reminds me of Melville's Army of Shadows. Unfortunately i haven't been able to find much info online about its cinematography.

 

What i would like to know in particular is how the low contrast look was achieved. Certainly there is a combination of factors at play from production design to lighting to maybe even flashing the film? For example It is obvious that In most interior scenes they used smoke which you can tell by looking at the light sources. But obviously they did more than that since they achieve the same look even on exterior wides.

 

If i had to guess there is some sort of filtration used like ultra cons or low con filters but i am not sure. I am wondering if anyone knows more inside info or make an educated guess based on experience.

 

Thanks

[David Mullen ASC]

Since it was digitally color-corrected, you can take the log image and give it quite a washed-out look without resorting to flashing these days. To me, it just looks like the smoke was the main tool to achieving the look.

[konstantinos stagikas]

Hello David, thank you for the quick response.

 

Obviously you are right. One doesn't need to flash the film anymore. But then again if you are Hoytema (or anyone in his position really) i guess you can be as purist as you want in your approach.

 

Now concerning the washed out look i agree that smoke played a big part. But there are scenes that made me think that something else is at play too.

 

For example in the screenshots i have attached i don't think there is smoke in the scene. Yet the image has low contrast, possibly diffused highlights and a lack of resolution. I may be underestimating the latitude of film but i am not underestimating its clarity so that is why i guessed that there is some sort of lens filtration.

 

Whatever it is it's subtle and that is why i like it.

 

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Certainly it's possible he used a LowCon, Smoque, or UltraCon for scenes without smoke in them, but LowCon and Smoque leave telltale clues, halation around bright objects, light bulbs, etc. so you'd have to find a frame with that in evidence. He could have also used lenses with some coatings removed.

 

But a log scan of film negative is quite low contrast so it is not hard to color-correct for this look.

 

Don't always assume there is some trick involved to create a look other than basic photography/lighting and post color-correction tools.

[konstantinos stagikas]

You are right of course. So much can be achieved just by basic photography and lighting. I don't always assume there is some trick involved.

 

It's just that in this instance, that is my impression. Obviously i can be very wrong and besides you have way more experience than i do so your guess is probably more educated than mine.

 

I am mostly trying to gather as much knowledge as possible (I have probably read every thread of the forum). Also I am trying to explore ways of degrading my images in a graceful way hence the study of tinker tailor.

[David Mullen ASC]

Keep in mind that this was shot on film, which is a form of filtration in a way. The movie was covered in the Dec. 2011 issue of American Cinematographer -- it mentions that it was shot on Fuji Reala 500D for day scenes and Fuji Eterna 500T for night scenes, often underexposed for more grain. Reala 500D was a fairly soft, grainy, some somewhat lower-contrast film. The article mentions smoke, long lenses, and a lot of work on zooms -- all Panavision Primos. No mention of filters.

[Jon O'Brien]

Keep in mind that this was shot on film, which is a form of filtration in a way...

 

That's a great way of putting it. I hadn't thought of it that way before.

[konstantinos stagikas]

Thank you for this, i haven't been able to find it online so it is very helpfull.

 

I really like the look of the film. Since then this style has been abused by digital cinematography and log-ish grades but it doesn't look remotely as beautiful. On the other hand i don't really care for the amount of grain that the film has. It is obviously part of the look but since nowadays we are mostly watching films on digital displays it seems dirty on many scenes. I felt the same thing about Anderson's phantom thread. It must have looked amazing on cinemas but i didn't get to see it there. On my tv the noise was almost distracting at times due to the added compression.

 

I agree with your remark about film being a type of filter. But then again so is digital. Just a different kind. Obviously every medium is a filter. And from a purely scientific point view the same can be said about our own optical system. It's just a compromised representation of the physical world. But now i am getting off topic.

[Mark Kenfield]

Keep in mind that this was shot on film, which is a form of filtration in a way. The movie was covered in the Dec. 2011 issue of American Cinematographer -- it mentions that it was shot on Fuji Reala 500D for day scenes and Fuji Eterna 500T for night scenes, often underexposed for more grain. Reala 500D was a fairly soft, grainy, some somewhat lower-contrast film. The article mentions smoke, long lenses, and a lot of work on zooms -- all Panavision Primos. No mention of filters.

500 ASA stock for daytime exteriors?! I wonder how they managed that (especially if they were underexposing in order to push process)?

 

I don't remember it being a particular deep focus film, so I wonder how the operators were able to see through the viewfinders with the volume of ND you'd need to get a moderate aperture at 500 ASA.

[Miguel Angel]

500 ASA stock for daytime exteriors?! I wonder how they managed that (especially if they were underexposing in order to push process)?

 

I don't remember it being a particular deep focus film, so I wonder how the operators were able to see through the viewfinders with the volume of ND you'd need to get a moderate aperture at 500 ASA.

 

Well.. I just shot a project on 35mm on 500T pushed +1 stop on exterior / interior days and exterior / interior nights and shooting on the Leica Summilux at T2 1/2 / T2.8 and the viewfinder was bright enough during daytime to operate without any issues at all.

 

I could even tell if things were focused or out of focus! :D

[Mark Kenfield]

T/2.8 at 1000 ASA? You must have had 9 stops of ND up front!

 

What were you shooting on that had a viewfinder bright enough for that Miguel, I find I really struggle with 6-stops in front of the mirror, and basically can't operate through the viewfinder at 7-stops up front (and that's under the blazing Australian summer sun).

 

So 9 or 10 stops of ND just sounds crazy to me.

[Miguel Angel]

T/2.8 at 1000 ASA? You must have had 9 stops of ND up front!

 

What were you shooting on that had a viewfinder bright enough for that Miguel, I find I really struggle with 6-stops in front of the mirror, and basically can't operate through the viewfinder at 7-stops up front (and that's under the blazing Australian summer sun).

 

So 9 or 10 stops of ND just sounds crazy to me.

 

Haha maybe that's the reason why my 1st Ac kept asking me why I had the Arriglow on all the time :lol: .

But in fairness I didn't have any problems at all, perhaps the Arricam LT's viewfinder is super bright?

[David Mullen ASC]

The AC article specifically mentions this - Hoytema said he preferred using Panavision cameras because you can put the ND in front of the gate and not have to look through heavy ND filters.

[konstantinos stagikas]

500 ASA stock for daytime exteriors?! I wonder how they managed that (especially if they were underexposing in order to push process)?

 

I don't remember it being a particular deep focus film, so I wonder how the operators were able to see through the viewfinders with the volume of ND you'd need to get a moderate aperture at 500 ASA.

 

The film does indeed have very shallow depth of field but it's mostly overcast with no direct sunlight visible. The only exception i think is the exterior scene in Istanbul with Tom Hardy and the girl in the convertible. And that scene could be a T 4.0

 

Also what David says makes sense.

[Mark Kenfield]

The AC article specifically mentions this - Hoytema said he preferred using Panavision cameras because you can put the ND in front of the gate and not have to look through heavy ND filters.

Ah! Well that explains it. Mystery solved, thanks David.