|
chimheil posted:Here is a fun little pre-teaser we shot for Christmas with an old Sony Handycam. We opted to use that vs a 5D because it has the homemade handheld feel to it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWSzlxjs1rI I thought it ran a little long, and I wondered why it didn't just begin in the living room? The guy's acting is great, but there was a lot of exposition that was unnecessary. I think you could edit this down to 45 seconds or so. I would definitely end it much earlier, like immediately once the raid happens. I think you'll instill more fear in your audience by ending it earlier and letting their imagination take over. Also, the character's audience seems to change, at the very beginning he talks about buying "Dani's gift" but a minute later he's addressing her directly into the camera. So that was a little bit odd. So who is your audience with this? The person who listens to Alex Jones ironically or the person who listens to Alex Jones while sorting their survival seed tins?
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
Jalumibnkrayal posted:I thought it ran a little long, and I wondered why it didn't just begin in the living room? The guy's acting is great, but there was a lot of exposition that was unnecessary. I think you could edit this down to 45 seconds or so. I would definitely end it much earlier, like immediately once the raid happens. I think you'll instill more fear in your audience by ending it earlier and letting their imagination take over. Also, the character's audience seems to change, at the very beginning he talks about buying "Dani's gift" but a minute later he's addressing her directly into the camera. So that was a little bit odd. I agree on the length. The only reason it is that long is because we want to show that he is not a criminal or doing dastardly deeds. He is a normal guy getting an engagement ring and somewhere along the way, he "screwed" up. Where and why he is screwed up is up to the imagination. The audience is Alex Jones listeners, but even people who hate Alex Jones and cannot stand anything the guy does (me). It is for people who are starting to get curious why things in our government are happening like the extended TSA reach, The NDAA being signed into law, SOPA, etc. The writer and director of this are heavily into conspiracy theory and Alex Jones, the truth movement, etc, but I am not. I still find the story incredibly interesting so I personally feel that it transcends left/right, conspiracy believer/non-believer. One of the cool things that I heard about after we finished shooting a food riot scene this summer were people saying "this is the left's fault because of x" and the other side saying "this is the right's fault because of x". They were independent conversations and they were not talking to eachother. I think that was the point where I realized we had something really worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 20:06
|
|
|
(I wish my company didn't block youtube, or people would upload their things to Vimeo as well.) Recently back from Christmas and got my hands on my Zoom H4N recorder. Threw it through the ringer a couple times and tested somethings out with the video. Works flawlessly. My question for the cinematographers in here is: When using dynamic filming movements (Gliderails, dollys, etc etc) are their any special pointers or rules that I should adhere to?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 20:11
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Most digital projectors are projecting at 2K and even the ones that are 4K are still only showing 2k because nobody delivers movie to theaters at anything higher than 2K... so far. Isn't Peter Jackson shooting the Hobbit at 48FPS? Between that , and this whole 3D nonsense thats been in vogue a few years (which I half suspect is actually just a ploy to get cinemas to update to more modern projectors) , I suspect we'll be seeing a fairly large increase in film bandwidth that'll either bring us to 4K , or actually preclude it. Frankly its almost pointless. Almost every cinema in my hometown I find myself wanting to violently assault the projectionist for the lovely focus. I spent the first few years of my career (lighting/stage rigger, paying my way thru uni) in the 90s focusing 3 gun video projectors for horrible corporate shows , and I learned to focus those fuckers as sharp as razor blades. If a clueless perpetually stoned 18yo could do that, why the gently caress can't a professional film projectionist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 03:35
|
|
|
By the way, what are people using for color grading these days. I can drive Apple Color around like its a loving pimp, but apparently its not a thing anymore and I'm starting to think its time I learned to let FCP7 go, as sturdy as the old girl is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 03:39
|
|
|
Resolve Lite is now available on Mac and PC and is pretty bitchin', though I always go back to Color for important projects since Resolve is difficult to wrap my head around sometimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 05:21
|
|
|
Make sure you have a CUDA supporting card if you want to use DaVinci Resolve. The PC version requires CUDA. The Mac versio uses both OpenCl and CUDA but with OpenCL it runs much slower and you don't get realtime noise reduction. They recommend Quadro 4000/5000/6000/FX 4800 or GTX 580).
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 06:59
|
|
|
Apple need a punch in the loving head for what they did to Color 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 09:50
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Apple need a punch in the loving head for what they did to Color Really? My copy works just fine. Someone tell me about timelapse moco. We'd like to use some timelapse shots in an upcoming project and it would be great to incorporate movement. We can rent, but the shooting schedule is pretty spread out so we'd rather not. I've been poking around the OpenMoCo project and the eMotimo pan/tilt head looks really promising. Anyone have any experience with lower end moco rigs?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
duck monster posted:By the way, what are people using for color grading these days. Currently Resolve is gaining much momentum, because of it's low price ($2000 for Software and a cheap Wave Panel), wide availability, scalability, and the fact that Apple is pretty much out of the picture. It's also possible to realize high-end projects with it, if you've got the money for the big panel and fast hardware.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Interesting development happening here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/29/idUS381262194920111229 ARRI has apparently been a bit of a naughty boy, still I am glad they did it if it's true because atleast they finished what RED doesn't seem to be able to finish properly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 20:33
|
|
|
butterypancakes posted:
We use the kessler cineslider and we just bought their basic controller and 1000:1 motor. Their advanced controller seems pretty slick for any use you'd want for timelapse. Of course vimeographers are doing their best to make motion control timelapse about as exciting as shallow depth of field everywhere and always.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 22:18
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:Interesting development happening here: What did they finish?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2011 22:57
|
|
|
Steadiman posted:Interesting development happening here: This is going to get gnarly. It's a terrible position for Arri to find themselves in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 09:58
|
|
|
The official filing reads like a whole lot of crazy on RED's part. I mean there are the legitimate issues in there, but then to have forum drama seems a little crazy. "OMG a guy pretended to be someone else and said bad things about our epic camera" Really?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 18:17
|
|
|
RED literally threw a hissy fit when Phillip Bloom posted that his Epic locked up during a shoot and instead of fixing it they just accused him of badmouthing the company, bought it back from him, and banned him from their forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 19:10
|
|
|
Poor delicate Philip Bloom. RED did fix his Epic. Then they bought it back from him. Bloom was way over his head and behaved like it. Now he can go back to shooting timelapse out of hotel windows and calling it documentary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 20:48
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:Poor delicate Philip Bloom. RED did fix his Epic. Then they bought it back from him. Bloom was way over his head and behaved like it. Now he can go back to shooting timelapse out of hotel windows and calling it documentary. In Bloom's defense, he had a faulty Epic that almost ruined one of his shoots that is impossible to notice until it was in post, and when that one was being fixed, a loaner Epic had completely different issues that nearly ruined a different shoot of his. If you spent 60-80k on something and it didn't work would you just let that slide?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
1st AD posted:RED literally threw a hissy fit when Phillip Bloom posted that his Epic locked up during a shoot and instead of fixing it they just accused him of badmouthing the company, bought it back from him, and banned him from their forums. And they "apologized" on the forum for their behavior". What does this stuff with Phillip Bloom have to do with Michael Bravin's corporate espionage?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
But Bloom, in his complete inability to recognize his limitations (he is a guru after all), didn't appear to do any research on that camera. I've never shot with RED but according to a lot of people, when you shoot with a beta camera, you do keep up to date on all the issues, and have backups in place so you don't wreck a shoot. That's kind of the workflow for Epic. What I can't stand about Bloom is he does these little videos that aren't much more than montages that look nice, and he gathers all kinds of kudos from his fans, and he waddles around in that, but the second he gets any criticism he goes off the hook. I first noticed that when he was sent with others to shoot in Japan with a preview af100. His piece looked awful and he did not respond well to criticism. First it was the people complaining, then it was the color finishing he did on the plane, on a laptop, while he was tired, and busy and just trying to help everyone and on and on... Pros know how to take criticism, and know the quirks and limitations of their equipment. He's kind of like that driver on a learners permit that gets behind the wheel of a performance car and promptly drifts it into a ditch. And we're talking Bloom because he created a ton of drama around RED and how they supposedly treated him poorly. They kind of talked to him like dicks, but they treated him alright.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:And we're talking Bloom because he created a ton of drama around RED and how they supposedly treated him poorly. They kind of talked to him like dicks, but they treated him alright. A "ton" that nobody really cares about anymore. Trust me, by now, the industry knows RED, how they operate and what everyone is in for with their cameras. The only people who really care are camera geeks on the internet. I don't think even real life camera geeks care about their little kerfuffle on some god awful forum. Maybe that Epic was a total piece of poo poo, or maybe he overreacted, but seriously who cares now? Look at that article: RED is claiming "unfair competition based on email hacking, invasion of privacy, conversion, misappropriation of trade secrets and unlawful trade practices, among other charges". Unlike some stupid forum he said, RED said, these allegations are founded in real criminal acts. Arri could be forced to settle for serious money, or drag it into court and slow innovation in the 2k+ sensor cinema camera market. As far as I'm concerned, RED's bed is made, and manufacturers like Sony and Arri will be stealing the remainder of their market share over the next few year as their cameras saturate the market. After that time, you'll see RED existing in indie and lower budget markets due to their lack of support and attitude. What would have been 2-3 years before RED shrank away to obscurity is now looking to be drawn out and legally contested as the result of espionage at the hands of Arri.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 22:28
|
|
|
In other news, the Sony F65 system is loving incredible, and I cannot wait to see them out in the field next month. Color gamut that exceeds that of film (proven, on production models, not just in white papers), and a complete delivery system. The SRMASTER recording system will make acquisition and integration to existing production models, be it for cinema, television or whatever, incredibly painless. Likewise, the Sony CineAlta 4K projectors really unify the system beautifully. The clarity, quality and vibrance gets me excited for the possibilities of cinema again. Now, as a Steadicam and camera operator, if only the loving thing wasn't so power hungry. Seriously, 108 watts when the F65 is recording to the SR-R4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
FYI the Bloom drama means nothing. It's just fun to follow. I'm curious what Panasonic is going to do. They used to hold down a pretty sweet part of the market with their varicam, but they are seriously old in the tooth. Panny isn't just going to roll over and die. No one knows the details of the RED case, but I just picture JJ frothing at the mouth accusing everyone of everything. No doubt the "hacking" is true, but to what extent real secrets were stolen is a whole other issue. Seriously that legal doc reads like a bit of forum drama. I think if it goes to court it will be ridiculously entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:No one knows the details of the RED case, but I just picture JJ frothing at the mouth accusing everyone of everything. No doubt the "hacking" is true, but to what extent real secrets were stolen is a whole other issue. The extent anything was stolen is hard to prove, which is why it plays in RED's favor: they can play ANYTHING as unfair market advantage or technological insight as to RED's confidential business plans or practices. RED can claim a HUGE unfair advantage if the precise emails read or copied are impossible to prove. RED can threaten to bring it before a judge for injunctions against technological advancements Arri can't prove were developed outside of any influence of Michael Bravin's influence. Arri can claim Bravin had no part to play, but it's hard to prove, which is why RED is in the position to push the complaint and get a settlement. The sky's the limit. When it goes forward, I'm just worried about the extent to which RED can now disrupt Arri's business, especially now at a fragile time in the market. Camera companies whose bread and butter are camera manufacturing aren't exactly doing well, and with technology companies with other products or industries supporting their growth, we're facing further fragmentation of cameras and camera accessories. 3rd party manufacturers have a great industry in making a complete camera package, but it's a nightmare for people who need to know dozens of cameras and then dozens upon dozens of accessories to make them functional.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 00:23
|
|
|
What are good principles behind lighting nighttime interior scenes? My use of lighting so far has been more geared towards making attractive portraiture or interview lighting, and I'm finding that I hate this look when I try to shoot more narrative stuff. I notice that in a lot of the films and TV shows I watch, there's a ton of light sources placed around the set that give a nice range of light level and color in the background (and this is combined with good set design and prop placement), but I feel like I am missing a lot of the finer details involved with lighting a set.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
Hey guys, thought Id post a film I recently finished to get some critique, because Im sure I need some. Its a visual diary of a trip I took in Mali in West Africa. I shot all of this on a Canon Powershot SX230, a $250 point and shoot. I have never shot with something so small and cheap, and it was a last resort type of deal(my father brought the camera on the trip). I was supposed to have a 5D but that ended up falling through. I was pretty blown away with I ended up getting with this camera. It certainly shows in aspects but some of the stuff I got was really really good looking for that tiny camera. With some color correction I was really able to get some things looking nice Anyways, I follow all of you guys in this thread so I would love to here what you think. https://vimeo.com/34445658
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:In other news, the Sony F65 system is loving incredible, and I cannot wait to see them out in the field next month. Color gamut that exceeds that of film (proven, on production models, not just in white papers), and a complete delivery system. Came to post this, we're getting a couple at Division Camera this month and since it's been my responsibility to research it I've become super stoked about it. In terms of what it does it's easily the "best" camera on the market, but it's also one of the most expensive. Like, Phantom expensive.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
1st AD posted:What are good principles behind lighting nighttime interior scenes? My use of lighting so far has been more geared towards making attractive portraiture or interview lighting, and I'm finding that I hate this look when I try to shoot more narrative stuff. An old concept in film and television (non stage, non sitcom) lighting is if you show a practical light source, the audience is far more likely to believe other lights coming from nowhere. If the audience has no idea where a light source is coming from, then any lighting feels weird. As soon as you show one or a few practical lights (simple as a table lamp or a floor lamp, hanging dining table light, etc), then light coming from "somewhere outside the frame" becomes less of a weird concept. "Oh, maybe there's another lamp on the ceiling?" "Oh, maybe there's track lighting up above." Next time you're watching a night interior shot, look for a practical, or something alluding to a practical lamp (throwing a switch that turns on a practical lamp off screen, which you may not even see ever during the scene). As soon as a light source is established, you're less likely to second guess where the additional light is coming from. The rest comes down to the story, what guiding principles you have for your lighting ratios, if everyone is going to look beautiful or natural, etc. Modern day, non-period nighttime interiors should get you working with your production designer in terms of light placement in telling the story: does your bachelor have a single, lovely floor lamp from Ikea? Does our leading lady have an interior designer who spent $15,000 on lighting alone? Should we feel terrified that the girl is coming into the same room we know the killer is hiding, and the bedside lamp is all she has to go off? The best gaffers have worked for great gaffers or great DP's. They know what they can cheat, what their limits are, and what will still make your leading lady look totally fuckable while she's crying her eyes out. They can make a room go from looking realistic, but too moody, to looking realistic but film ready. Texture the walls, special the bowl of fruit or nuances you want the audience to see, but don't make the shot about it. If you look carefully at movies and TV shows, you'll see more light slashes across walls then you've EVER seen in real life... but that's part of the cinema aesthetic. Old tricks are the best tricks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Came to post this, we're getting a couple at Division Camera this month and since it's been my responsibility to research it I've become super stoked about it. In terms of what it does it's easily the "best" camera on the market, but it's also one of the most expensive. Like, Phantom expensive. Can I come by to play with one? I'm already wondering how to power the bastard off my sled, and I'll probably need to make either a Y-cable for the overall unit, or separate cables for F65 body and for the SR-R4 deck... assuming it has an external power connector like the SR-R1. Sony F65 is "expensive", only in that it costs more than an Arri Alexa or a RED One or RED Epic. The body price is still cheaper than the Sony F900 or F35. 4K camera with a completely unique, new sensor and a killer price. I think Sony is going to become a top competitor with this thing... if they can get the SRMASTER decks to behave themselves. The SR-R1 I was playing with last month was a bit of a terror, in that it had no user manual, beta software, and a quirk that people will learn of called "data salvaging".
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 06:52
|
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:Hey guys, thought Id post a film I recently finished to get some critique, because Im sure I need some. Its a visual diary of a trip I took in Mali in West Africa. I thought the rear end shot was disrespectful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 08:02
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:An old concept in film and television (non stage, non sitcom) lighting is if you show a practical light source, the audience is far more likely to believe other lights coming from nowhere... This post is really interesting and somehow more informative than every chapter I've read on lighting in all three film classes I've taken. Are there any books you can suggest on this subject? Maybe I've just had bad textbooks - the why of techniques is more telling than "because I say so". The first thing I thought of was A Clockwork Orange, which was shot on a relatively tiny budget with cheap lighting, which is matched by the world of the film (decorated with en vogue bare-bulbs and spotlights, allowing for the cheap light kit). Eyes Wide Shut uses its Christmas setting in a similar way - I don't think I've seen any production photos from that film that don't involve a million china balls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:I thought the rear end shot was disrespectful. Uh, why? Thats just what some kids do out there, all the time. I happened to document that in a shot that I chose to include which had little to do with the child having no pants on and mostly to do with that I liked the subject(sleeping child on the floor) and the composition. Thanks for the critique I guess?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
If you are going to use someone nude there should be a reason no? All of a sudden, rear end shot? It instantly makes me wonder about the consent of the person you were filming and if you got it. Double so if that was a child like you say. It's kind of a creepy shot particularly if it was a child. I don't even put my kids on facebook let alone let a tourist/visitor take a picture of them sleeping, or take video of one of their asses while they sleep. I personally would not have shot that unless I needed it for story, and if I needed it for the "pantsless sleepers of Mali" doc, I'd sure as hell get a ton o' consent all legal like. The rest is fine i guess, it's sort of like a tourist video. Lots of herky jerky. Some really weird wobble with the kid on a bike shot. Pretty bad on that one which is strange because the camera wasn't moving much, were you zoomed? But nothing jumped out in the rest. I imagine with such a small camera, subjects were way more open to having their picture taken. Like you said it's a video diary, so probably you aren't looking for comments on story, but it could use some. I'd also calm down your movements a bit and pick up some sequences so you can slow down the picture randomization a bit. Looks like it was a cool trip.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
Walnut Crunch posted:If you are going to use someone nude there should be a reason no? All of a sudden, rear end shot? It instantly makes me wonder about the consent of the person you were filming and if you got it. Double so if that was a child like you say. It's kind of a creepy shot particularly if it was a child. I don't even put my kids on facebook let alone let a tourist/visitor take a picture of them sleeping, or take video of one of their asses while they sleep. I can understand your problems with thinking the shot doesnt fit story wise, but really, this was a village in the middle of nowhere with no running water or electricity and there were nude kids everywhere, many of which were openly approaching the camera with their parents around and no one cares. Thats just how kids are in the village I was in and others I visited. I was documenting the world I saw and thats what I saw. At one point it was a pants-less child zonked out in the dirt. Thank you for the other critique though, I really appreciate it. The bike shot was some weird thing with the cameras built in stabilizer. I dont know why it was particularly bad in that shot, but I liked the shot enough to where I decided to keep it in. Also regarding the camera size, it actually didnt matter. I was shooting stills with a 5D Mark 1 with a zoom lens and mostly the people in the villages were obsessed with being photographed when I had the camera out. They dont get to see themselves really so they would ask me to take pictures all the time and would look at them on the view finder and get a huge kick out of it. AccountSupervisor fucked around with this message at 11:33 on Jan 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 11:29
|
|
|
Tiresias posted:Can I come by to play with one? I'm already wondering how to power the bastard off my sled, and I'll probably need to make either a Y-cable for the overall unit, or separate cables for F65 body and for the SR-R4 deck... assuming it has an external power connector like the SR-R1. I went to a special sort of trade show a couple of weeks ago that was mostly to sell the F65 and the unit they had on display was powered on AC. They have a ridiculous 145 pin (or something, probably more like 16) lemo cable for AC power. When I asked about the battery situation, they told me, "we're working on it, but recommend going off AC or block power for now." Really? Otherwise, it's pretty drat baller. give us a call for a demo session anytime after we get it (not sure when, sometime this month).
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 11:40
|
|
|
Sony F65 Info posted:The optional mechanical rotary shutter eliminates the rolling-shutter effect common to CMOS sensors. Can someone elaborate on that? How does the mechanical rotary shutter reduce rolling-shutter effects?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 11:55
|
|
|
1st AD posted:What are good principles behind lighting nighttime interior scenes? My use of lighting so far has been more geared towards making attractive portraiture or interview lighting, and I'm finding that I hate this look when I try to shoot more narrative stuff. Try getting a large white chinese paper lantern and holding it quite close to your actors' faces on a dark street. It can provide incredibly beautiful light. That tip was shared with me by a DP who teaches at NYU. https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...w=1061&bih=1282
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 13:25
|
|
|
FLX posted:Can someone elaborate on that? How does the mechanical rotary shutter reduce rolling-shutter effects? Don't think that it actually does that in and of itself, however it is a global shutter sensor so it takes in every photosites' exposures at the same time, like real film, instead of line-by-line, which causes rolling shutter. the rotary shutter only controls the shutter angle/length, like film. Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 13:39
|
|
|
SquareDog posted:Don't think that it actually does that in and of itself, however it is a global shutter sensor so it takes in every photosites' exposures at the same time, like real film, instead of line-by-line, which causes rolling shutter. the rotary shutter only controls the shutter angle/length, like film. No, I think you pretty much hit it. An actual mechanical shutter allows in 180 degrees of light, and the whole sensor receives the light simultaneously rather than the sensor doing the work of turning dark before re-sensing the light.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2012 18:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 09:24 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:This post is really interesting and somehow more informative than every chapter I've read on lighting in all three film classes I've taken. Are there any books you can suggest on this subject? Maybe I've just had bad textbooks - the why of techniques is more telling than "because I say so". The first thing I thought of was A Clockwork Orange, which was shot on a relatively tiny budget with cheap lighting, which is matched by the world of the film (decorated with en vogue bare-bulbs and spotlights, allowing for the cheap light kit). Eyes Wide Shut uses its Christmas setting in a similar way - I don't think I've seen any production photos from that film that don't involve a million china balls. Most textbooks only deal with the purest lighting theory, and how certain things do certain things. Color balance, how diffusion affects harshness of light, 3 point lighting and ratios (something quickly declining in our digital world). Beyond that, the textbooks don't really go into a lot of the meaningful things, maybe because the authors have never worked a day in their lives as Grip and Electric? I don't know, I don't know what books you're reading. I think conversations about lighting take an interesting turn when someone sees you holding a light stand or a sandbag, much like how conversation goes from topical to nerdy quickly when you realize you're in good company. "Yea, the iPhone 4S is a pretty cool phone, I like it in white" quickly turns into "Holy poo poo, I jailbroke my iPhone 4 and got it to run Siri through a proxy server, and I can control my cats with it!" Likewise, film lighting conversations take on more substance once you get beyond the film geek and into the real lighting precepts. Everyone starts sharing war stories. The trick about showing a practical in the shot is an old trick, and there are dozens others, some more nuanced and illogical, some incredibly obvious. Nuanced: You tell the story with every lighting decision, some you need to obsess over and some you can just trust your instincts and go. I've worked with all sorts of clients over the few years I've been doing this (well, few by comparison to others), and there's something I call "fetishism of film lighting", as though simply by turning on a few lamps, directors and producers suddenly LOVE it. They'll encourage you, "It's beautiful!" The 1st AD hears that the Director loves it, and asks, "Oh, good, so we're ready?" You have to assert yourself at that moment, because if the Director loves it, then he'll REALLY love the finished product you diagrammed out. Make sure the colors on the lights are right. Make sure the actor's blocking hasn't changed, and they don't suddenly wander into or away from a pool of light. If colors are different, do they match your plan? Does it help tell the story? Every time I see a ballsy lighting choice, be it the color or intensity or lack thereof, I find myself moved. Story has it Lubezki would light whole scenes of "Children of Men", then just before going for a take, he'd turn all the lights off and shoot. Even Gordon Willis felt that lighting in "Godfather 2" went too dark sometimes, but they were strong choices, and put those stories on the map. "Sadly, some people think of good cinematography as a beautiful sunset or a spectacular vista. I believe we affect the audience in a much more subtle way. We're manipulating them emotionally with light, darkness, colors, contrast and composition. I know the Dogme 95 theories, but I believe actors respond to light. Just look at a Rembrandt or Caraveggio painting or any of the Dutch masters, and tell me light isn't important. The pictures have to be true to the narrative, but I like to test the boundaries and see how far I can go." -Wally Pfister Illogical: ever notice in a night time exterior, somewhere down the road our heroes are walking down towards camera, there's some light source just loving SCREAMING towards the camera but rarely flaring the lens (unless it's "Super 8")? Where in life do is a country road lit by someone's spotlight blasting through trees and lighting a wet street? For some, it comes from older lighting styles where everything needs separation and a shimmer, even at midnight miles from any electricity. For others, people just don't notice it. Check out "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", when they're walking down roads in night ext's, they even threw on blinding GREEN or RED just for grins. It's a style, but in no way logical for the story. Nobody notices most of the time, because film can never see a country road at midnight like the human eye does. So, tabula rasa, just make the talent look good. Incredibly obvious: great advice from an old DP was "Always make your leading lady look GREAT, because she can cost your your current job, and your future job." Even if she looks like hell, even if she's supposed to look like hell... give her a nice lighting wrap so her face doesn't have the same contrast ratios as the male's. Soften the light so her crow's feet aren't as bad. Pay extra special attention to your leading actors, and your leading ladies, and they'll take care of you down the road. Another great piece of advice I read recently: "Don't shoot for your reel, shoot for their film." Ultimately, it's the Director's vision, for better or worse.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2012 09:01
|
|