Camera

Posted on by

Back to Camera...

Jesse James Daylight Interiors Stocks and 85 Filter (or not) (3 replies and 4 comments)

Brant
2 months ago
Brant 2 months ago

Hi Roger,

Do you recall stocks you used in "The Assassination of Jesse James" daylight interiors, and whether you ever used the 85 filter (assuming you used tungsten stocks throughout). I've seen 5218 as one of the stocks you used, but was this for the daylight interiors of say, the house where Robert Ford was living, or Jesse's home in St. Joseph late in the film?  Did you use the 85, or go without filtering for a colder look? Thank you!

Roger Deakins
2 months ago
Roger Deakins 2 months ago

I was also shooting the film with the 200 ASA 5293 tungsten balanced stock so I would have been using this for the interior daytime scenes. Whether I used an 85 or not I can't remember. I suspect I did, especially for the interior of Jesse's home in St Joseph. I was shooting against quite bright window sources so I would have been concerned with interior reflections and that is my hesitation in giving a definitive answer.

Brant
2 months ago

In the daylight upstairs bedroom scene when Bob shoots Wood Hite, I assume you might have rated the 5293 at 200, at say, a 2.8 or maybe 2.0? Was your probable choice of 5293 here instead of 5218 driven mostly by a desire for tighter grain, or was there some other advantage of the 5293 at that time? Today, would you use 5213 for those daylight interiors if you were asked to shoot film, or would you use the current 5219?
Looking at the shooting scene again after your reply, that's where I MAY have seen the presence of the 85 creating some flare shooting into the back window, though I'm wondering if there's some haze in there even before the shots are fired which add to the effect. I hadn't really noticed any flaring before, and I think there's actually something rather appealing about it for that scene artistically.

Brant
2 months ago

...though I guess you would have had to rate the 5293 a bit slower for the 85 filter, or perhaps been closer to that 2.0 aperture to compensate?

Roger Deakins
2 months ago
Roger Deakins 2 months ago

The upstairs was a set so that using an 85 was not an issue. Any 'blooming' you see was purely created by the light in the atmosphere. I lit the scene with multiple 2K Blondes bouncing off a wall of white material that surrounded the set. I suspect I would still use a tungsten balanced stock, whether in daylight or on a lit set, but I would do some tests before signing off.

Brant
2 months ago

Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge. If I may ask one more question (I'm shooting my first 35mm film in about a month, and am trying to ascertain the impact of shooting a tungsten stock without an 85, as I won't have an opportunity to test).

The winter exteriors in Jesse James were very cool in highlights and shadows, perhaps a little green, to wonderful impact for story. Are those winter exteriors examples of tungsten stock and no 85? Jesse's disturbing visit to Albert Ford's residence, and his winter transit across the frozen lake are two such examples. Or was the cold hue for these scenes done mostly in post? Thank you again.

Roger Deakins
2 months ago
Roger Deakins 2 months ago

'The Shawshank Redemption' is the only film I shot in total using a tungsten stock with no correction filter. On others I have varied from scene to scene, sometimes an 85, at others an 81EF and at other times with no correction. For one sequence I used two 85 filters on a tungsten stock shooting in daylight.

Brant
2 months ago

Thank you again for sharing your knowledge and experience, it's truly invaluable and very much appreciated!

Back to Camera...