Composition

Posted on by

Forums

Back to Composition...

Waterfall 1917 (5 replies and 5 comments)

Lupoter
4 weeks ago
Lupoter 4 weeks ago

Hello Roger,

i saw 1917 yesterday night with a friend and we concurred that this was one of the most impressive cinematic experiences we had since a while. Especially the night scenes reminded me a lot of Vittorio Storaro's work on "Apocalypse Now" and are imo definitively as great if not greater than this.

My question goes to the waterfall scene when Schofield drifts down the river and finally falls down the waterfall. I saw in the making-of that the "top-down" scene was shot on a drone and the shots before and after on a crane / gimbal. So how did you manage to smoothly change the systems? While watching I felt like there was a hidden cut when panning down the waterfall. Is that right? In some other bts the river seems to be built as a set but on others it looks quiet natural... So if it was a natural river, how did they guarantee the safety of the actor, especially when he falls down the waterfall (first, i thought it was a dummy but then i saw it wasn't)?

Thanks a lot in advance!

Mike
4 weeks ago
Mike 4 weeks ago

Would this help.

https://www.rogerdeakins.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/C5E8A967-0533-434D-87C8-CAE0E0FC6335.jpeg
https://www.rogerdeakins.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/1BF293EE-54CE-49CC-930D-EBF6614CEB8E.jpeg
Roger Deakins
4 weeks ago
Roger Deakins 4 weeks ago

Exactly, Mike. Some was shot at a white water sports facility and some was shot on the Tees river itself. It was not only dangerous but also impractical to shoot the rapids section on the open river. Some complicated CG work was involved in marrying plates we shot on the river with the action.

AButte
4 weeks ago

If I may expand on this question, were there any practical issues (and/orsolutions) with water interacting with the front glass element of the lens during these takes?

Lupoter
4 weeks ago
Lupoter 4 weeks ago

Ah great, i haven't seen this bts photos. Thank you!

Roger Deakins
4 weeks ago
Roger Deakins 4 weeks ago

Yes, some issues. One shot required us to submerge the camera to start the take so we needed an underwater housing. The majority, though, I shot with a simple splash bag so that I didn't have any glass in front of the lens. We used air hoses mounted to the matte box to 'blow' the spray away from the lens.

The Byre
4 weeks ago

So I went to a matte box and the only way I could see how to do that would be to drill some holes in the sides just behind the barn-doors. But then they would have to be fairly small holes with about four or more plastic tubing extensions that are held in place with silicon glue.

That means that there would have had to be a junction box rigged with air from a compressor coming in via one pressure hose and several smaller hoses leading off and going to the camera.

If that is how it was done, whoever came up with that solution and managed to build something like that and rig the whole thing so that it worked and the compressor didn't blow the junction box apart or have the tubing fly off the matte box deserves a medal!

Nick Frayne
4 weeks ago

Not sure if this was used but this was at cinegear last year! Looks pretty effective!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=emb_title&v=lwnbBnw1vT0»

Mike
4 weeks ago

64 DB maybe a problem but ambient sound may over ride it. I use one of these motors to blow up my rubber dinghy.

Mike
4 weeks ago

Btw. A raw potato rubbed against the glass will repel water and cheaper. Ofcourse, a high pressure motor will do a better job.

Roger Deakins
4 weeks ago
Roger Deakins 4 weeks ago

The air blowers were mainly used on the underwater housing that doesn't have a matte box. For the splash box the air blowers probably served little purpose as the box itself protected the lens. We didn't drill any holes either!

'Rainoff', a specialized product, works as well.

Back to Composition...