Search Results for 'no'

[Roger Deakins]

I have no formula! I would have to know the context and the location before deciding what I might do.

[dmullenasc]

I’m sure quite a bit of it was shot at f/1.4, I’m just saying that not all of it was.

[Frank]

dmullenasc wrote:

I don’t think Kubrick actually shot wide-open on the Zeiss Super Speeds all the time on those movies, partly because he mixed lenses in scenes, sometimes Cooke zooms were used, plus the Zeiss VariPrimes were also used on “Eyes Wide Shut”. So the sets weren’t always lit to only f/1.4.

What would you guess the f-number of a lot of those interiors in Eyes Wide Shut was? I’ve heard conflicting things over the years about how they developed the stock. In the ASC article back in ’99 Larry Smith was quoted, “We decided that if we pushed everything two stops, it would really have the effect of an extra stop and a quarter or a stop and a half.” People have asserted that they printed down but that’s never mentioned in the article. I got the impression Smith was saying that even force developing two stops and then keeping the negative that thin, they found that it was really more like 1125-1250 ASA rather than 2000 ASA.

Even at 1125 ASA, that would be something like 2 footcandles at f/1.4 for 18% grey, and then 10 footcandles for the T3 Cooke zoom? Which seems about right for the light levels in many scenes. Smith is quoted in the same article, “We decided to shoot nearly all of the picture at a stop of T1.3, and since we were pushing everything, we were able to create a wonderful warm glow.”

I can’t tell when they used the VariPrimes but I vaguely remember another interview with Larry Smith where he said that most of the movie is steadicam, and it wouldn’t have made sense to use them for those setups.

[dmullenasc]

I don’t think there is a “rule” about always shooting at f/2.8, it’s just a practical stop to light to — it’s sort of “aspirational”; sometimes you hear that lighting to f/4 for an anamorphic movie was a good idea. But I’ve also heard older cinematographers from the 1960s and 1970s saying that they always tried to light to an f/4 in case the director wanted to use a zoom lens. Anyway, f/2.8 is a pleasant stop to shoot at, gives the focus-puller a chance, the lenses behave well, etc. — but I don’t think of it as a rule.

Technical and visual consistency is a common goal unless the story has a design that allows for shifts in look, like flashbacks for example, or a story that cuts between two different worlds. But then within those unique sections, there tends to be consistency. But even that’s not really a rule — there may be a story that would benefit from visual inconsistency, even deliberate sloppiness, to create a rough feeling that matches the emotions of the scene or character. There is a lot of roughness in some of the Wong Kar-wei movies shot by Christopher Doyle, like “Fallen Angels” or “Happy Together” that create a certain chaotic feeling that matches what the characters are going through.

[Frank]

I can’t think of any feature films that went with a non-standard shutter angle for the entire running time, but when Michael Mann went digital he frequently would turn the shutter off, and you can see how that effects cadence of motion in several scenes in Collateral, Miami Vice, Public Enemies, and Blackhat. Janusz Kaminski used 1/96 and even 1/192 shutter speeds throughout the action scenes in Saving Private Ryan.

[Abraham]

Hello everyone,

Today, we’ve released the newest episode of the Team Deakins Podcast featuring production designer Ruth De Jong. She’s worked on NOPE, TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN, and most recently OPPENHEIMER which is still currently playing in theaters around the world.

After listening, feel free to discuss the episode with each other below!

[Stip]

A tip would be to shoot and then edit it yourself.

One thing you’ll learn about for example is (in-) consistency between shots of a scene. How much of it is still fine for post (minor exposure shifts to glue a scene together are common), how much is too much and where the devil is hidden (e.g. color temperature or tint changes).

It’s a good idea to always try to get it as close as possible in-camera, but it’s hard to do perfectly and there is a certain wiggle room, and to know that wiggle room can give you more confidence on set.

[Stip]

You may also want to look into the later films of Jean-Marc Vallée. On ‘Dallas Buyer’s Club’ he started to shoot with available light only, as he wanted to be able to shoot 360° on set. Afterwards he fell in love with this style of shooting ( how fast he could get things done and how freeing it was for his collaboration with the actors) and other movies followed. “Demolition” is another very nice example.

I’m a huge fan of available light and it works great on drama, where authenticity is often more important than a nice looking image, but can also work for other genres. “Children of Men” used available light to a large portion (or all?), also Emmanuel Lubezki’s work on “Birdman” or “The Revenant” (only the camp fire scene is lit).

Keep in mind though that on these set’s, the lighting basically takes place in pre-production and is within the set design. If you’re going to shoot on a micro budget, you may want to spend some time on changing/relocationg/adding practicals to your locations wherever you can.

[tjwilson]

I feel so scared when James D talks about the sloppy exposure these days… because no one wants to be that person that’s letting the team down with bad work. But, a lot of times when you’re shooting something it’s very nerve-racking, and you don’t feel confident that what your doing is going to come out okay. What would your tips be to as you put it, “get it right the first time” but with confidence? You can assume I suppose that people have gone out and taken lots of stills and studied as much as they can. I think it would be interesting to hear what you think about making the right decisions in prep and on-set to make sure you just get it right so that your shots fit as best they can in a film.

[tjwilson]

In classrooms there are a lot of camera rules you get told to follow:

• shutter speed must be double your frame rate
• f/2.8 is the aperture you should always start at
• etc…etc….etc…..

People talk quite a bit about when they break these rules for a specific circumstance or scene. I wanted to ask about breaking these camera rules consistently in every scene or scene type across a film.

Because getting a consistent “feel” in a film, where you don’t consciously think about the cinematography, is something I think these well-meaning rules are trying to push you toward.

Can anyone think of examples where they broke these “rules”, but kept on breaking them for the entire film, not just for one scene? Hearing about how you made some of those decisions in prep and the process you went through to test and implement them during filming would be very interesting. Also, has anyone had to throw away a great rule breaking shot because it ruined the consistency of the film? If you can think of any examples, I’d love to hear them.

[keited24]

The gist of it is this. I have finally received public funding to make a feature film in Malta, where I’m from. The funding is minimal, and I will altogether only have 100K to make a micro budget film. I really don’t want to miss out on an opportunity here to make an impression and tell an impactful story that travels further than our Maltese shores.

So, coming from a minimalistic mindset, I think the best approach for the story and project is to film with natural light and practicals only (kinda like a Dogme 95 approach I guess). I will focus the rest of my very limited budget on casting good actors and focus on their delivery and story.

My question is… since I am now in research mode, I would like to watch and study as many films as possible that have primarily used natural light and available light in their films. Can we start listing films, or can you name a few films that have primarily used natural light in their movies? Also please feel free to offer any advice.

 

[Stip]

Ultimately the director has the last say so what you describe is possible and ‘technically’ ok. Of course it’s not fulfilling as you’re more of a camera operator. So other factors decide whether to take the job (pay, gather experience, make connections ect). But even a job like this should present situations where you can bring yourself in.

[dmullenasc]

No, it depends on the scene, the space, the camera movement, the look desired, etc. I do use Litegear Litemats a lot.

[Laurent]

Thank you so much for having answered me in such detail. It’s great that you let one share your expertise!

In one post you write that you like “cooler” shadows (not this way reddish). Fill light and keylight should be warmer though….
How big are the temperature differences between the two lighting types?

Also, like Roger, do you use a lot of bounce to achieve soft lighting (Muslin, etc.)?
Or do you light, for example, through foils (e.g. Half Soft Frost, etc.) to give the actors softer lighting?

[dmullenasc]

The point of shooting a chart during production is both to communicate with a dailies colorist and to see later how that chart looks in dailies. It’s very important if shooting film to do this (I think.)

But if you are shooting digital and your dailies is just your log data with a LUT applied, or some additional ASC-CDL adjustments created by a DIT sent to the dailies colorist, then there is no reason to shoot charts if no one is manually color-correcting the footage, just applying the LUT and ASC-CDL values. The charts don’t end up being edited into the movie so they won’t be there for the final color-correction. Maybe it would make sense for a VFX shot as some reference for color and exposure.