Search Results for 'no'

[Laurent]

Dear Roger Deakens,

May I ask you a little more about muslin curve lighting:

For example, when I see images from the set, there are often 3 panels around a person (sitting on the sofa, for example): side, curve, front. Obviously the curve doesn’t need to be “half curved” for a better effect (in other images it is sometimes curved)? Or is the effect better curved?

How high will the unbleached muslin be for a “normal” room scene (actors at the dining table, on the sofa, etc.)? Is there an “ideal” height?

And is there an ideal distance from the actor? For example, from the muslin to the sofa where the actor is sitting?

You always say not to be afraid for mixed lighting. How do you handle the color temperatures? In postproduction? Or manual white balance?

Thank you so much for your time and feedback!!

 

[Abraham]

Hi everyone,

Tomorrow, we’ll be sharing our conversation with director Ryan Coogler on the next episode of the podcast. You likely know him from his work on films like BLACK PANTHER and CREED.

Please feel free to discuss the episode with each other below!

[dmullenasc]

It’s a loaded topic. The truth is that 50mm is considered “normal” in view for the 35mm still format (8-perf 35mm) which is more like a 35mm in 4-perf 35mm cine. But the 50mm was the most common lens made for early cinema cameras so most silent era movies were shot on it and built their sets to accommodate that view, meaning they had room to back up the camera to hold actors head to toe. So 50mm became the “normal” lens for cinematography too (which predates the 35mm still camera format) but is actually a bit on the long side in 4-perf 35mm.

But also remember silent movies were shot Full Aperture, the 50mm looked slightly tighter on the 1.37 Academy sound format and even tighter when that was cropped vertically to 1.85 in the 1950s, at which point filmmakers who were used to the 50mm view in Academy started to use a 40mm (or even 35mm) to compensate.

I don’t know why the first lens made for cinema cameras was a 50mm, whether that was the easiest to design or because it was considered “normal”, who knows. I wouldn’t think too much about whether a lens is “normal” or not.

[ravikantrai]

I have read a lot of talk about 50mm lens being normal. I know Dave pointed out Yasujiro Ozu who used that focal length a lot. Hitchcock has too. I’ve seen it described often as “normal” lens in photography discussions but can’t recollect why is it considered normal. It “feels” normal when I look at something from a 50mm lens and then look at that same scene with my eyes. But I can’t put a finger on why that is “normal” vision.

Would you use 50mm, or rather, have there been instances where you you’ve reached for 50mm as a focal length more than 40 or 35 or anything on the wide end of the spectrum?

[ravikantrai]

Yeah, there’s unfortunately a lot of talk based seemingly on what looks cool rather than what may best fit the picture. It maybe music videos that make some people think in that manner because for music videos where there is no parallel narrative/story part, I guess it’s like “make it look great”, when it is just the band or vocalist singing.

[ravikantrai]

Haha Stip, that reminds me also of a quote attributed to Einstein, which goes “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler”.

[Stip]

“Maybe it’s me getting too into the weeds with so much information out there on filmmaking, which gets me overthinking everything to the point of over-analysis often hahaha.”

Clint Eastwood often says: “Let’s not overthink things”.

On the other hand I think pondering over such things and looking at how other people do it is part of learning and finding your own voice.

[ravikantrai]

Thank you very much Roger, Dave. The Revenant from 2015 got me first noticing how the really really wide angle lenses were used so close to people in so much of the film which felt like it put me right in their environments and I thought wow this would not have had the same effect on longer lenses. That shot from Red Beard is amazing, and it does work in that context! I don’t know where else I’ve seen anything like this honestly. Can’t recollect off the top of my head. But I have to watch a film second time because first time you always get sucked in to the story. I will watch Red Beard very soon, thank you also for bringing it up as I’d not seen this film yet. And thank you Roger for pointing out how it can also be as simple as things looking more interesting on a longer lens than a wide one. Maybe it’s me getting too into the weeds with so much information out there on filmmaking, which gets me overthinking everything to the point of over-analysis often hahaha.

[Roger Deakins]

I don’t think ‘unmotivated’ camera movement suits any story. But, camera movement can be motivated by something that is not necessarily to do with movement within a frame but emotion.

[Roger Deakins]

I had a Par blasting through that window and a very light diffusion, I think it was a Hampshire frost, on the glass. There was no particular ‘view’ and I thought it more interesting to blow out the window. It made the contrast between the brightness outside and the shadowed interior more intense.

[ravikantrai]

Hi Roger and Dave, I was wondering what does a long lens, say, in the range of 70-120mm or up emotionally mean for you? My first reaction to scenes with higher end of the focal length range is that it makes the background almost melt away in some instances, leaving mostly just the subject in frame. Probably even uncomfortably depending on how tightly they are framed, distancing the backdrop from the subject more and more. But I was wondering what do long lenses mean to you both and what does it evoke visually? I know you wouldn’t just use them for the sake of using them and it is contingent on what a scene is trying to convey.

[Tyler F]

Yea I think that’s an interesting question because I think off the bat, you’re boxing yourself into a style: Comedy needs to look like this or that. Rather, you should do what comes natural to you rather than try to do something because it’s some “established” look to a genre. I was just speaking to a DP whom I respect that shoots according to his taste no matter the setting. Roger Deakins is a perfect example of being able to shoot comedy (albeit dark comedy) with the Coen Brothers, yet still have the traditional look of drama. I think Bradford Young is also another prime example of this. I’d say motivate your main key from the door then use practicals to balance out your interiors. If you need to give extra level, then maybe bounce a light that is “motivated” by the practicals throughout the room.

Last I might say is hire good gaffers/grips that can take your ideas and make them work for you in a tasteful way.

[jomosadler]

My question has 2 parts. I was watching True Grit recently and noticed that in the courtroom scene with Jeff Bridges character, the windows have this almost “washed out” sort of look where you can’t see through them. I notice this in a lot of your movies and was wondering how you achieve that look without overexposing the interior. The second part of my question is how do you decide when to see through a window in a daytime interior vs have that “washed out” look I was talking about earlier.

[Abraham]

Hello everyone,

Tomorrow, we’ll be releasing the newest episode of the Team Deakins Podcast, featuring actor Benicio del Toro. You know him from SICARIO, TRAFFIC, and from a myriad of other films.

Please feel free to discuss the episode with each other below after listening.

[Roger Deakins]

I wanted to feel express the bleakness of the sea front at night and in winter. The cold light is less ‘comfortable’ and contrasts with the apartment building towards which Hilary is walking. From a naturalistic point, these kinds of practical lights often emit different colors depending on the life of the bulbs and the type of bulbs used. Not so much with LEDs but in the 1980s, for sure.