Search Results for 'no'

[rama lingam]

Yeah first half is Emily perspective and another benicio perspective. It’s long time ago I watched. Did you use same focal lengths for benicio perspective also. Certainly ‘the man who wasn’t there ‘  and ‘laura’ comes to my mind when we talks about one character perspective. Do you remember what focal length did you use for TMWNT’. What about camera movements if they story have two perspective. I mean how do you differentiate in camera moves.

Recently I saw ‘Laura’ movie. I like the way the camera moves. What’s your opinion about it?

[Mike]

Skyfall scene.

This set always intrigues me. You certainly stop eating your popcorn when watching this scene, you are not sure at first which one is JB but hoping he is the victor. Very impressive imo and wonder how it was conceived, you must have played around with different background scenes so why did you choose the jelly fish sequence and what were alternatives.

[Stip]

In-camera action with no (or very little) editing is the only kind of action that I like. The corridor fight scene in ‘Oldboy’ is my favorite.

 

[Roger Deakins]

You could say ‘Sicario’ used two perspectives. I’m not sure why one character would see any differently than another but the movement of the camera and the lighting might differ.

As to using a wide lens in a story with only one character. Is that true? Some directors like to use wide lenses, as do some cinematographers but for a character point of view? I can’t see that.

[Roger Deakins]

Those are a lot of question and a full answer would make a book.

The reason using the bounce light for the Omori Restaurant scene in ‘Unbroken’ was to do with the restricted space I had outside the windows. A large bounce source with my lamps on stands below was a far more efficient alternative to using a grid of small lamps, which would create a similar soft source, and raising them up to the right angle.

Quality of light, aperture and cost – in that order.

I think the quote from Conrad was in reference to a specific use of a lamp at full spot.

The LEDs I used on ‘Empire’ were multi color so I could dim them and warm them up to get the same effect as I would do with a tungsten source.

A clear bulb gives a cleaner shadow. In a practical that might look ‘right’ or it might be ‘better’ with a frosted bulb.

I do very little in the DI, other than for ‘O Brother’ that is. And I don’t look at a histogram. The white is the white but, of course, looking at a dvd is not like looking at a cinema screen and, even if I have overseen the transfer, its not ever the same. I don’t remember my approach to ‘Elah’ being that different. Obviously, every story is different so it does not look like ‘No Country’ or ‘Prisoners’, two films that look diametrically different.

 

[Abraham]

Hello everyone,

Tomorrow we’re releasing the newest episode of the podcast featuring director Matt Reeves. You definitely know him from THE BATMAN and from other films such as CLOVERFIELD and WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES.

Feel free to discuss the episode with each other below once it releases!

[Julius]

I have some general questions regarding your lighting philosophy and approaches in different situations.

I am aware that there are many factors that need to be taken into consideration, but if you would have to break it down heavily:
What are your thoughts when I ask the following situations more specifically.

I often see that you use many sources horizontically to get a wrap around the face.
When you do a closeup do you prefer concistency over “prettyness”, in a way that you wouldn´t add more bounce to wrap the light even more
or would you just build a very large source far away in the first place?
I often hear the tearm cove lighting in the context of your techniques. How exactly are you defining a cove light? Would you consider an array of lamps in a concave shape even if bounced a covelight or is that just an array of lamps? Does cove implicate that its bounced? What do you think about the booklight technique and when would you choose it over a cove light?
I often see in your movies that the catchlight in the eyes are kind of an elongatet horizontical “line” wich probably comes from your preffered use of arrays of lamps or bounces to wrap the light. How do you achieve the “poppyness” of the catchlight. In some movies, where they also do a sort of soft naturalistic lighting the catchlight gets mushy and soft in the edges, but in most of your works it seems to me as if the eyes are popping because of a clean catchlight.
With your preference of soft naturalistic lightin: how do you get so contrasty images?
As I was reading through the “look at lighting page” of UNBROKEN, more specifically the “Omari restaurant” you said initially that you wanted to go for direct lighting. Again with an array of lamps hitting the charachter directly, but then you changed to bouncing into ultrabounces instead. What was the main point of doing that? Input from the director? The more cloudy weather effect it has when you bounce it or because it looks different on the face in that specific situation?
How do you approach quality of light? Is the apature the most important thing to consider in the first place to have a certain depth of field? Then you think abaout the output you need,how far the lamps are away and therefore how much voltage you need to get to a certain apature? Or is it more of an artistic approach, where you think about the quality and softness of light and contrast ratios and then you bump in another light to get to the wanted level? Ecpecially this would be very interesting to me.

Do you generally use lots of negative fill to get a specific contrast ratio? Or is it something that you get from the distance and the output of the lamps themselves? It looked super contrasty even though the light source is so big and “wrappy”.
I see it often on different “look at lighting” pages that you put 3 to 10 and more lamps next to each other. You even specify the exact distance they should have from each other. I suppose that that comes from your disliking of doubleshadows which you mentioned in an interview and on your podcast sometimes. Would you rather go with diffusion in front of the lamps to sort of merge the singel beams together or would you rather try to bring the lamps as close together as you can?
I heard in an interview from some dp that conrad hall used to say that he liked the lamps to be full spot because the beam looks more natural then. I suppose you know that because you talked to him? And is that something that you take into consideration as well or is it simply “what width do I need for a certain space”?

Sometimes you say on your page that you progressively dim the lamps as they go away from the “center of the keylight” in lack of a better terminology because I know you don´t believe in the classic approach of key and fill light. Do you do the dimming to warm up the shadows or to have a different quality of light or both?
Also how did you do it in “Empire of light”? I think I read that you used mainly leds on set. But when leds get dimmed they are not warming up as tungston does, so do you use progressively more cto?
I recall that you said once that you like frosted bulbs on ringlights so you don’t get into the trouble of double shadows, but with practical lamps you use clear bulbs to have the “full” and no diff holding back level.

In a lot of your works, when I import a still of the movie into photoshop, the levels almost never hit complete white. You always have some sort of a “warm” highlight wich is almost a light gray in terms of the histogram reading. Does the softness come from lots of dynamic range or from dimming light so much they never show up as white incam or is it a matter of postproduction and curves to compress the hightlights a bit?
For example in SICARIO the histogram gravitating towards the shadows, but it still looks like a correctly exposed image.

How do you get so dense and saturated colours even though its still kind of a bleach bypass look?

For example in “The Valley of Elah” everything looks quite desaturated and I think the whole look of the film differs colourwise so much from the rest of your work.
Is that the di or just lit differently?

 

Julius

[Mike]

Now you can start prepping for your next project.

Team up with others who share your passion.  Wish you lots of luck.

[Rusalen]

Hello Mike. Thank you for your advice and support. We had the ceremony on the 25th. I am emailing directly from the festival director. It really means a lot to me. And I aimlessly submit the film to the festival. Thanks again for your attention.

Hello Rusalen,
Congratulations

! On behalf of the SWIFF team, I am thrilled to share with you that you received an award for your film, FAITH, at SWIFF 2023: Semi-Finalist Award in the Best Short film category. Among the films from 120 countries competing in this year’s showcase, we are excited to award your film, FAITH, with the Semi-Finalist Award. FAITH was well received by all of our judges at SWIFF, and we were highly impressed with your work.
Our judges’ comments on FAITH:
“A cinematic opus that reflects the director’s unwavering commitment to their unique creative vision.”
“The film’s visuals are a visual treat, with stunning cinematography that captures every scene with breathtaking beauty.”
“A cinematic masterpiece that showcases the talent and vision of its creators, leaving audiences in awe of its artistic merits.”
As a Semi-Finalist, along with other SWIFF Awardees, you will receive special access to distribution (with your consent) on Amazon Prime Video. SWIFF is a Distribution Partner of Amazon Prime Video Direct, and it is our mission to empower you with an international platform for your film through our relationship with Prime Video. Amazon is currently only accepting feature films for consideration for distribution. This means that, as a part of the SWIFF Awardee community, if you ever create a feature film in the future (or if you have one now), we can send it to Amazon Prime Video for distribution consideration.
SWIFF is a nonprofit film festival dedicated to providing you with opportunities in the entertainment industry, and it is our mission to empower you as a student filmmaker. At SWIFF 2023, we have provided you with international recognition for your work, and it is our mission to continue helping you with opportunities such as Prime Video Distribution. Thank you very much for being a part of SWIFF 2023—you have joined an international community!
Thank you,
Mark Leschinsky
Festival Director

Visual Arts
Creativity in all its forms...

[Sol]

Thank you sir! That’s helpful and open my mind, you must be experienced.

I did considered some longer focal lengths to create the depth of frame, but not as considered as you are.And the idea “suggest a larger space” have inspire me a lot.

Anyways, really appreciate for your suggestions！

[Mike]

Not really a film topic but today BBC Radio 4 have been broadcasting a short programme about Roger Deakin. Obviously, not the Roger we know but Roger Deakin the naturalist.

He has swam in nearly every river in the UK and is also an author, his does resemble our Roger so I wondered if they related.

[Roger Deakins]

I would only use the 500 stock when I really needed to. I much preferred the lower speed stocks and used both the 100 and 200 Tungsten balanced emulsions. I rarely used the daylight emulsions as I felt they were a little saturated.

I would only set my meter to the rating suggested by Kodak. I would then under or overexpose depending on what effect I was after and where I wanted my exposure to lie relative to the range within the frame. But, either changing the rating or adjusting your exposure after taking a normal reading is basically doing the same thing. Overdeveloping is different. You can change the contrast by doing this, shift the colors  and also add grain.

[Roger Deakins]

I was placed on the Graphic Design course without having a say in the matter. I wanted to be in Fine Arts and had no intention of being a designer but I did find a passion for photography, so it wasn’t all bad.

[Roger Deakins]

The angle of the light to the light to the bounce can alter the size and the shape of the source you create. Whether a lamp is above and rigged to the ceiling or on the floor on a low boy or ‘turtle’ is usually just about space and convenience.

You can double the muslin but it doesn’t make so much difference. The light going through it could be a problem though, and bounce around to interfere with the contrast of the shot.

If I have a series of lamps bouncing off a wide reflector I may, repeat may, dim the lamps to the sides and also warm them up to create a softer fall off and a warmth reaching into the shadow area. I might do that but it is no means necessary.

Whether I gel a light and with what strength of gel in order to maintain color balance is a decision based on the script, the scene and the individual shot. Maybe, you would like the daylight to be blue’ish and the interior lights to be warm. Maybe not.

 

• This reply was modified 2 years, 3 months ago by Roger Deakins.

[Laurent]

Hi,

I apologize in advance if I try to ask the 1000 question on a topic as a new member 😉

Cove Lightning
Sometimes the lights are on the floor, sometimes the lighting comes from the top: Does this have a big impact on bouncing? Or is it just a space thing?

Will the unbleached muslin be doubled? So that no lighting can shine through?

I don’t quite understand yet: will the first lighting be set brighter? And the 2nd less? And the 3rd even more dimmed? Or do all 3 have the same brightness?

If RD uses tungsten lighting in the room and daylight shines through the window, does he use a CTO window film (100, 50, 25%?). Or does he “just” put a gel filter on the camera lens? Or deliberately using mixed light?

Thanks if someone takes the trouble to help a greenhorn …. Thank you so much!!!