Search Results for 'no'

[Max A.]

If I can join in this topic, I think Ganesh asked a good question and did a good subjective analysis.

In my opinion, first of all, art is subjective. It is subjective when someone feels and creates a piece of art and often is subjective when a human being is connecting to it and has his sensations, his reactions, and his own interior questions.

I think, to answer to Ganesh, that Mr. Villeneuve took his risk to change the way to introduce a crucial character like Alejandro, and by doing this he changed the whole Image System of the movie and the way we as an audience perceived and followed the story.

When we all do something we taking our risks, this is a process that can improve our path (passing also by brutal failures).

I agree with Michael (Mr. Ryan) and to be honest I never analyzed the fact Kate is something like an “observer” of the story, we as the audience are Kate. This is a strong storytelling point of Sicario in my opinion and is maybe the the factor that makes the movie not “just an action movie”.

Of course, this is my opinion, as an audience. I’m not won any awards nor feel like a movie theorist.

In the end, I agree with the concept to be always respectful of each other.
I know you Vanniyan are so passionate about movies and cinematography and are a huge fan of Mr. Deakins (like us) but this doesn’t let you blame and call someone “child”.

Often a child can teach us to see something that we never saw.

I apologize for my bad English.

Have a peaceful Sunday all forum members.
Max.

[Stip]

“But by cutting that scene out in the film and telling the story through the eyes of Kate is a very risky choice.”

I just looked into the script because I didn’t know Alejandro was introduced early. By leaving that away, he stays a mysterious character. Kate constantly wonders who that guy is, where does he come from, what’s his motivation  – and so do we! Much more powerful imo.

“…because the Kate character rarely acts, she always reacts to the actions done in front of her. ”

I think that’s part of why Sicario works so well, the audience basically is Kate – only watching, feeling powerless to intervene. Now add Roger’s speciality of putting the audience exactly where they need to be in each shot and you get that unique viewing experience of Sicario. I think it’s a major reason why so many people love this film.

In hindsight it seems like an easy decision but it definitely was a major change to the dynamic of the viewing experience. And it would surely be interesting to know what considerations they made (who decided it, just Denis, more people, was someone against it?) to go with this change.

[M Ryan]

Interesting question Ganesh, makes total sense to me 🙂 I seem to remember reading about a scene that was shot but cut in the edit where Alejandro was introduced, originally this was outside the aeroplane (?) – possibly to really sneak the character into the story slowly as we begin to realise alot of this story will be about him.. which could be why the original opening in the script was cut.

In alot of way’s the film really is Alejandro’s story told through Kate’s eyes, but it is also Kate’s journey as well, and she definitely becomes less passive as the story progresses..

Would love to hear some more insights about how Sir Roger worked with Denis to film these two characters.. the relatable Kate and the mysterious Alejandro!

Also yes, please keep it respectful (Vanniyan) – we are all here to learn, share and support each other – there are no stupid questions.

Regards, Michael

 

 

[Ganesh Venkatesh]

Thankyou halfgrain for understanding my question. Even though my English had lot of mistakes. I’m hardly trying to learn it to make a good communication with every filmmaker in this website to learn filmmaking from everyone which will definitely lead me to make good films.

I never thought it was a mistake that their decision to tell the story through kate’s character.

It’s one of the best decision they took. It expresses the theme very clearly.

Denis Villeneuve and Roger deakins are one of the greatest filmmakers who push their boundaries and limits of storytelling in filmmaking for every film they do.

They are not ordinary movie makers who use same hit formula again and again for every movie they do.

While creating a new way of storytelling, there are risk factors that will be discussed with crew members. Because filmmaking is a collaborative process.

Like Denis Villeneuve once said

“If I wanted to have total control and be a dictator, I would do ice sculpture in my basement. If I want to make a movie, I’m going to work with 500 people, and I will have to work with their strength and their weakness.”

 

I started the topic to know what they thought about their risks and what they discussed while taking those risks.

Thankyou everyone.

[halfgrain]

Let’s stay respectful here, will we? It’s hard for me to fully understand the OP’s point and question, because of the language barrier. But my assumption is he/she feels like it was a bold choice to tell the story through Kate and leave out the beginning scene with Alejandro, therefore wonders if there were any worries during shooting that telling the story from a more “passive” viewpoint would create the need for more “action” in other departments (camera work, editing, sound design)…?  Or I might have misunderstood the question all together. Either way, let’s not intimidate and blame other forum users. I don’t think he/she meant to be disrespectful.

In regards to the question though, I would be very surprised if Dennis had any doubt in his choice of telling the story through Kate. He’s a fantastic director and I’m sure he knew her viewpoint is a very strong and interesting way of telling the story, that doesn’t need any “make up” through other aspects of the movie.

[rama lingam]

Ganesh vengatesh where did you study film language. You love ‘sicario’ film and also you are point out the mistakes like child. You don’t know what you are talking about. The film language is very impressive. Editing also very good. First you have to learn film language. Don’t ask silly questions. You are wasting your time and precious maestro Roger times also.

[dmullenasc]

Raw is uncompressed plus color temperature and ISO are not baked in. And you can record Open Gate. Practically speaking, if you shoot carefully, the difference is subtle… the ProRes recording has a standard amount of sharpening built into it, so you may find that the footage feels slightly more “electronic” than a raw conversion with no sharpening.

[Stefan Vrachev]

Hello, Mr Deakins
This is a question for both you and James.
In your significant experience have you noticed any real tangible significant difference between shooting on ARRIRAW vs ProRes 4444?
This question is more about Alexa XT, Mini – not LF or the newer 35.
I am hearing conflicting opinions about it, and some even say to me that you guys are perfectly fine shooting ProRes but because it is required by studio etc you use ARRIRAW.
Can you elaborate?

Thanks

[rama lingam]

Dear master Roger i just watched Casablanca movie. There is fluid camera movements in this film. If it was not shot on fluid camera movements what effect would audience gets. A cinematographer could successfully photographed with locked camera in this film. Could you talk about what’s your favourite camera moves films like Laura

[dmullenasc]

You’re mainly trying to be consistent within the coverage of a scene. Individuals in a space may be in different lighting ratios but when you go from a wide shot to closer shots, you try and make it feel similar in contrast. If you’re cutting to a reverse angle not seen in the master wide shot, you are more free to create a different effect.

You can use a light meter of course if you are concerned. Often you light a master  –let’s say to f/2.8 — and when you go into coverage, you might adjust the light on the actor but not touch the background light so if you light the actor to the same level as the master, then the background will look the same as before. The ratio you often set by eye, especially if you are going for that “barely visible” level of fill. But you can use a light meter or tools like false colors, waveforms, etc. if you’re not sure.

If shooting digital with a DIT on the crew, you can also save a frame of the master shot and compare the new set-up to see if they are in the same ballpark — do an A-B comparison.

[quijotesco24]

Mathematically speaking if you want to match LF depth of field to a standard Alexa you need to close down your iris by 1.3. Same multiplier you would use to match lenses and angles of view between sensors.

T4 on Alexa vs T5.6 1/3 on LF.

32mm on Alexa vs 40mm on LF.

I understand your question and yes if you really want a s35 depth of field on a LF you will need more light or sensor gain to reach a deeper Tstop to match that look.

But if you really wanted that you won’t use the LF on first place isn’t? If you want the look of a s35 sensor then use a s35 camera.

Also this is no mathematics so lots of factors come to play apart from numbers. Lensing, as Roger said, being a huge one.

General preference nowadays seem to go to the LF look. And we describe that as images who have less depth of field as no one rents the LF to over illuminate to close the iris more. With the new Alexa35 we will see what happens.

 

 

[Planet_Coast]

Roger Deakins wrote:

The depth of field of a 40mm is the same whatever the size of the sensor. With a standard Alexa you would need to shoot on a 32mm (some say wider) to match the field of view of a 40mm on a Large Format camera. A small adjustment to the iris will not change the ‘feel’ of that lens. The additional latitude and resolution of the LF can be an advantage over the standard Alexa but that would not be my main consideration when choosing one camera over the other. The ‘feel’ of the lens is uppermost in my mind.

I understand that part. So you’re saying the Signature Prime lenses have a better “feel” than Master Primes? If so, why wouldn’t you use a 32mm Master Prime wide open on a S35 camera instead of a 40mm Signature Prime on the LF at a T2?

Is it simply down to the resolution advantages of the LF camera?

[Planet_Coast]

quijotesco24 wrote:

Not s35 vs LF but you get the idea on how different formats/sensors and lenses compare. https://youtu.be/RwgkXcUX984

The only difference I see is the increased resolution and shallower depth of field on the Alexa 65. They look very similar to me.

I didn’t know the Alexa LF had more latitude. Lower noise, yes, but one needs to stop down to match the depth of field of a S35 camera. Going back to my original question, do these two variables not cancel each-other out?

[Stip]

“I’m Wondering how DPs keep a consistent lighting ratio throughout the whole piece.
Or don’t they?”

I don’t think they do (unless there’s a specific reason to). They keep it consistent throughout a scene.

If a couple says farewell to each other in tears in a dim barn, and then one of them steps outside into a desert at noon to face the antagonist, there’s not much reason to stick to the same lighting ratio I would think. But the wide, medium and CU shots inside the barn must match each other.

[halfgrain]

I’m not sure what exactly your question is. Using  a light meter or false color will make it fairly easy to adjust your ratio as desired in every shot. So if you want to stick to the same ratio in every shot, that’s how to do it. But I don’t see why a DP would want to stick to such a hard rule. Every shot is different and might need a different feel and therefor lighting and lighting ratio.