Search Results for 'no'

[MNMike]

“Nobody Knows” is a personal favorite. Japanese film from 2004.  I don’t know the specific budget, but I remember reading about it at the time that the production did not have a lot of money.  They rented an apartment for one year, and the majority of the shoot took place in that apartment with natural light. The crew used it for their accommodations as well during this time. Cinema Verite style- Super16. It’s always stayed with me.

 

[rama lingam]

Dear master Roger and David how much Artemis very useful for cinematographers. I don’t know much about it. What  I know it’s digital viewfinder. We can predict weather reports. That’s all I know. Someone told me we could upload the location and scene and players photo. Artemis will do shot construction the scene. Is this true? What are the tremendous features Artemis have.

[GianniRanzuglia]

Hi,

Alfred Hitchcock was famously known and still is, for the way he used editing to create tension and suspense. Mismatching eyelines is a trick he used in Vertigo, North by Northwest, Notorious and Psycho, particularly giving the latter film a sense of danger in the scene you mentioned.

 

 

[sanghamithran]

Hi , Master Roger

Hope you are doing well.

I just recently happened to dig up scenes from the film psycho upon mention of it from an audio book about film.

I had watched the full movie when I was at college and didn’t observe this while first time viewing, completely terrified by the film, but upon re-watch

When I watched one scene it seemed like eye lines are not matching,

Do you think it is a deliberate choice here or a mistake or maybe i might be overthinking here.

By looking at the attached images , could you share your opinion on this.

Also what I noticed is this film had amazing cinematography and thought to myself maybe color is the curse of Modern cinematography just being eye candy rather than the pyschic effect black and white cinematography were able to impart on the audience.

Do you share any similar thought about modern cinematography?

Thank you for your kind attention for us and hope you well 🙏🏻.

[Stip]

Does anyone have recommendations for very low or no budget movies that found ways to create simple yet intriguing cinematography?

Could be anything, clever use of practicals and available light, efficient but powerful ways of shot arrangement or maybe just great intuition overall.

[Max A.]

Since I discovered this site, it is my best inspiration source every day. It gives me the strength to go ahead and follow my ambition and passion, especially in difficult moments.

There are not enough words to thank Mr. Deakins and Mrs. James, for everything they did and do for the cinematography and cinematographers.
I always loved to share and for this purpose, I love their attitude, Learning is one of the best parts of life, and even if (like me) there was not the possibility to go on film school, resources like this give us the ability to learn from a master and improve ourself.

Just two words from a simple guy: Thank you.
♥

 

[Max A.]

Hello Mr. Deakins and all the Dp’s over the forum! I hope you Mr. Deakins and Mrs. James are well.
I really loved your lighting breakdown for ‘Empire of Light’ on the ‘looking at lighting’ page, since I always love your process I hope to see some BTS pictures of the movie in the future.

Regarding ‘EoL’, I would like to ask you, if it is possible, what did you use in the projection booth for this scene (I did the same post a few weeks ago with some frames attached, but I think I committed a mistake attaching those since the post did not pass the moderation process). I think it was a tricky location cause it is so small, with tall visual elements that can cover and block light, with also light-painted walls, and there are quite enough cuts and angles in the scene.

I suppose that the “main” motivation for the light comes from above, from the florescent fixtures, which seem around 4000k, but depending on the angles seems to me that you adjust things to have the “right” shape.
The “practical” fixtures appear not so high from the floor (I suppose around 2.50 mt.) so the falloff should be quite drastic.
When you moved inside the room (the angle behind ‘Stephen’ after passing the doorway of the projection booth) did you adjust the fixtures to have a soft “pool” behind the two projectors? It seems to me that light “washes” a bit more walls in that cut/angle and gives shape to the subject in the shadowed foreground; furthermore seems to me that you raised up the fixtures a bit.

Did you used also some Astera tubes on the floor to wrap faces and mimic the shape of the ceiling fixtures in some situations, like when they talk through the projector or when they do the ending part of the dialogue? Or maybe some bounce surface to catch existing light and shape the faces?

Whatever you’ve done, it’s all invisible in a very small location full of surfaces where as soon as you turn something on it starts bouncing everywhere and being visible. And all with superb continuity.
Small locations are my nightmare 😅.

I want to thank you first of all for your availability and for your time. I’m sorry if sometimes I’m so specific but I like to impersonate myself as Dp when I look at a scene, and that location with all those cuts would have confused me a bit. I have the big privilege of being able to ask you how you managed the scene and learn from your words.
Last summer, I had a scene with a similar location (smaller still actually) but it had dark walls and fewer angles to “accommodate” and to maintain continuity.
I apologize for my bad English. Thank you again, Mr. Deakins.

ps. I attach a link to a youtube piece of the scene, unfortunately, there is not the first part of the scene.

I wish you a peaceful day.
Max.

[fremes]

Sir Deakins,

I am reaching out to you because I have developed a practical demonstration of how the filmmakers Kurosawa, Fellini and Antonioni, composed the greatest shots in cinema history, and wish to share this information. By re-introducing these lost concepts, there is opportunity to create significant uplift to the quality of movies, and audience engagement.

Problem:

I have encountered a roadblock that the ASC, DGA, and SOCO, will not consider evaluating (at no-cost) a potential member workshop, from a non-member. I do not work in the film industry.

Fortunately, I had the opportunity to present this online interactive workshop to two ASC members who kindly shared with me that this information provided them with a new:

– Way to see and create
– Precise, articulable image composition language they can use to more effectively collaborate with other members of a production

Solution:

If you looked at this programming through a 10 minute Zoom demonstration and possibly said, ‘motion-picture professionals would benefit from seeing this’, it could help others feel comfortable about evaluating the program. Your endorsement could open the doorway for the industry to benefit from a new way to boost the quality of their product (without additional time or money), thereby, increasing viewership. I do not seek your financial assistance.

If you are open to this, please let me know a date/time that would be convenient for you and I will share out a Zoom meeting invite for that time.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you,

Paul Fremes

[dmullenasc]

I think Gordon Willis (or maybe it was Conrad Hall) once said that there was nothing wrong about working on the edge… as long as you are consistent enough to not fall over that edge.  For example, maybe in your testing, you find that you can underexpose everything by 3-stops for a look and technically you are fine with the quality… but if you go a 1/2-stop too far, you fall off the cliff so to speak. So when working at the more extreme ISO settings, you have to understand your reduced ability for correcting errors.

[pbwinters]

Thanks to Roger and James for what you do here.

In an age where knowledge has been monetized online, it is quite amazing that one can register for this site, login, and ask questions and learn from Sir Roger Deakins, free of charge. I, for one, am so grateful for this resource.

I have been away working and have not been on the Forums for a long spell. Just wanted to say hello to all.

Nice to be back. I’ve missed this place. And all of you.

[Davinki]

Hello, I want to know your thoughts process for what lights you consider for say, a cove light. Like, does the quality of light from the source like from a par or fresnel matter in this? Do you have a system for determining quantity of light fixtures for a setup? Am I overthinking it? Let me know

[Abraham]

Hello everyone,

Today’s episode of the podcast features cinematographer Kate McCullough. You likely know her from her work on NORMAL PEOPLE; please feel free to discuss what she has to say below!

[Carl]

quijotesco24 wrote:

Maybe it’s me but I feel you disregard the technical knowledge as only useful to typical exposure values. Implying there is no need of technical knowledge to shoot something moodier.

Certainly not my intention, apologies if I came across as such. Of course all the tools and techniques we use apply regardless of what the final image is meant to be. And I apply them myself (false colour etc).

quijotesco24 wrote:

But in the long run is worth it to know exactly what you are doing…

Sure! And that’s where my question ultimately stems from: how much can I get away with, how far can I push it creatively. Understanding the technical side only helps with that, and finding where the line is.

I suppose asking this question is a result of expanding my technical knowledge, and questioning what can be done with what I’ve learnt.

[Carl]

Stip wrote:

When shooting raw I like to lower ISO just a tad bit to get a “thicker” negative, especially in low light scenes, but am generally an advocate of getting it as close as possible to the final look in camera. For example I like Alexa’s noise and night exteriors shot at ISO 1600.

Interesting! Part of my learning on dynamic range has been what you mention: lowering the ISO in darker scenes for cleaner shadows, and compensating by adding light (aperture, turning up fixtures). It’s not how one is commonly taught to think about ISO, but makes sense in practice.

I’ll be testing an Alexa soon, and have heard of DPs rating the ISO higher for the texture, so it’ll be interesting to see for myself.

Stip wrote:

I know what you mean. I often didn’t have a say in post and it happened a lot that the colorists changed exposure – and thus mood – distinctly. I think it definitely depends on the scale of the production – the smaller, the more tinkering in post in my experience.

I see! Thanks for your thoughts. Seems like a common experience in our line of work. I wonder if it was the same during the film days; perhaps the DP had more input because of the nature of the capture medium. Though I suppose this is just something you learn to live with.

[quijotesco24]

Carl wrote:

Hi everyone! I’ve been wrapping my head around how dynamic range works in actuality, and after performing many tests, this prompted a question: Should ‘correct’ exposure be more influenced by the desired mood, as informed by the director’s vision for their story, rather than specific technical parameters? A lot of talk on this topic online seems to revolve around ‘exposing to the right,’ maximising information capture for post, how to expose ‘correctly,’ and other such technical things. I would ask, does it even matter? If I light a dark scene towards the lower end of the IRE spectrum, within my camera’s dynamic range, and it gives us the look we want, who cares about shifting it around in post then? Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated. Regards, Carl

Maybe it’s me but I feel you disregard the technical knowledge as only useful to typical exposure values.

Implying there is no need of technical knowledge to shoot something moodier.

Those rules of setting skin at XX IRE value for a perfect exposure are just rules to help people nailing exposures that work in many scenarios but the key is to know how to nail exposure on any scenario.

Our work as DPs on a set is to have the technical knowledge of where to put skin tone for a desirable effect every single time.

If the director wants a certain mood, feeling or atmosphere our job is to know how to expose and light for that. And maybe nowadays you can look a monitor and rack iris up&down until you get there. But in the long run is worth it to know exactly what you are doing because you want and need consistency.

If you study films and certain DPs you will start to see patterns on how they expose. They are super consistent and there is nothing as no technical approach to their work.

What David is saying about not perfecting the exact exposure we want on camera also apply when we are working at the extremes of the exposure scale. If you choose to expose a scene really dark and you know you will be in big part playing down there on the scale it’s better to finish the look in post than do everything on camera as the final result will be cleaner, and because it’s a extreme exposure directors and producers maybe think it’s too dark, because, I don’t know why but they always think it’s too dark! So you split the difference and play safe. That will bring its own problems as, it has been said, on low budgets the DP work on the grading stage it’s usually none. So if you have left some final tweaks for the grading good luck if they follow your advice when you are not sitting with them.

It’s really hard to give any advice on this because each team and each production is completely different each other. So you have to start playing by ear and manage this as best as you can. But usually during meetings you can feel how much involvement you will be allowed and how much your voice will be listen.

At the end of the day it’s a team game so compromises will be made. You have to just live with it.