Search Results for 'no'

[LucaM]

I was wondering about the relationship among the blocking of the scene in production and the rhythm of it in the final editing.

For example, among the countless amazing shots in Roger’s career, i really love two shots that seem to me so perfectly coreographed that i keep on wondering how they were created. One is the scene in The Village in which Lucius grabs Ivy’s hand and run with her in the cellar. The other one is the scene of the death of Jesse James. Not the most challenging scenes perhaps (i mean, i suppose the blocking of 1917 was more complex than a quantum physics theorem) , but i find that in both scenes everything is so perfectly timed – the actors movement, the camera movement, the soundtrack – that they do seem a dance coreography. Simple scenes, but perfect. I noticed that in a movie the shots that really struck me are the ones with great coordination among actors and camera. I love light but i’m attracted by movement (or lack of).  I’ve read that Sergio Leone said to Kubrick that in Once Upon the Time in the West (i hope to remember which  movie the article was about) created such a coordination by recording the soundtrack before the shot and shooting it while listening to the soundtrack (or something like that). Of course, in every movie the final goal is to make everything come together to create an armony, but i’ve always loved how beautiful, simple and natural those two scenes i was talking about are.

So, my question is if those scenes were blocked and shot with such an effect in mind and, in general, if this armony of movements depends more on the blocking of the scene or on the rhythm created by the editing.

[dmullenasc]

Stills from 4K blu-rays can be misleading since if it is an HDR version, you can only simulate how they might look when viewing on an SDR monitor.

DVDBeaver.com reviews of 4K discs always have this warning:

“It is likely that the monitor you are seeing this review is not an HDR-compatible display (High Dynamic Range) or Dolby Vision, where each pixel can be assigned with a wider and notably granular range of color and light. Our capture software if simulating the HDR (in a uniform manner) for standard monitors. This should make it easier for us to review more 4K UHD titles in the future and give you a decent idea of its attributes on your system. So our captures may not support the exact same colors (coolness of skin tones, brighter or darker hues etc.) as the 4K system at your home.”

[Chop13]

Hello everyone,

I’m prepping a feature and facing a rather tricky lighting setup in a very unforgiving location.

We’re shooting about a quarter of the film inside a church that we’re transforming into an art gallery. The key character – the artist – walks from one painting to another throughout the sequence, so we need a consistent yet cinematic ambient design.

We’ll be shooting with two ARRI Mini LF cameras and a set of Leica R lenses.

Here’s what we have in terms of lighting gear:

12 × 4K HMI
3 × 9K HMI
1 × 12K HMI
1 × 18K HMI

We also have access to a 100m telescopic crane.
The idea is to create a sunlight simulation through the central stained-glass window using a grid rig on the crane: 6 × 4K, 2 × 9K, and 1 × 18K aimed through that main window.

Inside, we’re integrating Astera Titan tubes (hidden in the art installation walls) for large paintings and Helios tubes for smaller pieces. We’ll also use Kino Celebs, Diva-Lites, and Lightmates for gentle fill and sculpting.

Now, the issue: the stained glass is quite dense, which might reduce the impact of our exterior rig.

The goal is to design one big lighting setup, with the option to erase rigs or mounts in post, as we’ll keep the camera mostly floating around the space.

Any suggestions on how to handle the density of the glass?

And if you’ve tackled similar “artificial sun through stained glass” setups, I’d love to hear about your approach (especially with haze, light loss, or pre-diffusion).

Link to the scouting and model

Thanks in advance for your feedback!

Hamza

[sanghamithran]

Hi Master Roger,

I’d come across this different exposure stills online of fargo marked as bluray vs 4k which have a normal and brighter exposure correspondigly.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1u0GkOHwARHBxhixnXMDu6RBZAGE8TeFv?usp=sharing

could you please check the images in this link and let me know, which one is the correct exposure you intended.

Thank you.

[rama lingam]

I know Nicholas Musuraca. I have watched couple of his films. I didn’t know Figueroa. There are lots of cinematographers using back light. What’s so special in these two cinematographers from your perspective. Do you feel these cinematographers using back light very meaningful and suitable context.

[Roger Deakins]

Very much depends on context. All kinds of lighting were in use by the time the German expressionists were at work and their influence led to the look of American film noir. Cinematographers like Nicholas Musuraca and Gabriel Figueroa were masters of backlighting.

[dmullenasc]

It happens — ultimately filmmaking is an expensive business and you were hired to deliver a certain level of work within a budget for time and equipment. That’s the reality.

You fight for the quality of the shot when it matters, when you think a drop in quality will be noticeable and everyone in post will be trying to make the problematic shot work and forgetting soon why it was not shot as well as it should have been.

It’s frustrating and depressing when you no choice but to roll cameras on something below your standards but you try and move on because there will be other battles coming up that need your concentration. A producer once said to me (regarding a perfectionist director we were dealing with): “If you make everything equally important then nothing is important”.  The other common phrase is “Perfect is the enemy of good.”  You have to realize that if you take another ten minutes to make a shot better, you may be robbing yourself of ten minutes later in the day on something even more important.

 

[dmullenasc]

As a general rule:

1. You light the wide shots first to establish the look (color, contrast, and angle) of the lighting. This means it’s a judgement call based on your taste and experience as to how far you can later alter the light for the tighter shots.

2. If the tighter shot is along the same axis as the wider one, just a tighter view, you often adjust the wide-shot lighting, not re-light from scratch. For one reason, even if you adjust the lighting of the subject, you don’t want to have to re-light the background… so if both the subject and the background was lit with the same light source, you try and find a way of adjusting the foreground without changing the background.

[Stip]

It seems clear that the role of cinema as a moral guide may be somewhat overrated.

I don’t think it’s overrated, it’s not like you watch a movie and that molds your views forever. “Come and See” is still one of the most powerful anti-war movies but a single movie – even when you played the lead role in it 40 years ago – cannot negate decades of state propaganda that floods your everyday life.

[LucaM]

I don’t think cinema is just entertainment. Entertainment movies exist, of course, but there are also movies dealing with moral and ethical problems that also have something to say, not just make you spend a couple of fun hours. I think it for every kind of artistic expression, there’s space for entertainment and for a lot more.

[IgorVe]

Stip wrote:

So the actor may really believe

Stip wrote:

Of course, he knows exactly what he’s doing – but easy money matters more.

It’s both absurd and terrifying at the same time. After all, an actor is supposed to “live” the role in order to perform it well.

So how can someone “live through” such a role… and still end up supporting fascism?

[quote quote=218175] The message of the movie and the role of cinema will always be the same, while actors are just people faking something as a job

I understand that – but my question is, what is the value of a cinematic message if it doesn’t even affect the actor who played the leading role?

It seems clear that the role of cinema as a moral guide may be somewhat overrated. In the end, it’s just another form of entertainment 🙁

[Stip]

It makes me question the power of cinema

I think it better showcases the power of propaganda. The russian propaganda is telling their people that they are fighting Nazis in Ukraine, defending Russia from Nazism. So the actor may really believe that he is in the same position as his character in Come and See. Of course it is not true but that is what millions of russians are told every day since many years, with all opposing voices being crushed, and a large part does believe this narrative.

[LucaM]

My humble opinion is that director’s ideas and desire to tell a given story are relevant, not actor’s aderence in real life to the role (but i agree that it’s  a delusion when you discover that an actor you admired in a role Is not a nice person). The message of the movie and the role of cinema will always be the same, while actors are just people faking something as a job, not heralds and champions of the truth. I wouldn’t mix the actor and the role (but of course Is a nice feeling when the actor Is in real life the Hero that he plays on the screen). Just my opinion, of course!

[IgorVe]

Dear Mr. Deakins,

You’ve mentioned Come and See among your favorites – I fully support you on that. But I was shocked to learn that the lead actor now supports modern fascism and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It makes me question the power of cinema—if a film that profound couldn’t even impact its own star, are we overestimating its role as art? Or is this just a time when art is losing its influence?

[LucaM]

Congratulations for completing it, it’s not easy! It looks interesting, good luck for the festivals!