Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Freddie Young shot Lawrence of Arabia with Super Panavision – 70 cameras (modified Mitchell BFC 65s). If he were shooting the film today he might use an IMAX camera or a 65mm Vistavision. Who knows? But that choice might come down to the director. Chris Nolan might choose film emulsion but another director might choose digital capture. There are all sorts of arguments about the benefits of one over the other. The bottom line is a camera ‘negative’ will become a digital positive.
But its not as if a “big” film need be shot with a big “outdoor heavy” camera. An Alexa mini LF, as well as many other top of the line cameras, can cope with quite extreme conditions. The choice comes down to the director’s preferences and a few other factors like budget! I would certainly not consider ‘reframing’ as one of those. I’m sure Freddy Young would be aghast!
That was partly a case of design. My next book will be in a larger format and have single images to a page. The ‘gutter line’ is annoying but we tried to use images where it was less distructive.
Even the great James Wong Howe found himself guilty of creating images for their own sake, or simply to show off his technique, rather that follow what the story required.
There were windows on the location so I probably added some muslin on a wall and bounced a Joker off that. I would have also used a solid to control the daylight from outside the window, but all quite simple.
I agree. There is a balance between restoration and “invention”. I try to get as close to the original intent of a film as possible. That does not include manipulating the color or the grain, other than when a sub standard optical can be refined to be less of a distraction. I don’t see that removing scratches, hairs in the gate, etc. is altering the original look of a film although it actually is!
I visualize the lighting of a scene and am usually disappointed by the way I can transfer what is in my head to the screen. The composition of a shot and the movement of the camera within a scene comes less fully formed and is usually found in collaboration with the director and the actors. That is true even when you make storyboards with the director. The shot fully-forms only when the camera starts rolling. Even then, take two can be better!
Instinct! I think this topic has been discussed many times before. Usually, there is little time to consider the ‘mathematic’ proportions of a composition – even if you are that way inclined. I am not. I do not like rules.
We watched Hud again the other day. The film’s compositions are worth taking a look at – though its hard not to become immersed in the story. Asphalt Jungle is another film I might recommend for its compositions – amongst many other thangs. Ida is more adventurous without being distracting. In Cold Blood is perfection.
Yes, NCFOM was more restrained in its camera style. Almost always observing the action rather than enhancing or making a comment on it. 1917 was a very particular style of film. I’m not sure I would agree that the camera had a ‘consciousness of its own’, that might be said of Barton Fink but not of 1917. That said, I would say that the camera expresses more than what is on the page in all three films.
The 120D is a small lamp and, I’m sure, has its limitations when trying to create a beam of sunlight. So, I don’t think you need my advice! Looks pretty good. Personally, I am not a fan of using atmosphere unless it is for a very specific purpose. I used none at all on Skyfall.
