Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
The candles were doing the work. On Kundun and Prisoners I remember hiding some small quartz bulbs between the candles but on Rev Road the cake was enough.
I can’t say I took no notice of the home media when I was shooting for the cinema screen. I began framing for 1:85 but exposing with a 1.66 gate. Then the studios wanted the full academy frame exposed for home media. That was a problem, but it did not compromise what I framed for the theatrical release.
On Blade Runner 2049 we knew there would be an IMAX release but the 2:40 frame was always paramount. Shooting open gate allowed us to use the top and bottom of our centered 2:40 for IMAX.
We only had one ‘flame out’ and that was in testing for projection. As far as I know there were no problems on release. The recent Criterion copy of 1984 is the only one that reflects our intent.
That was a question of cost. The Blondes were blued so the HMI was not so cold in comparison. That would not have been my choice in other circumstances but I was restricted to a lighting package that had to work for a variety of sets. I could not order in per set. The 6K HMI was also used on the ext. night shoots and was far more efficient than any alternative.
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!
