Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
I am not sure you can say that the length of the shot is entirely responsible for an audience understanding a film or not. Content and narrative drives the image rather than the image driving the narrative.
Yes, I was referencing a super 35mm format. On ‘1917’, which we shot on the LF, a 40mm was about the only focal length we used and it was on the camera quite often on ‘Empire of Light’ as well.
We used the Alexa LF on ‘1917’ because we liked the shallow depth of field as well as the increased information it gave us in comparison to the standard Alexa. The S35 did not exist at that time and we only had a look at that camera when we were in prep for ‘Empire’.
To compensate depth of field between the LF and the S35 wouldn’t it require closing down the iris rather than opening it up?
You might want to watch the films of Robert Bresson or Luchino Visconti! There are plenty of films with a similarly controlled camera style but less in contemporary mainstream cinema.
A 35mm or a 32mm, yes, but I also use a 40mm and a 50mm regularly. I will also use a 28mm or a 25mm, maybe an 18mm, sometimes a 16mm, or even a 135mm. Perhaps a 300mm or an 800mm. What shot are you asking about?
How to manage consistency? I don’t know what to advise. You decide on the look for the film, a scene or a sequence and then break it down into individual shots. You consider when and how to best shoot each shot depending on the restrictions you have regarding the existing natural light and/or your schedule. consistency is key to immersing the audience in a film and, therefore, a priority for the work of any cinematographer.
What I did on ‘Empire’ was only an extension of how I always work, choosing practical sources, rigging additional lighting in a concealed way, adding only minimal floor lighting when I have to and always working closely with the art department. What was ‘new’ for me was lighting almost entirely with LED sources.
It may be that lighting becomes entirely ‘controlled’ through an LED wall or some other ‘environmental’ source but that is not something that I see myself involved with.
I totally agree with David’s advice there. If you have no need for additional light sources you should have no problem timing out the excessive green tint – or you might just like it! As David says, if you see green outside you might expect the inside to reflect the same source rather than something that is purely ‘white’.
You might try adding household bulbs and sockets around that hanging fixture. I can’t imagine it ever featuring in shot and a brighter soft source in this central position could be nice. You could always cut the sides with a circle of silver foil if you wanted to concentrate the light from it in the center of the room and have a little more fall off.
As I said, it depends on the width of your shot. In full sunlight, a red head held a few feet away from a face would fill in shadows in the same way as a sun gun but why would you not use a bounce in that situation? I am sure that both Chivo and Josh Richards would prefer to use a large soft reflector than a small bright light however powerful that might be. I would also think it rare for either cinematographer to regularly use any additional light when shooting exteriors.
I’m sure this space would allow you to float a light balloon of which there are various alternatives.
I have used very lightweight ‘ring lights’ in similar situations and rigged them to the existing chandeliers using a batten or pipe stretched between the chains. With even a large ring of LEDs (Bi color strips or something similar) the entire rig could be quite lightweight.
You could also span the room with a pipe that would sit above the cornice or on supports that are set against the walls. You could span the space by creating your own support structure completely detached from the existing architecture and ‘art directed’ to appear part of the original. I have done this and rigged multiple rings of bulbs from such a support system but it does require a lot of prep and considerable trust.
The film was designed and shot to be seen at 2.39:1, full stop. What is done on YouTube is what is done on YouTube.
The river work was done during the day but with quite dense cloud cover. In that we were lucky as we had one day to shoot and it only clouded up at mid afternoon. If I had thought we could have shot the rest of the transitions between night and dawn during full daylight I would have done that. Trying to shoot complex shots in a window of about 30 minutes is quite stressful.
Yes, there are certainly many things you can achieve in the DI and using effects but, personally, I prefer reality.
Maintaining contrast on a cloudy day? If you want more contrast then, yes, use negative fill or a lamp. But there is no rule and you have to make that judgement from script to script and shot to shot.
That’s hard! I love B&W and it seems to me that color works in a different way. A color image is obviously far more naturalistic and it is hard to use the same kind of expressionistic lighting using color. Maybe, there can be something equivalent as in ‘Seven’, for instance.
