Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Do you like working like you did on “Empire of Light”, where you figure it out on the day of shooting? (I feel a stressful pressure to deliver ‘right here, right now’ if I cannot ponder ahead of shooting)
“About the “bad cinematography”, would you include in it great movies with stunning images but that are so beautiful that you tend to forgot what’s their purpose and you simply stare at them?”
Good question, I just know that whenever film critics start with “The visuals are stunning” or “The landscapes are breathtaking”, I can be quite sure that the story is lacking 🙂
Thanks but I was asking if anyone knows any films that use predominantly short travel, slow dolly moves.
“You need that mass to create that slow movement in my opinion. ”
The slider I linked to does exactly that, with or without motor. It creates movement that looks like a heavy dolly move, even when just moving it an inch, which is why I consider it replacing a dolly. You can also pan and tilt. I tried dozens of sliders and none could do it, this does.
I usually embrace limitations as they force my creativity, I’m just not sure if limiting “dolly moves” to 100cm camera travel length will be too much. Many scenes will have long tracking shots (steadicam), so using less movement for the rest of the film, in theory, should work.
But it’s theory and maybe there is something out there for me to watch and get an idea if it’s worth investigating further.
I’m sorry, I don’t mean just push ins. Basically any kind of movement with a dolly, just limited to a very short distance.
“…you don’t really notice while watching… ”
That sounded strange, of course one notices how great his work ‘looks’, but it does so without distracting.
There are different ways that all do the job but I enjoy Roger’s cinematography the most. It’s like good editing, you don’t really notice while watching – it just draws you in completely and irresistibly.
Quite often I tried to analyze how he shot particular scenes or sequences and then forgot what I came to do after watching a few minutes. He would probably blame the ‘good story’ or ‘great acting’ for it but we all know that’s not the whole truth! 🙂
“Bardo” (DP Darius Khondji) has just been nominated for Best Cinematography at the Oscars, and it’s quite the opposite approach – the steadicam/gimbal, super wide angle lens style is extremely pushy. But I’d argue that it works well for that particular, surreal story and probably helped to draw attention to the movie.
I suspect the ‘detail’ settings to try to mimic micro contrast but that’s just my guess using it in Davinci Resolve. It can introduce a halo effect quickly if overdone.
Could that ‘filmic sharpness’ actually be micro contrast, or a mix of micro contrast and grain? There is a debate whether “micro contrast” is even a thing or just a myth.
I have a Sigma DP Merrill photo camera that uses a Foveon sensor, which in my opinion produces analog-like images like no other digital camera (needs light though). It’s said to have exceptional micro-contrast and color, which cause these analog-like results. I don’t know if it’s true but I recognize that same “filmic sharpness” that you talk about there too.
Outside of Arri I agree that in-camera sharpening can be very problematic if taken too far.
Arriraw is uncompressed, Sony only has it in their high end camera, maybe they pay fees to RED. RED sued Sony for patent infringement in 2013 when they tried to implement in camera, compressed raw.
Don’t assume that the patent will just run out. RED has already taken steps.
The patent should never have been given.
RED took the open source Jpeg2000 compression and changed the header, so that only their own software could open this version of Jpeg2000 – REDRAW was born.
This video explains it in detail and also shows the way the RED company operates:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ_uo-x7Dc0
David, your question is so valid.
All that RED had patented was already up and working in the SI-2K. I believe what RED added in the patent was “above 2k resolutions”, which in itself isn’t any invention and could have been done by Cineform too.
RED has recently been granted a new patent in an attempt to prolong the current one beyond 2028.
The US Patent Office is structurally and operationally flawed and it’s well known worldwide. Too many unjustified patents.
If Nikon in their upcoming lawsuit against RED presents the evidence in a proper way, RED’s patent should not hold. But, RED somehow pulled their head out of the noose several times before (by settling or preventing a lawsuit going to court in the first place).
Canon seems to have a deal with RED to use Canon Raw inside of their cinema cameras and in return RED gets to use their RF mount. But for smaller manufacturers like Kinefinity (who RED sued for patent infringement) it’s currently impossible to implement internal compressed raw recording. RED have a stranglehold on the industry and are determined to keep it.
Tough to find a movie to study good lighting because if it has good lighting, you won’t even realize it has been lit. Roger is one of the, probably the, best in that regard.
The overuse of film lights is in my opinion the biggest giveaway of unexperienced cinematographers/filmmakers.
“As the saying goes – there is good cinematography and bad cinematography and there is the cinematography that is right for the film.”
Many of my favorite movies of the 80’s have Over The Top (pun intended) lighting but it works in their cases, so there’s that 🙂
If you create your own LUT make sure, like Roger mentioned and David outlined, to test it in a broad variety of situations; night/day, int/ext, slightly over-/underexposed, on saturated colors ect.
Because it has to work in all situations, it won’t be too invasive. People fantasize about getting their hands on Roger’s LUT since years, but I’m sure they’d be very disappointed to find out it doesn’t magically turn their footage into Roger’s 🙂
