Composition [Archive]

Gbabymogul

04-21-2007, 09:49 PM

Since I'm doing a spring cleaning on my computer here, i thought i'd show some examples of composition. Just a few ones i'm filing, just for fun. The more extensive file is on my other comp ;)

Antonioni's "L'Eclisse"

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177212720.jpg
so many artistic principals at work here, especially the use of perspective and gradations to focus the audiences attention.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177212765.jpg
love how he framed this one, and used the dynamism of the frame with Monica, and water mist creating another layer - it also fits the story amazingly well (thematically)
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177212790.jpg
notice the blond hair dark dress, brown hair white shirt. Use of contrast, and also Antonioni was a fan of texture (tree, ex.), i think ;) I haven't seen all his films.

Henri-Georges Clouzot's "Quai Des Ofevres"
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177212818.jpg
This film was a wonderful surprise, and this is a still of a particularly good reason -> not only does he use all the tools of a director but there's multiple themes and story playing out gracefully.

:beer:

Gbabymogul

04-21-2007, 09:55 PM

A few more

Stanley's
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177212886.jpg
I dig this film more for his consumate directors touch than the material itself, but this scene stood out to me as pretty fine - i read how Stanley had them do this one a lot and had them physically change positions until he got their body positions perfectly right, almost like telling the story, even without dialogue. He was also very specific with the paintings in the film. Wonderful art direction.

And one that i want to try and emulate in an upcoming short film set in Tokugawa era Japan (yes, ambitious, i know)
"Vidocq"
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177212920.jpg

and from one of my fav painters, F. E. Church Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives 1870
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177213021.jpg

That's one of the things i'm looking forward to with RED; digital painting possibilities. Any pro colorists/fxperts want to volunteer ?haha ;p

:beer:

Tom

04-21-2007, 10:51 PM

Gbabymogul

04-21-2007, 11:07 PM

When it comes to composition, Wong Kar Wai is the current master, IMO. In the Mood for Love and 2046 are unmitigated masterpieces. It will be interesting to see Wong's first picture shot in America, My Blueberry Nights, which will be in competition at Cannes.

http://img329.imageshack.us/img329/7439/2046xv9.th.jpg (http://img329.imageshack.us/my.php?image=2046xv9.jpg)
Very funny coincidink. WKW is my favorite director, so I thought i'd show something else for a change :)
Undoubtedly, he is a master - you could frame stills from his movie so easily. I'm still hoping he gets around to The Lady From Shanghai (with either Rachel Weisz, or less likely Nicole or Naomi). I can't wait to see his first full American feature.
:beer:

Tom

04-21-2007, 11:10 PM

I think he has a busy schedule over the next couple of years. Instead of Shanghai, I heard he will be shooting a "lesbian romance story set in high school" in Taiwan... :w00t: Count me in!

David Mullen ASC

04-22-2007, 12:01 AM

I'm a big fan of Kurosawa's widescreen deep-focus compositions using long lenses:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/redbeard1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/redbeard2.jpg

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 12:26 AM

Love Kurosawa.

I remember I introduced my Dad to foreign films with "Ran", which he loved. Some of my fondest memories are the delight at us catching a new (for us) Kurosawa flick. I only wished I could have shared with him some of my favorite Kurosawa films (that have come out on DVD) before he passed away.

Btw, Norfolk is another fav for compositions of mine. Not to be a kiss ass, but a lot of it shares the same sense of...grace?...I don't know the proper term.

My favorite compositions are ones that are both evocative, but leave some room for contemplation. IMO, it's one of the hardest things to accomplish with subtlety.

I don't know how Kurosawa accomplished it so consistently. I would still like to get "Drunken Angel" out in a Criterion DVD

:beer:

Poi Boy

04-22-2007, 12:27 AM

deep focus, how videoish ! lol
-A

David Mullen ASC

04-22-2007, 12:36 AM

Love Kurosawa.
Btw, Norfolk is another fav for compositions of mine.

Thanks -- here are some random frame grabs from the DVD... I was sort of inspired by John Ford movies and Andrew Wyeth landscape paintings.

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork6.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork10.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork11.jpg

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 12:56 AM

Lovely.

I can see the Ford inspiration. None of the frame is wasted. I was watching the Searchers the other day, and every time I see that porch shot at the beginning and the end of the movie, it reminds of the end to a great score of music - all the elements amplified to create resonance.

I wish more directors would push the envelope compositionally, but I suppose there are market conditions to think of. Maybe the skill set for deep focus composition/traditional art/production design/sets has been replaced by more exigent concerns? like attention deficit disorder audiences (kidding ;))
Whatever the reason, when I see great composition that fits thematically and aesthetically with the greater pic; it's refreshing.

:beer:

Sam Druckerman

04-22-2007, 12:57 AM

Oh, I like this thread.

Thanks guys....

Please keep them coming.

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 01:41 AM

Thanks, i have a few from this comp. :

Jim Sheridan's "In America"
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177226285.jpg
A movie that deserves more recognition, IMO. What's great about it composition-wise is that Jim really adapted his choices to fit the script, but took innovative approaches to doing it (all subjective, of course). What impressed me is he managed to keep a naturalism to his choices, while keeping them composed. Very balletic...the above shot isn't in the correct aspect ratio. Tell me you couldn't write a short story off of that one still frame. ;)

Jean-Pierre Jeunet's "A Very Long Engagement"
Sort of formalist compositions dripping in romantic honey.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177226588.png

Notice during this scene (composited) even the composited element leads you to reinforce the main actress. I noticed how the movement in it leads you back to her gorgeous eyes, and the direction of her gaze reinforces the element. It's one of the few recent films where I felt they used compositions from both areas to make a greater scene (instead of just relaying exposition) - IMO -

These shots speak for themselves. location, art direction, frame, composition, lighting.
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177226634.jpg

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177226657.jpg

Sorry if my commentary is a little arty-fruity, but the closer RED gets to shipping the more excited i am to try and learn the melodies of directing - IMO we're always learning. Also to aim for the evocative images previously posted... now, i just have to write something i'm happy with.

martinnoweck

04-22-2007, 01:53 AM

Nice thread, please keep posting!

Martin

Sam Druckerman

04-22-2007, 02:09 AM

David Mullen ASC

04-22-2007, 02:14 AM

By the way, I was nominated for the Independent Spirit Award for my work in "Northfork" but lost to "In America"...

Speaking of John Ford:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/howgreen3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/howgreen4.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/howgreen5.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/howgreen7.jpg

David Mullen ASC

04-22-2007, 02:15 AM

Here are some of my other favorite images in films:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/GREAT1.JPG

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/GREAT2.JPG

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/GREAT4.JPG

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/GREAT9.JPG

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 02:54 AM

By the way, I was nominated for the Independent Spirit Award for my work in "Northfork" but lost to "In America"...
Haha, i finally get to use this smilie :poster_oops: if it's any consolation, I think that the award would have been well deserved either way. At least they got the nominations right, for that one ;)

Ford is great. I've always wondered how much of that pics location was built and how much was pre-existing that they adapted for the film ?

And speaking of Jean-Pierre Jeunet, what did you think of Amelie? Which is another favorite..... the look of Amelie just blows me away. I love the way the camera moves as well... it helps tell the story with out calling attention to it self, very difficult to accomplish.Amelie was a breath of fresh air (although some French had a problem with the idealization of the culture, but it suited the story). Jeunet used a lot of color cues for the film - sometimes I think he may have been a wee bit enamoured of the process. But, certainly, his choices for camera movement with composition were pure talent. Having us fall in love with Audrey Tatou for the first time doesn't hurt either. What's great about Jeunet is his ability to mix pov's - from voyeuristic to spectator to participant - suiting the story every step of the way.

Anyway, i'll try and dig up some more pics tommorow. ;)

David's covered some classic examples of what we all strive to achieve.

:beer:

Sam Druckerman

04-22-2007, 02:59 AM

By the way, I was nominated for the Independent Spirit Award for my work in "Northfork" but lost to "In America"...

Hi David, sorry to say I missed Northfork, I'm going try to rent it this week.

Perhaps you could comment on the grabs, or say where there from. I have to confess that I don't recognize the Ford clips, But I do think there gorgeous.

Here are some of my other favorite images in films:

I do recognize 2 of these... on the bottom, Close Encounters & Lawrence of A.

I think the top one might be from the Godfather series?

The second to the top...... wild guess here, Blade Runner?

David Mullen ASC

04-22-2007, 03:20 AM

The Ford movie is "How Green Was My Valley".

The first is from "The Godfather: Part II".

The second frame is from "2001: A Space Odyssey".

Another influence for me in my widescreen framing in "Northfork" was "Superman":

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/superman24.jpg

Stephen Webb

04-22-2007, 03:34 AM

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/GREAT4.JPG

I still can't get over how amazing this film looks. I'd love to see a 70mm print of it someday, but even on a TV it takes my breath away - ever since I saw it Freddie Young has been no.1 as far as I'm concerned.

Bought his autobiography a few years back - great read, he really seemed to enjoy his work and knew not to take things too seriously (which if you happened to be working with David Lean was a good thing!)

Daniel Reichenbach

04-22-2007, 04:40 AM

Love this thread, Off Topic start to be more interesting than to read about the question, if RED would be good for a wedding or not. RED will be a powerfull and perfect tool, but behind all that, there is a story, light and the way to interpret and cut out a piece of reality. One of my favorite cameraman is the french Henri Alekan (The beauty and the beast - Jean Cocteau, Wings of Desire - Wim Wenders) Writing with light was his passion, he new exactly how to deal with shadows and light. Hi David, love your picts from Northfork. It is exactly that: Film is a 2Dmedium, which have do deal with the question, how can I trick out the audience to see a 3D-Image. You deal with debt of field (thats why 35mm an RED are cooler than 16mm ore HD), and, sometimes even more important: you deal with shadows and light which gives deepness and guides the eye the place, where the director and DoP want to have the audience. The 12 Min Jackson film shot with RED, that's my opinion, was not made, to demonstrate the talent of DoP and director, to deal with shadows and light, but to show, that RED has the deepness, sharpness and latitude of 35mm - ok, latitude nearly. From now on I can deal with shadwos and light, go deeper inside the art of cinema, because RED is able to give me this tools for a price I can handle with, that MUST BE SAID: Switzerland, thats bank and money, ok, true, but not in the film business. Our film business is one of the smallest, there is just few money, we have to deal with small budgets, really small budgets - for that reason, RED is a real gift.

Josch

04-22-2007, 04:47 AM

Here are some of my other favorite images in films:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/GREAT1.JPG

Today, what would you say to a director saying he´ll compose the reflection in in post?

What a great thread!
If you guys post your own work, please give a little info. (lense, f, light, film stock, etc..)

Jochen

Mike the beginner

04-22-2007, 06:25 AM

This is great work guys please give us more details and a little insight into your own thoughts. What did you yourself create as an image through the inspiration of others.

Mike the beginner

Floris Liesker

04-22-2007, 06:45 AM

How about this comp?
http://www.misluktefoto.nl/uploaded_files/2007_anne_tom%20240.jpg

Petr Dvorak

04-22-2007, 07:53 AM

Yep Floris, only torso of main subject is left :D
What about some grading? ;)

david farland

04-22-2007, 08:05 AM

Hi David,
Thanks for being here!
I loved reading about David Lean and all his epic film making... pity the auto of Freddie Young was so short.
Thought I throw up a sequence of Cuban / French colonialism shots I'm enjoying it at the moment. Classic stuff I guess...

Cheers,

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/48_1177250364.jpg
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/48_1177250427.jpg
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/48_1177250500.jpg

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 12:54 PM

Floris, I like it. Some nice story elements in the pic.

David, nice. I have a few Cuba pics (from classic photogs) but they're a little saucy for here. ;)

Mike, Josch, hopefully when I start shooting with RED, i'll have something ok to show. I'm sure we'll share our inspirations, ideas and dreams. At least that's what art is about, IMO - and this community

artbeatsart, Ditto. RED will (hopefully) free small bizness to achieve what is a closer approximation to the 'intent' of the filmmaker , all else being equal. I don't know if Jim knows how long some bizness' have been waiting to realize a step closer to that aesthetic expression. Now it's up to us. That's pretty a bonny deal

Hsiao-hsien Hou's "Three Times"

What I noticed was how although he balanced the frame with his characters- instead of the scene lacking dynamic interplay (which sometimes hapens with that kind of framing) he used light/color/mood and most importantly performances to be a counterpoint/balance and give it movement (even in the quiet scenes).
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177267142.jpg

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177267239.jpg

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177267189.jpg

And a clasic example if you are a fan of low key lighting, plus using composition to tell a story.

Edward Hoppers "New York Movie"

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177267535.jpg

WKW uses this peaking around corners style composition a lot. I think it can be really powerful, just as when the painters of yesteryear used repoussir (like Rembrandt for ex.).

Edward H. has another painting, but i thought Haakon would put a RED logo on the woman's nipple again, so i'll save it. :p

:beer:

Tom

04-22-2007, 01:30 PM

I'm going to have to agree that some of those early "Kansas" shots in Superman were just wonderful.

Three Times looks great. I think it's in my netflix queue already.

You know, in watching 2046 and In the Mood, I sometimes wonder how much of the composition and framing is Wong, and how much is Doyle. I realize some other DPs worked on those pictures, but you can feel Doyle's hand in those movies. I guess with My Blueberry Nights we will find out. Wong made an interesting choice to hire Darius Khondji (Stealing Beauty) as his DP. My guess is that WKW could have had his pick of any of the world's best DPs for this project.

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 01:45 PM

You know, in watching 2046 and In the Mood, I sometimes wonder how much of the composition and framing is Wong, and how much is Doyle. I think it's just a case of them having similar sensibilities, and/or having worked together so long Doyle knows what WKW's choices would be. Since Doyle op's most of the time, it's got to be one or the other.

If you've seen the pics where Doyle wasn't the DP or Op, including 2046 where he didn't do the whole pic, i think it's reasonable to conclude the WKW is guiding the framing, for the most part.
Even in "The Follow" you can see WKW's framing and composition choices are similar to past efforts. When i watch Doyle's "The White Countess", and his Taiwanese films (both of which he op'ed in) , i don't see as much as the same choices.

I really want to see them work together again , but I'm as excited to see a collaboration with other DP's, actors, languages, and how he handles a set shooting schedule, haha...

Tom

04-22-2007, 01:49 PM

haha, yeah. I agree with you that most of the framing and composition choices are probably inspired by WKW, because on Doyle's other work, you don't really see it. I also love to see how those unique framing choices you see in In the Mood are really taken to their artistic extreme in 2046. You can see the evolution of WKW's ideas about composition and framing evolving before your eyes. Really amazing.

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 02:04 PM

You can see the evolution of WKW's ideas about composition and framing evolving before your eyes. Really amazing. I agree 100%. 2046 was the culmination of so many elements that he mastered over the years with various other films. As a fan, what's satisfying is to see it come to fruition along with a kick ass story. I hope he brings Blueberry Nights to Toronto for Tiff. It should be a fun movie (more like Chungking Express)

:beer:

Tom

04-22-2007, 03:09 PM

I hope the movie is great and he wins at Cannes. I understand he will be up against some great films, though.

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 03:55 PM

I hope the movie is great and he wins at Cannes. I understand he will be up against some great films, though.Yup. Looks like Cannes will be a good one, this year.

Here's a few fun sexy ones

Mathew Vaughn's "Layer Cake"

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177278192.jpg

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177278098.png

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177278134.jpg
The film was hit and miss, but I think Vaughn has a good future. He had some nice compositions (wink wink).

Obviously there are tons more (and better examples, Welles, Visconti, Tarkovsky, Spielberg, Depalma, Hitchcock, Lean) but they're on my other computer. Maybe when RED comes out I can reload them and start comparing how people are using the camera compared to classical and modern ideas about framing, composition, and other aspects. Like Jim mentioned, don't blame the camera, hehe...

btw, thanks Jarred for this amazing pic manager. Your generosity is really appreciated. :-)

Hopefully, we can get more people posting their compositions, so we can learn/improve together.
(i gotta get my stuff on jpegs)

:beer:

Elcurado

04-22-2007, 04:45 PM

1599...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/83_1177281725.jpg

Caravaggio - Vocazione di S. Matteo

Tom

04-22-2007, 05:45 PM

Well no one can argue with Sienna Miller's "composition." :w00t:

Gbabymogul

04-22-2007, 06:57 PM

Well no one can argue with Sienna Miller's "composition." :w00t:Haha. You could but you'd be wrong ;)

Nice Elcurado. I'd figure you'd be use to painting examples.

Pitof's "Vidocq"
And a great movie composition-wise at least (shot on a digital cam)
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177289227.jpg
The curve of the window and the curve of her bare shoulder. I want to hire the colorist for this film but I know he's too expensive ;)

Anyway, I'm always trying to understand why a composition is evocative or suits the story and why another doesn't.

I guess we'll see more of peoples personal work when RED starts shipping. I think we can all learn from each other -> from beginner to seasoned pro.
I'll stop posting frames now so Jarred doesn't ban me, hehe.

ps- Pj's short would look good inthis thread , hint hint, sorry coulddn't resist

Andrew

04-22-2007, 07:12 PM

Gentlemen! This thread is incredible art of cinematography learning experience.
I was trying to contribute here a bit of technological knowledge for cinematographers a like and I found cinematographers injecting the art of the trade in techi guys.

I hope that this thread will develop in to the permanent discussion.
The other thread I see developing is the techniques and art in post but it is fragmented in two or three different places.

David Mullen ASC

04-22-2007, 07:25 PM

I've got so many frame grabs collected over the years...

Here's some more deep-focus b&w CinemaScope compositions, from "The Innocents" (a ghost story shot by Freddie Francis):

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/innocents1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/innocents2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/innocents4.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/innocents5.jpg

Jay A. Kelley

04-22-2007, 07:27 PM

Hey I love this thread.. Had to say it too.. Thank guys! Thanks David.. I you all keep posting I'll keep reading

Jay

David Mullen ASC

04-22-2007, 07:31 PM

As you can see, I'm somewhat obsessed with widescreen movies. I even drove out to Dayton, OH once to see the 3-projector Cinerama system resurrected at the New Neon Cinema for awhile. Later I saw a new print of "How The West Was Won" at the Cinerama Dome, projected with three projectors for a 2.66 : 1 image.

Here are some frames from the DVD (an old unrestored copy of the movie) which I distorted to give a sense of curved screen Cinerama projection -- you have to imagine these images being on a HUGE screen. Cinerama was like the IMAX of its day -- three 6-perf 35mm frames shot and projected side-by-side; the total negative area was somewhere between 5-perf 70mm and 15-perf 70mm IMAX.

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/htwww1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/htwww3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/htwww4.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/htwww9.jpg

Jay A. Kelley

04-22-2007, 07:38 PM

Remember the shot in Superman where Johnathon Kent falls due to his heart attack.. The camera is was back, giving the viewer a feeling of separation.. You wanted to BE THERE.. You wanted things to change, and yet life, or in this case, death, would play out as it was meant too. A lesson both the viewer and Clark would learn

Jay

Daniel Reichenbach

04-22-2007, 07:46 PM

I've got so many frame grabs collected over the years...

Here's some more deep-focus b&w CinemaScope compositions, from "The Innocents" (a ghost story shot by Freddie Francis):

This picts are a great example how to play with the whole dynamic range, B&W is perfect to understand this process and how to deal with it. It was Ansel Adams, one of the big American Photographer, who invented the Zone system. It gives a very good understanding if you have to deside, where you want tho have your blacks and your whites in the dynamic range.

Tom

04-22-2007, 09:17 PM

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/htwww9.jpg

That's Lone Pine if I've ever seen it!

This technology kind of reminds me of that attraction at Disneyland many, many years ago, where they projected 360 degrees. It would make you seasick during the Grand Canyon part in the whitewater raft... heh.

David Mullen ASC

04-22-2007, 10:02 PM

Another interest of mine are movies that mimic other art forms, especially paintings. Director Michael Polish (Northfork, Jackpot, Twin Falls Idaho) and I both went to CalArts and we often discuss paintings as references for the movies we do.

Here are frames from Henry V, Moulin Rouge (1952 version), Taming of the Shrew, Jesus of Nazareth (TV mini-series) that resemble paintings:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/paintinglike1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/paintinglike2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/paintinglike3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/paintinglike4.jpg

Victor

04-22-2007, 11:25 PM

David:
Hello. Those are great screen grabs. Thanks for sharing them. I'm hoping you can respond to a question: how have advances in digital cameras and post production tools (i.e., color correction software, Digital Intermediate, HD, RED, etc.) changed or influenced the work of cinematographers like yourself? With color correction software and digital cameras, one can pretty much get away with shooting in any existing light, make adjustment in post, and acheive any desired look digitally. I've shot some great images using practicals or very minimal light with my DVX 100A, and this is an SD camera! Has this technology diminished the importance of on-the-set lighting?
Best,
Victor

David Mullen ASC

04-23-2007, 12:49 AM

With color correction software and digital cameras, one can pretty much get away with shooting in any existing light, make adjustment in post, and acheive any desired look digitally.

No, I don't really believe that. Shooting in existing light is great... if the existing light looks great -- and is appropriate for the story, but most DP's have to learn to simulate existing light so that it stays consistent throughout all the coverage of a scene. It's not unusual to start a day interior scene in the daytime but finish shooting it at night, so relying on available light can be a disaster unless you think things out carefully.

Just because there is enough light to shoot doesn't mean that light is the correct one to tell the story, show the actors in the way needed, or create the proper mood and atmosphere. I mean, what if the script said that this interior scene takes place as the sun is setting, but it will take about five hours to shoot it. Obviously you're going to have to figure out a way of faking that brief window of natural sunset light for much of the coverage. And what if your lead actress is middle-aged and many types of natural light look unflattering for her -- you're going to have to know how to modify it to suit her face. What if your actor is a minor and can't work past 10PM but the whole movie takes place at night? What if story-wise, the scene has to be daytime but the location will only let you in at midnight?

And what if you're shooting day interiors on sets where there is no such thing as available daylight?

Look at this dusk interior scene from "Northfork":

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/northfork23.jpg

It was shot in midday and the view out the window had a modern city. I had to hide the view with some big white Griflon frames but not light the white so that it looked shaded, then add overhead daylight Kinos to softly backlight the bed for dusk, then augment the light from the warm practical with a tungsten Kino off camera-right. So even though this was shot on location, it's almost entirely artificially-lit. And this was just one of a dozen scenes in that room lit for different times of day, all on the same shooting day -- I had to jump from a sunny look, an overcast look, a dusk look, and a night look regardless of what really was happening out those windows.

As I've done more digital intermediates, it's been more clear than ever that the old rule of "garbage in / garbage out" is more true than ever. The best-looking and most artifact-free shots are the ones that were shot properly to begin with, and the more mediocre shots were mediocre to begin with.

I used to think "oh boy, with these digital color-correcting tools, now I can do for theatrical features what I did for projects that went to home video" -- but I discovered that this wasn't completely true. Broadcast TV, particularly NTSC, hides a multitude of sins. Crushing blacks, cranking brightness, pushing colors, etc. -- common video color-correction tricks -- tend to create artifacts (like noise) that show up on a 50' movie theater screen, so you have to be more careful about using them, whereas you couldn't see half those problems in standard def video resolution.

Yes, certain things are so much easier to do with digital intermediate color-correction tools. Adjusting overall saturation, especially if you want to lower it (boosting it is harder to get away with). Matching shots is easier than ever. Cleaning up dirt, dust, and scratches is possible. "Power windows" are great, being able to adjust one part of the frame, like brighten someone's eyeballs that were too shaded by a top light. Tweaking soft shots to look sharper, or softening shots that were unflatteringly sharp for the actress.

Certainly one has more flexibility to stylize the image now, but the truth is that the majority of movies made today tend to have a natural look -- they don't go too far off the deep end. If you're doing a D.I. for a realistic drama or romantic comedy, you aren't going to push the image around too much, you're going to try and be a lot more subtle.

The best-looking movies in theaters still tend to be the ones that were lit and composed well to begin with, whether or not they went through a D.I.

Any cinematographer working today has to master the art of lighting. Now that may include mastering the art of shooting in available light as well, or incorporating it with artificial light, but it's all part of a larger set of skills in lighting.

Alexander Nikishin

04-23-2007, 01:18 AM

David, did you get the chance to see the new Rosco Litepads at NAB? They're light enough to tape up anywhere, produce a softer light that a lite panel, and run off of various 12v battery sources. They also come in a ton of different sizes and the best part, the 1'x1' runs for only $500.

The bad, 7000k rated.

http://www.rosco.com/us/video/litepad.asp

David Mullen ASC

04-23-2007, 01:21 AM

Yes, I thought about buying one, breaking my habit of not owning any equipment... they were so cheap, like $100 for the small panel. Good for night car scenes and computer monitors. Not bright enough for much else though, but they would be so easy to tape to things.

Turnover

04-23-2007, 02:43 AM

A great thread guys..by the way any woman on Reduser ?

I was reminded when I saw David Leans name. I met him at the Govt Film Studios in NZ around 1979 I think. As he was shown into the camera store and I told him I was new he said; " Well in 6 months you may think you know all there is about Cinematography. Rest assured you won't and you never will !"

Dang ain't that the truth but no complaints.

Victor

04-23-2007, 10:53 AM

David:
I see what you mean, athough I think lighting is less of a concern (or more of a luxury) for guerrilla filmmakers who don't have the time or money to really make lighting part of the narrative. I know I struggled with this when I shot my 50 minute short, which was extremely guerrilla. I couldn't spend hours lighting scenes and keep my non-paid actors waiting. I had to simply get the shot. This usually meant using whatever existing light was at hand. Having a camera like the dvx was a tremendous boon in this regard. Thanks for your comments.
Victor

David Mullen ASC

04-23-2007, 12:03 PM

I've never been allowed "hours to light a scene" either. I've done plenty of 18-day features. "Twin Falls Idaho" was shot in 17-days and had plenty of lit interior scenes:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/tfi1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/tfi2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/tfi3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/tfi4.jpg

And doing the spelling bee scenes in "Akeelah and the Bee", I did 75 set-ups in one 12-hour days for an interior scene with 2000 extras in the audience and 200 kids on stage. Of course, I designed an efficient lighting plan to get through all of that.

Obviously I realize that some movies are shot in mostly available light, but that was possible in film just as much in video -- base sensitivities are about the same plus film has a wider exposure range that it can capture (look at Terrence Malick's movies, shot on film in mostly available light. Or look at earlier Wong Kar Wei movies like "Fallen Angels", shot on film in Hong Kong at night with a TINY lighting package, if at all.)

And I've done my share of minimal-to-no lighting movies for practical and aesthetic reasons, but honestly, the decision on how to use light should be mainly an artistic one, even on a small budget. If I shoot a movie, I don't want to have to make too many excuses for how it looks. I think it's a big mistake when no-budget indie filmmakers think that a visual design is somehow unaffordable.

Lighting a scene doesn't necessarily mean using a lot of big lights either -- those frames from "Twin Falls Idaho" were mostly lit with one 4' 4-bank Kinoflo for the key light.

Victor

04-23-2007, 12:11 PM

David,
Good points. Very illuminating--no pun intended.
Victor

Gbabymogul

04-23-2007, 01:47 PM

Wonderful stuff. David, I like how much you can accomplish with a kino, a few practicals and a lot of talent. For interiors with soft light, those grabs hold a lot of detail. Did you follow your 1/2 gel on set, 1/2 color grade in post for those ?

Regarding your cal arts background, I don't have the same formal training (painting etc...) but as a painter, i try and generally convey an aesthetic to my DP's as best as I can. The only question that comes up is, i don't know how to specifically translate the general mood/style/aesthetic composition (not specificity) of the painting to the gear at hand. When I put on my producers cap it gets even more of a sticky wicket... I guess as I try lighting more on my own, i'll get to know the gear and it's relation to shaping light much better. Long story short, I like your use of paintings to communicate with the director. I also like to use music with my DP and even some abstract art (to get some camera motion ideas - Schnabel's stuff is cool).

The other aspect I always question is the balance between technical/compositional awarenesss (perfectionism really) and really going instinctually. When you are framing or composing a shot (when applicable) how much of it is the mathematics and compositional paradigms and how much of it is instinct ? I know each DP is different - for instance Chris Doyle never thinks of z axis etc... while some DP's are analyzing the frame as a proscenium. And even get into the mathematics, as it were, of the location.

Do you think we'll need A lot of lights (like in the golden age of Holywood) for those deep focus movies (using RED)? I'd love to try and accomplish some of the inspired compositions using the traditional masters techniques with the digital medium. I know a lot of it is art direction, production design, location, and talented crew. I'd also like to get new that Gordon Willis look, with low key lighting. His work in "Presumed Innocent" is one of my favorites because he captured not only the story and environment of the script, but also caught the vibe and pace of the city, with lights.

Thanks for the insights into your films.

Here's a painting that I've seen referenced in many epic movies (or similar compositions).

Jacques-Louis David "The Consecration of Emperor Napoleon and the Consecration of his Empress Josephine"
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177356650.jpg

And here's a film that was ahead of it's time, daring in it's use of color, and some geat compositions. We need more films that aren't watered down, specifically when the story can benefit.

Seijun Suzuki's "Tokyo Drifter"...

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177356831.jpg

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177357000.jpg
inspired the pop art of the time or inspired by? probably both :-)

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177356884.jpg

As i wait to get more hands on with RED etc... technique vs.instinct is something i've been thinking about a lot.

:beer:

Phil Becque

04-23-2007, 02:13 PM

This message board just gets better and better !! Absolutely riveting !

opcode

04-23-2007, 03:20 PM

David,

I like the coloring in those shots alot. Were they done using gels or timed in post?

David Mullen ASC

04-23-2007, 05:38 PM

I mostly did that with gels, or in the case of the blue twilight scene, tungsten balanced stock and daylight Kinos (equivalent of Full Blue gel.)

That movie was posted traditionally, photochemically, and I tried to get more of the look in-camera. The only twist was that I slightly flashed the Fuji negative (mostly 250 ASA stock) and then used a mild silver printing process on the prints (Deluxe Lab's ACE process, the same as Technicolor's ENR process.) This softened the color saturation and made the blacks more dramatic in the prints. It's not really a texture you get from the home video transfers, which were transferred from a normal IP to tape.

I was borrowing (stealing) heavily from Vittorio Storaro, who back in the 1980's, often used heavier colored gels but then softened the color with the ENR silver-retention print process, to create more a painterly patina with a color wash.

Nowadays, I'm more likely to use half-blue for moonlight, although occasionally for a twilight scene I still prefer a deep blue look. However, when I'm shooting in HD, I've learned the hard way not to use too much blue because the lack of info in the other color channels makes it hard to color-correct in post. With color negative, you still seem to have "buried" color information in the other layers even when you shoot in full blue light.

Tom

04-23-2007, 06:07 PM

David, wasn't Kurosawa-san really big on trying to make his shots like still paintings? I know many scenes in RAN certainly feel like paintings. I believe he actually might have painted some storyboards in color himself, if I'm not mistaken.

These paintings you guys are posting are amazing. One I have always loved is this Hylas and the Nymphs by Waterhouse (1896).

http://artxchangenetwork.com/gallery%5CW%5CWaterhouse_John_William%5CWaterhouse _John_William_Hylas_And_The_Nymphs.jpg

Imagine trying to recreate that for cinema... good luck!

David Mullen ASC

04-23-2007, 06:23 PM

Kurosawa spent so many years trying to get "Kagemusha" and "Ran" financed that he illustrated the entire scripts as a series of paintings in the meanwhile.

Samples of his paintings here:
http://akirakurosawa.info/kurosawas-paintings/

Tom

04-23-2007, 06:26 PM

http://akirakurosawa.info/images/drawings/50011.jpg

Those are awesome!

The one from DREAMS looks spot on like the film.

Poi Boy

04-23-2007, 06:59 PM

You gotta love Nymphs !
-A

Gbabymogul

04-23-2007, 07:06 PM

Do you think we'll need A lot of lights (like in the golden age of Holywood) for those deep focus movies (using RED)? I'd love to try and accomplish some of the inspired compositions using the traditional masters techniques with the digital medium. I know a lot of it is art direction, production design, location, and talented crew. First time I've quoted myself , hehe, i'm not a 'quote yourself' virgin anymore.

Maybe i'm hijacking my own thread here, or it's a stupid question (quite possible) but if you don't mind, for David Mullen (or anyone familiar with highend digital).

1. Will I need a lot of lights if I want to shoot REDcode RAW 4K deep focus and low key/interiors/night exteriors ? I've read quite a bit about the Miami Vice shoot and it got me wondering. I'd probably just have the 18-50 (2.8) RED zoom and a 85mm (1.6) Elite prime lens.

If that's too general a question, or you'd need to test to know, then any advice on approaching the above would be appreciated.

Obrigado.

btw - have you seen Suzuki's film ? (it's bananas)

:beer:

David Mullen ASC

04-23-2007, 07:47 PM

The RED camera in 4K mode uses the whole 35mm-sized sensor, so you have 35mm-style depth of field characteristics, which is sort of the point... but it does mean using a lot of light to get deep-focus photography, depending partially on what ASA rating you wish to give it and how much noise you're willing to live with (obviously it's easier to stop down the lens if you're working at 1000 ASA, for example, compared to 250 ASA.)

If you're willing to live with more motion blur and smear, you could turn off the shutter and thus gain another stop of exposure.

The other option would be to use the camera in 2K "windowed" mode (don't know the official term) where you are extracting a 2K window from the 4K chip, and thus get the deeper-focus look of Super-16 or 2/3" HD photography.

There are also fake deep-focus effects possible with slant or tilt-focus lenses and split-diopter filters.

We just had this discussion on the CML, but deep-focus for me tends to look better in b&w -- it gets a little ugly in color unless you control your backgrounds more carefully, due to the distractions of colored objects in our tacky modern world. The best-looking deep-focus color movies tend to design the frame for a more monochromatic effect, pushing the image closer to b&w aesthetics.

Probably one of the few modern cinematographers (though retired) who used deep-focus in both his color and b&w work was Douglas Slocombe, who often lit and shot interior scenes in "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and the sequels to deep stops. Even his period work in "Lady Jane" has a fairly deep-focus look using high light levels, rather than the typical low-light work employed in movies that have candlelight scenes. In these frames from "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" you can see the crisp old-fashioned hard-light style necessary for the deep f-stops, though appropriate for a somewhat retro look:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/lastcrusade1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/lastcrusade2.jpg

Tom

04-23-2007, 08:02 PM

It's interesting how much you like deep-focus stuff, David. Are there any shallow DOF compositions you really like? Screencaps?

Obviously Barry Lyndon probably has the most shallow DOF of any modern movie, shot on special (something like) f/.07 lenses.

http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/782/barry1dw2.jpg :w00t:

Gbabymogul

04-23-2007, 08:06 PM

Thanks a lot David. That's exactly the summation I was hoping for.

One of the short films i'm thinking of doing will reference that b&w deep focus, crisp (perfect word to describe it) aesthetic. I guess besides the tips you've given there isn't much way around a good lighting package for the look I want to achieve...

I agree with you about the difference in deep focus in color and b&w. I'm nowhere near as astute as you in cinematography, but when deep focus is used in color, it seems too artificial, or overly dramatic oft times.

Thanks for the tips, mate.

:beer:

david farland

04-23-2007, 08:09 PM

Tom, I'm hoping you mean F / 0.7 :biggrin:

Tom

04-23-2007, 08:25 PM

Lol what are you talking about. I'm smoking weed and editing tonight, so don't mess with me! :)

David Mullen ASC

04-23-2007, 11:01 PM

Trying to pull frames from shallow focus movies, I tend to find they make less interesting still frames. When the focus is shallow, there tends to be more cutting and more movement to capture the action in the scene, which looks great in motion, but hard to extract into stills.

For example, one of my favorite movies of all time for cinematography is "Snow Falling on Cedars", shot by Robert Richardson in a very shallow focus style, with anamorphic lenses shot wide-open. So the camera is constantly roving and floating, with the focus shifting in a dreamlike pattern. So the wide shots, which naturally have more depth of field, are probably the prettiest static images, but most of the movie is shot tight, with the focus drifting in and out. Here are some of those tighter shots:

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/snowfalling1.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/snowfalling2.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/snowfalling3.jpg

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/snowfalling4.jpg

David Mullen ASC

04-23-2007, 11:05 PM

Here's another example of shallow-focus anamorphic photography, from "Apocalypse Now":

http://www.davidmullenasc.com/apocalypse3.jpg

acehole

04-24-2007, 12:14 AM

David, Oh how I miss the deep focus films of the yesteryear. I didnt quite realise it till you posted those stills.

For a few years now I had been noticing that films are getting less and less 'grande' in their backdrop and set design, which would be explainable by preference to shallow DOF shots.. Or maybe Im just seeing things.

Curran Giddens

04-24-2007, 06:02 AM

Pitof's "Vidocq"
And a great movie composition-wise at least (shot on a digital cam)
http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/448_1177289227.jpg
The curve of the window and the curve of her bare shoulder. I want to hire the colorist for this film but I know he's too expensive ;)

I bought this movie on DVD just because Ines Sastre is my favorite supermodel. It turned out to be a really good movie with some of the best color grading I have seen. Thanks for posting this. I'm going to watch it again today.

Dan Blanchett

04-24-2007, 10:23 PM

I used to think "oh boy, with these digital color-correcting tools, now I can do for theatrical features what I did for projects that went to home video" -- but I discovered that this wasn't completely true. Broadcast TV, particularly NTSC, hides a multitude of sins. Crushing blacks, cranking brightness, pushing colors, etc. -- common video color-correction tricks -- tend to create artifacts (like noise) that show up on a 50' movie theater screen, so you have to be more careful about using them, whereas you couldn't see half those problems in standard def video resolution.

This is a very interesting point, and I wonder if it will hold true with RED's higher 4K resolution. Would there be less artifacts when doing a 4K or downsampled 2K color grading online? Does this happen with DIs that originate on film, or only HD? I was considering shooting my upcoming movie with flatter lighting to give me more options for the "look" in post. But now I may have to reconsider.

By the way, this thread has been very informative and enjoyable!

David Mullen ASC

04-24-2007, 11:31 PM

Within limits, it helps to shoot a little flatter (a little more fill) so that you have more information to work with in color-correction, but that's not the same thing as saying that you can light a scene flatly and create the mood in post, unless you want an artificially crushed-looking shot.

It's always better to shoot close to the look you want, but build in some flexibility in tweaking the look to the final degree. But if the basic look in terms of lighting isn't in the footage, it can look artificial to add it in post.

For example, a scene in a dark moonlit basement as someone walks around in the dim light with a flashlight, sending a beam of light sweeping the room. Now you could light this flatly, not underexposed, and not even smoke the room, then darken the footage severely, add a bright flashlight flare in post, add the beam in post -- but it won't look as natural compared to just lighting it for that look. On the other hand, only underexposing it halfway and having some faint low-level fill isn't a bad idea just to make sure you record some detail in the shadows, even if you are going to darken it further in post.

What I was talking about wasn't a film vs. digital origination issue, it is a "color-correcting in RGB 10-bit Log space for a film-out and looking at the correction projected at 2K versus correcting in linear video for TV broadcast and looking at the correction on a CRT screen" issue.

Dan Blanchett

04-25-2007, 06:40 AM

Thanks David, that was the approach I was leaning toward (lighting a little flatter, but not completely flat). When I further darken that moonlit basement, I just don't want artifacts to show up on a 50' screen. I suspect the less you need to manipulate an image in post, then less chance of that happening. With a higher resolution source image, maybe there is more tolerance?

Gbabymogul, good point about producers. That won't be an issue for me, not initially.

Ken Willinger

04-25-2007, 09:26 AM

This is a great thread, after all, cinematography is photography and photography is use of light, shadow and composition. I've always been fascinated with the old masters use of shadow and light and try to emmulate that in my work. One of my favorites is Vermeer. One of the excersises I had in a 16mm film class was to choose a masters painting and try to recreate it on film (35mm still). I chose "the guitar player" by Vermeer. Check out how the light is falling on her from the window (which you can barely see). I found that I could not exactly recreate the light that is falling on the scene because naturally the light would never fall like that to create the highlights and shadows that exist in the painting. As Vermeer painted this, it was over a period of many sittings where the light was constantly changing (as the sun moved). What we see is a composite of all those days, yet to our eyes it looks perfectly natural. I can't tell you how many lights I had going on the scene after about 3 hours (I was only given 3 hours for the assignment). This was a great lighting excersize. David, thanks for all the great screengrabs. I also love some of the film noir period stuff. Check out the lighting in "A Touch of Evil". It's fantastic stuff. Also I highly recommend folks check out the AFI film "Visions of Light". American Cinematographer used to advertise it but I haven't seen it recently so don't know where it can be picked up now. Maybe Ebay. But there are some really great images on there and terrific interviews with top DPs. Definitely worth the price of admission.