From American Cinematographer, Legal Eagle by Eric Rudolph (October 1998)
"I don't like to rim-light. We do it when we need to — for example, if we have [series star] Sam Waterston in a gray suit against a brown wall — but I prefer to separate the actors using the background. I try to light and shadow the background in an interesting way that will contrast with the actors. To me, that approach is more like a feature and less like 80 percent of television, where everyone seems to have a halo."
- Constantine Makris, ASC
I read, discuss, and discover new things about cinematography everyday. Most of it, I consider incredibly interesting. Everyday I will share one of those things, maybe more if I have time.
Showing posts with label background. Show all posts
Showing posts with label background. Show all posts
30.5.09
Vilmos Zsigmond: Classical Painters
From American Cinematographer, A Poignant Pas de Deux by Bob Fisher (December 1998)
"If you are doing a Frankenstein movie or Star Wars, it doesn't have to be realistic-- in fact, it should be more impressionistic or surrealistic. If you are telling a story about real people, the classical painters gave us a good model. They never lit anyone badly, and they never used soft light. They always had nice modeling light on the faces and darker backgrounds so the people would stand out."
- Vilmos Zsigmond, ASC
"If you are doing a Frankenstein movie or Star Wars, it doesn't have to be realistic-- in fact, it should be more impressionistic or surrealistic. If you are telling a story about real people, the classical painters gave us a good model. They never lit anyone badly, and they never used soft light. They always had nice modeling light on the faces and darker backgrounds so the people would stand out."
- Vilmos Zsigmond, ASC
14.5.09
Frederick Elmes: Firelight
From American Cinematographer, A Less-Than Civil War by Douglas Bankston (November 1999)
"Gaffer Jonathan Lumley and I tested some flicker-box systems to create 'fire-light.' In most of the campfire scenes, we would use 2k lamps with some gel on them, sometimes down on the dimmers a little bit to warm them up even more. With diffusion, it would make a source that was four by eight feet. I could put it 15 or 20 feet away, and it would give me the quality of light I wanted. Also, because the source was big, it would give me the flickering I wanted. It was just a matter of moving it around so that it worked on the actors' faces most effectively-- in addition to having some sort of real flames and smoke in the foreground to make it convincing. It also helped to have six other fires going on in the distance; they could be lighting five people in one spot, a tree in another and two tents nearby. That would give me control over the background."
-Frederick Elmes, ASC
"Gaffer Jonathan Lumley and I tested some flicker-box systems to create 'fire-light.' In most of the campfire scenes, we would use 2k lamps with some gel on them, sometimes down on the dimmers a little bit to warm them up even more. With diffusion, it would make a source that was four by eight feet. I could put it 15 or 20 feet away, and it would give me the quality of light I wanted. Also, because the source was big, it would give me the flickering I wanted. It was just a matter of moving it around so that it worked on the actors' faces most effectively-- in addition to having some sort of real flames and smoke in the foreground to make it convincing. It also helped to have six other fires going on in the distance; they could be lighting five people in one spot, a tree in another and two tents nearby. That would give me control over the background."
-Frederick Elmes, ASC
Edward Lachman: Found Light
From American Cinematographer, Mad-Dog Englishman by David E. Williams (November 1999)
"In that scene, there's this particular two-shot in which you can see the entire downtown city scape of Los Angeles lit up in the background. When you work off of whatever light exists-- and we were shooting wide open at T1.4-- you can get an interesting sense of depth, because sources far in the distance aren't being overpowered. If you start shooting at T2.8 or a 4, you lose those backgrounds, so I always tried to light off of what I found on the location, so our perceived set would be much greater than what I could actually light. I know that cameramen like John Seale [ASC, ACS] and Chris Menges [BSC] sometimes do that as well. You can get a very different look when you light that way, and it's not just in terms of depth of field. You pick up ambient light, color temperatures and subtleties in the shadows that you wouldn't get if you tried to light the entire scene yourself."
- Edward Lachman, ASC
"In that scene, there's this particular two-shot in which you can see the entire downtown city scape of Los Angeles lit up in the background. When you work off of whatever light exists-- and we were shooting wide open at T1.4-- you can get an interesting sense of depth, because sources far in the distance aren't being overpowered. If you start shooting at T2.8 or a 4, you lose those backgrounds, so I always tried to light off of what I found on the location, so our perceived set would be much greater than what I could actually light. I know that cameramen like John Seale [ASC, ACS] and Chris Menges [BSC] sometimes do that as well. You can get a very different look when you light that way, and it's not just in terms of depth of field. You pick up ambient light, color temperatures and subtleties in the shadows that you wouldn't get if you tried to light the entire scene yourself."
- Edward Lachman, ASC
13.5.09
Peter Menzies Jr: Night Exteriors Approach
From American Cinematographer, A Few Bad Men by Jay Holben (July 1999)
Due to the film's considerable number of night scenes, a major consideration was how to define the night look. Both Menzies and West chose to forsake "Blue" moonlight for a more practical approach.
"I wanted every scene to have that oppressive feeling of muggy Southern heat and I thought that any cool colored light would kill the feeling. As a result, we worked in warm tones. We chose locations that we would paint in darker colors like reds, ambers and oranges, and we stuck to Peter's main night plan, in which moonlight never came down from above. All of the night sequences were lit as if the illumination being generated purely by practical sources on the ground."
- Simon West
"In keeping with Simon's warm look, I went with a more sodium-vapor approach for all of the night sequences. We colored all of our lights to have that yellowish sodium feel. [Given the widescreen frame] a lot of the lights on the ground were going to end up in the frame. Obviously, they were not real streetlights, but film lights placed off in the distance and simply gelled to look sodium colored. Simon loved that idea, and once we defocused them, they became these wonderful background elements that resembled anything-- other buildings, streetlights. They created fantastic visual expanse without us having to light everything with Condors. Speed was the other added benefit. By keeping everything out of the air, and not minding that lamps were in the shot, we were able to move much more quickly and cover a lot more ground in a short period of time."
- Peter Menzies Jr, ASC
Due to the film's considerable number of night scenes, a major consideration was how to define the night look. Both Menzies and West chose to forsake "Blue" moonlight for a more practical approach.
"I wanted every scene to have that oppressive feeling of muggy Southern heat and I thought that any cool colored light would kill the feeling. As a result, we worked in warm tones. We chose locations that we would paint in darker colors like reds, ambers and oranges, and we stuck to Peter's main night plan, in which moonlight never came down from above. All of the night sequences were lit as if the illumination being generated purely by practical sources on the ground."
- Simon West
"In keeping with Simon's warm look, I went with a more sodium-vapor approach for all of the night sequences. We colored all of our lights to have that yellowish sodium feel. [Given the widescreen frame] a lot of the lights on the ground were going to end up in the frame. Obviously, they were not real streetlights, but film lights placed off in the distance and simply gelled to look sodium colored. Simon loved that idea, and once we defocused them, they became these wonderful background elements that resembled anything-- other buildings, streetlights. They created fantastic visual expanse without us having to light everything with Condors. Speed was the other added benefit. By keeping everything out of the air, and not minding that lamps were in the shot, we were able to move much more quickly and cover a lot more ground in a short period of time."
- Peter Menzies Jr, ASC
12.5.09
Michael Ballhaus: Making 1.85 Feel Larger in Scope
From American Cinematographer, Sci-Fi Cowboys by David E. Williams (July 1999)
"Barry and I discussed the aspect ratio and film format for quite a while. At first, I wanted to shoot in widescreen super 35. After some tests, though, I felt Barry would be more comfortable working in spherical 1.85:1, for two reasons. First, I believe he feels that comedy works better in 1.85, which I think is right. Second, Barry never shot a film himself in 2.35:1. As a cinematographer, he had a very specific and precise style of shooting, and now, as a director, he also has a particular style. For example, his sense of framing is very different from what I would normally do. He likes to have the action or subject in the center most of the time, which doesn't work well in 2.35. In widescreen, you have to fill the whole frame. It doesn't make sense to have a close-up in the center of the frame and have nothing to the right or left.
Also, Barry loves wide-angle lenses, and I had never before used wide lenses to the extent that I did on this picture. Doing a close-up with an 18mm lens was something new for me, but it worked and was more dynamic. I liked that, but it was an adjustment I had to make. That type of style wouldn't be correct for every movie, but it was in this case because it feels different. In a close-up with an 18mm lens, even if the actor moves just a few inches, the effect is very different than if you're using a 50mm lens. There is a magnification to the change.
It's funny, the film is in 1.85:1, but it feels wider than that because of the use of wide lenses. You can see a lot more, and not only in terms of depth. For instance, if you have a close-up, you see a lot more of the background than you usually would. In this film, there are several scenes set in train cars. If we were on a 50mm doing our close-ups, the audience wouldn't see much of the car. With the 18mm, they can, which adds to the apparent scope of the film."
- Michael Ballhaus, ASC
"Barry and I discussed the aspect ratio and film format for quite a while. At first, I wanted to shoot in widescreen super 35. After some tests, though, I felt Barry would be more comfortable working in spherical 1.85:1, for two reasons. First, I believe he feels that comedy works better in 1.85, which I think is right. Second, Barry never shot a film himself in 2.35:1. As a cinematographer, he had a very specific and precise style of shooting, and now, as a director, he also has a particular style. For example, his sense of framing is very different from what I would normally do. He likes to have the action or subject in the center most of the time, which doesn't work well in 2.35. In widescreen, you have to fill the whole frame. It doesn't make sense to have a close-up in the center of the frame and have nothing to the right or left.
Also, Barry loves wide-angle lenses, and I had never before used wide lenses to the extent that I did on this picture. Doing a close-up with an 18mm lens was something new for me, but it worked and was more dynamic. I liked that, but it was an adjustment I had to make. That type of style wouldn't be correct for every movie, but it was in this case because it feels different. In a close-up with an 18mm lens, even if the actor moves just a few inches, the effect is very different than if you're using a 50mm lens. There is a magnification to the change.
It's funny, the film is in 1.85:1, but it feels wider than that because of the use of wide lenses. You can see a lot more, and not only in terms of depth. For instance, if you have a close-up, you see a lot more of the background than you usually would. In this film, there are several scenes set in train cars. If we were on a 50mm doing our close-ups, the audience wouldn't see much of the car. With the 18mm, they can, which adds to the apparent scope of the film."
- Michael Ballhaus, ASC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)