Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Jim Jannard has an interesting post on reduser.net where he explains that it’ll get easier shoot great footage on the Red:

RED… looks great, looks not so great. Why?


Some of you have figured it out. Some have not. Some see RED as an ISO 160 camera, some an ISO 320 camera and some comfortable to shoot ISO 1000. Some see low dynamic range, some high. Some get noise, some do not. Why the difference?

RED needs to be rated and exposed properly. Then it needs to be sent through post properly. With many ways to do each, it can be confusing. Some have gotten it right and some have struggled.

We recognize the need to simplify the process… from exposure through post. And we are working on it. We believe that we will present a new way to look at shooting RED early next year. An exposure methodology that works and a new post workflow (color science) that makes it near impossible to screw up. Easy as 1,2,3.

These are exciting times at RED. We really appreciate our customers and those brave enough to shoot RED. We believe that everything we do (and have done) can be done better. We stay awake at nights working on new solutions to make shooting RED easier and and with better results.

Thanks for your support.

Jim

This is great news, for DPs new to the Red. (I was at a talk at CineAsia in Hong Kong last Thursday where director Mabel Cheung said she had wanted to shoot a feature she just wrote and produced (Echoes of the Rainbow) on Red, but that there didn’t seem to be enough expertise on Red, how to shoot and post-production, and her DP was against it.) So Jim’s promise to make it even easier will just increase the uptake of Red usage.

For those willing to search and research a little, Red (and others) have talked about how to properly shoot with Red, read carefully these two things from Ted Schilowitz, on how to properly expose with Red:

1. I’ve previously posted this 13 April 2009 post by Ted on reduser.net, but it’s worth posting again and aggregating here
I’m explaining to people on a pretty regular basis that the RED is kind of like 2 cameras in one – one camera for low contrast, low DR photography where you can rate from 250 ASA on down as long as you don’t overexpose, and use the Raw View mode in the camera to check the levels, and have really nice imagery – learning to use the histogram on the right side (the right 3rd of the of the histogram scale) for low con imagery can be your best friend…

… and one camera for high contrast, high DR challenging photography where you have a huge range from under to over, and you can expose at 400 ASA or higher, and as long as you don’t clip the highlights, you will be amazed at how much range you have in the mids and shadows to work with… This camera is way more sensitive that people give it credit for under the proper high contrast shooting conditions… Using the histogram from 2/3’s full on down for high DR photography can be your best friend.

The biggest mistake I see people make is letting things blow out because they are worried about the shadows, those shadows can hold clean and gorgeous like crazy – I see it all the time on properly exposed high DR imagery.

If you use REDspace for your overall exposure setting, and use RAW View for checking highlights as you work and check exposures you will have effectively done what MacGregor describes in his Rec709 at 640ASA testing. REDspace for all types of photography can be your best friend, when used in tandem with checking highlight exposure in RAW.

The RED ONE has various “sweet spots” for exposure depending on the various contrast conditions, color temperature of light being used and a number of other creative factors – that’s one of the reasons it’s such a nice tool to work with. The more testing and experimentation a DP has time to do, the more they learn about how far the can push and pull the images to create the look and feel they want – the joy of RAW cinematography.

+ Ted

2. Ted expands and gives more info in Redcentre podcast #43 in an interview with Mike Seymour:
What’s kind of interesting to me, because we sort of live in the trenches, that’s maybe one of the things that’s a little different about Red then other companies is that we really spend a lot of time in the industry trying to figure out how these cameras are being used and maximize their use and then bring a benefit to everybody.

And what I see is that over this past year, year and a half of projects being shot now by the thousands, the really good DPs have really figured out how to use the tool and how to maximize the range. Just like them have with film and anything else. But because you’re shooting these RAW images with the Red, once you really get it and you know the difference between… Well, the example I like to give to DPs when they’re first starting out on the Red is: you really have to think about the Red as two different cameras.

You have to have to think about the Red as a camera for very controlled lighting, low dynamic range type situations. Sort of like this interview. There’s probably some specular highlights and things going around here. But you’ve exposed it for me, for my face. We have a nice big light in here and we’re shooting at just a normal exposure. A good exposure index for this would be (ASA) 250 to (ASA) 320. That’s a comfortable, logical exposure. And that’s a good way to rate the Red overall.

The flip side of that is that there’s a whole different Red that’s out there. Even though it’s the exact same camera. For shooting things with really, really strong amount of dynamic range where you have to hold really deep underneath and protect or work with very strong specular highlights. So you would theoretically have in some cases 15-20 stops of overall range. And the really good DPs have learned where to make those choices. Because the Red can hold so much into the darkness. Especially if you’re using the overall sensor dynamics to their best end. So, because the camera is daylight balanced, you get the maximum amount of dynamic range when you’re working with daylight conditions. And that, in a lot of cases, can–believe it or not–just be street lights. Because streetlights tend to be warmer than tungsten. So, as long as you activate the full range of the colors in the sensor–the blue tends to be the one that weakest mostly because we don’t allow blue light to come in, but when you do, you can shoot with massive amounts of dynamic range. I have a ton of examples of shots that you think simply could not be done on the Red, that look so scary clean, that you’re astounded. You just wouldn’t believe that you could do it.

You know, we’ve done shots with just street lights in downtown L.A. and Santa Monica where we couldn’t even get a reading on a (light) meter. You know, .6 or .7. We shoot it with very fast lenses, wide open and we do these tests. And because the street lights tend to have a full spectrum of light, we’re actually, we can pull these images up in post and see remarkably clean images. I’ve actually shown these things at some of my seminars that I do and people are just jaw dropped. They think you can only use this camera in well-lit, controlled environments. And that’s not the case.

I know you have a couple of feature films  you’ve been talking to guys [about] that are shooting with no light. Or some light. Or very little light. And getting spectacular results. So it’s all about understanding what the camera can do and then driving the success point of the camera that way….

[Discussing Build 20 and the “new color science”]
…The [Red] camera is a daylight-balanced device. So if you want the absolute cleanest possible images, you’ll want to introduce some level of daylight source to your image. It doesn’t mean you have to light your whole set in daylight. A lot of DPs get very, very savvy with it and they want to keep a tungsten look on the set. So they want everything warm. And that’s fine. And what a lot of DPs will do is they’ll drop quarter blue or half blue on a couple sources–you don’t even visually see it with your eyes, they put it on a back light or a side light or something. And now they’ve activated the blue channel in that sensor. And that works wonders.

Peter Jackson, on Red

Jim Jannard on reduser.net gives a heads up on a link to an interview with Peter Jackson where he mentions Red prominently and favorably. Jim’s link refers to a re-posting of the interview. The original interview is on a site called The Auteurs–a cool site where you can watch arthouse movies online for a small fee + lively discussion forums by film buffs (and makers) + “curated rotating online film festivals”.

Here’s the question and answer where Jackson mentions Red:

KYLE ST-AMOUR-BRENNAN asks: What are your thoughts on the current economic climate in relation to film production? Does the continual integration of digital technology in Hollywood (you being a heavy supporter of the RED digital cinema camera), make it actually cheaper to make a film, or has it just allowed more money to be allocated more so on postproduction elements (special effects, etc..) ?

PETER JACKSON: Interesting. The main problem with the current climate is not so much to do with the advent of new technologies as it has to do with the changing face of distribution, and the changing nature of the audience demographics as well. The studios are finding it harder to make sense of the film industry, partly that has to do with the fact that studios are now part of these large corporations for which film is just a part of the conglomerate’s larger business. So there’s this particularly weird way in which Wall St. is controlling the production of movies, leading to quite a depressed time, where there doesn’t seem to be a market for medium or small budget films. Some of it’s the change in distribution, some of it’s a little bit to do with piracy; it’s all more complex than I could ever go into and I’m not an expert.

However, I think it’s a cycle. And eventually I think we’re going to arrive at a place where the internet and that type of technology settles down, and the film industry figures out a way to live with it. I’m looking forward to that particular conflict coming to an end within two or three years.

I don’t think any of it has much to do with digital cameras. I think there’s a whole economic thing going on that’s quite serious.  We’re also talking about the audience, too, the fact that young people today have a multitude of different things to do, ways to occupy themselves during the weekend, and that going to the movies has a lot more to compete with.

But I do feel optimism. And where I do feel optimism, that’s where digital technology comes in. When I think my depressive thoughts of how hard it is to make interesting movies, I remind myself,  “Hang on, there’s a generation of young people with access to movie equipment that’s cheaper and of higher quality than ever before.” Cameras like the RED camera. It makes me feel like saying, “If you’re out there reading this, go and get to making movies!” I really feel like it could lead to as exciting a creative explosion in filmmaking as what happened in the 70s.

The thing that excites me most about the RED, incidentally, is the image quality. I like the fact that is was designed by a camera buff. Jim Jannard’s passion is to create a digital camera available to everybody. Each generation of the RED is just going get better and better.


Epic + “Bomb” EVF in Hong Kong

Had a nice seafood dinner in Lamma and catch up with Ted and Ryan from Red today. Both the Epic and “Bomb” Electronic View Finder look smaller in person, and feel small and good when held in one’s hands. Looking forward to getting my hands on mine! The smallest Epic configuration with a good Canon zoom that does auto-focus is going to be amazing. It was great to see Ted in great shape and hang out. He’s off on travels to a bunch of other stops in Asia, including India and Japan.

In case you haven’t heard or read about all the new details of Scarlet, Epic and Red Ray, etc. (including new details on specs and dates) check out:

Got an email this morning from a student filmmaker in Malaysia with a lot of questions, no doubt shared by other budding filmmakers. Usually I’m just too busy with a million other things to answer well emails like this (because I don’t even have time to answer well emails from friends and family). But this inquisitor caught me on a Sunday morning with my cup of coffee in hand and my (perception that I had) free unaccounted for time : )

So I figured I’d share his good (but non-personal and generic) questions and my answers (his questions in italics, my answers in bold):

Dear Mr. Carew,
I’m a student from [xxx] University in Malaysia. I’m majoring in film for my final project in the next semester and I’m currently doing a research on cinematic techniques used by indie filmmakers. I was hoping if you could give your opinions on the following questions which would be a lot of help for my research.

1) Do I need a good story to make a good film?
Yes. Most certainly. Without a good story you are wasting your time: it’s a lot of effort to create a film, so always start with a good story. Even for the shortest of films (because, no matter how short, they’re always a lot of work; and you want viewers to be on the edge of their seats, not yawning or looking at their watches.)

2) Is there any inexpensive ways to minimize camera shake in a moving shot?
Here’s a few ways:
-Use lenses with optical image stabilization on the new DSLRs that take video (e.g., Panasonic GH1 or Canon 7D).
-Use a Glidecam or similar device.
-Use a Kenyon gyroscope (A bit more expensive).
-Practice a lot shooting handheld. Larger shoulder mounted cameras are actually less shaky than small cameras.

3) What are possible ways for setting up a certain mood of a scene using color?
First, make sure the lighting is good. Then, decorate the set through production design and costume the actors with a color strategy/palette in mind. Then learn and use color correction, e.g., using Apple Color.

4) Is lighting/reflectors necessary for an outdoor scene?
Not necessarily. But it’s very handy to have at least a large white piece of cardboard, to bounce a little light onto your actors faces. And it’s best to shoot at the “magic hours” (sunrise and just after + sunset and just after). Or shoot on an overcast day. In any case, try to avoid shooting in direct sunlight around noon–the light is too harsh.

5) What are some tips that you can give to make digital video look more professional?
-Try to shoot progressive, not interlaced. Ideally at 24 frames per second progressive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24p)
-Don’t have lots of shaky shots. In fact, try to shoot the whole movie locked off on a tripod.
-Try for a shallower depth of field. Which you can get if your camera has a larger sensor (like the GH1 or 7D) or if you use a 35mm adaptor kit (like the ones from RedRock Micro, etc.)
-Try to rent or borrow a Red One or 16mm or 35mm film camera. Red One will be cheaper, because you don’t have to buy and process the film.

6) What is different and imaginative to the viewers now?
Well, films and expectations of filmmakers have evolved over the years. People expect faster pacing and faster editing cuts. People like it (but at the same time are getting used to) when the camera goes to gritty and “exotic” places (e.g., Babel, Constant Gardener, Slumdog Millionaire, etc.) Expectations are higher now in terms of CG, and a lot of CG is used.
In general I would say:
-Find (or write) a good, authentic story.
-Don’t show things you can’t show well (e.g., fight scenes are very hard, etc.)
-Get good actors (not just friends or fellow students). Actually do auditions.
-The world would love to see a fresh human tale about your town/city in Malaysia–which may seem very mundane and pedestrian to you, but which is probably very real and exciting to the other 6 billion people on the planet. I.e., I would say just take your camera outside onto the streets, rooftops, windows, mountains around you. And find a couple good actors. Remember Jean Luc Godard said all you need to make a movie is “a girl and a gun.”

7) What are some tips you that can give for making a travel related short film?
I’m not sure if you mean a documentary or a narrative feature. Not sure that I have any brilliant ideas here, but a few thoughts:
-For documentaries, it’s a common practice to show the traveller boarding his or her train/plane/bus etc., then to show the vehicle driving/flying away, then to cut to the passenger. This, of course, requires you to either have two (matched) cameras. Or to film it twice (“faking” it).
-”Road movies” (e.g., Thelma and Louise, Motorcycle Diaries, Easy Rider) are a whole genre, about escaping one’s mundane existence by traveling (without good plan and/or destination in mind) and the joy and camaraderie of being “on the road”. Study this genre to make one of these movies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_movie
-Spend time to get a lot of “B” camera footage of your vehicle traveling through land/cityscape (both from interior and exterior POV, and with passengers).

nocturne

Canon (and Vincent LaForet) have done it again. LaForet shot another brilliant little short movie at night on Canon’s (unexpectedly) about-to-be-released EOS 1D Mark IV in the worst lighting conditions he could find in LA–using NO lights (other than streetlights) at ASA 6400. The results are amazing. It looks like a Hollywood movie that a crew spent a lot of time lighting. Laforet writes about it in his blog, writing the camera saw things in dark areas which his naked eye could not see, i.e., this camera (set at high ISO) has more dynamic range greater low light sensitivity than the human eye. And noise is low and acceptable. And it shoots real 1920×1080 24p (and 25p). Here are Canon’s specs and info on the EOS 1D Mark IV.

It still does not shoot RAW. But this new camera from Canon sets a high bar for Red’s new cameras (Epic and Scarlet).

Jim Jannard has posted new pics of the upcoming new 5K camera to be released by Red, the Epic-X:

Jim says there’ll be an announcement by the end of October on Epic (presumably on schedule for release and perhaps more details on specs). I’m taking advantage of Red’s generous offer and trading in my Red #1304 for the Epic-X. Main advantages I see in Epic-X for my filmmaking:

  • Bootup time is 2 seconds (instead of 80 seconds). This means much less hassling on location with batteries. Because the 1st AC can shut the camera off between takes. And if he/she sees the DP or director walking over to look through the viewfinder and line up a shot, just hit the “on” button. With the current Red, both cameras on a 2-camera shoot have to be “on”, running on batteries all the time. This eats up a lot of batteries (and necessitates having a generator and UPS on site).
  • Batteries are much smaller and can be carried on planes safely.
  • Overall weight is greatly reduced (smallest rig is roughly half the weight of smallest Red rig).
  • Improved design, ergonomics, everything. The second time you build something or make something (e.g., a house) is always better than the first time.
  • And, of course, better picture. More pixels (at 5K). But more important: better image and more dynamic range (at least one stop more than Red).

With the Red Pro Primes and shooting in 2.35:1 these images will just pop and be beautiful… Can’t wait! My educated guess says that the first Epic-Xs will begin shipping in Jan 2010 or so (going to current Red owners, according to their original serial number) and that I’ll have mine by March/April 2010.

appleremoteScott Kirsner (of CinemaTech blog) has a good article in Variety which gives gives the cold hard facts on a frustrating phenomenon: online distribution of indie films isn’t happening in a meaningful or profitable way yet, for indie filmmakers:

“…while more success stories are starting to be seen, the indie download business is still having problems gaining traction. The power of the Internet was supposed to level the playing field on which independent filmmakers and studios compete for audiences. So what happened?

A decade after the dot-com boom, when the Web promised to make any piece of content globally accessible to any interested viewer, a dominant online destination for indie film has failed to emerge — though many have tried.

Earlier this year, San Francisco-based Caachi quietly shut down, and world cinema purveyor Jaman let go most of its staff. Two of the first sites to try to connect cinephiles with streaming and downloadable indie films, GreenCine and Intertainer, have since exited that business.

And while Hulu.com, a site geared to mainstream TV and movie content, is reaching more than six million unique visitors a month, SnagFilms, a site dedicated to independent documentaries like “The Future of Food,” is barely reaching 100,000, according to the Internet traffic-monitoring service Compete.com.”

A few people wrote in to correct Scott, saying it’s not quite as bleak. But Scott is right on in the main. For the moment, most talk about profitable long-tail distribution of small indie films online is wishful thinking. Prescriptive talk, not descriptive talk. One further piece of bad news which Scott doesn’t even mention is: iTunes, Hulu and Netflix are not available in most of the world outside of the U.S. anyway. So, for example, a whole generation in Asia, with zero opportunity to pay for online content (either indie or Hollywood blockbuster) is turning to Bit Torrent, and being conditioned to think illegal downloads are “OK”.

The sweet spot is this: the ability to sit in your living room, after 3 glasses of wine over dinner, and use your remote to buy for US$3 and download (on an AppleTV like device) a movie which has gotten good reviews (a la eMusic)  and ratings by both professional reviews or bloggers and “wisdom of crowd” raters in a Ning-like community site (like Amazon.com reviews, where in addition to the 1-5 star rating, readers of the rating/review answer “Was this review helpful to you?”)

Somebody needs to do this. It’s coming. The problem is, you need to be the platform, the one to aggregate the wise crowd, the one to ride the swell of Metcalf’s Law.

I’m not sure why iTunes doesn’t take this up as a potential revenue source. I’ve heard from my contacts at Red that it has something to do with the cost associated with caching the content and providing speedy downloading. This seems odd to me: most viewers would be OK with “speedy downloads” for Hollywood content and “good enough normal broadband speeeds” for everything else. (So maybe that means picking your indie movie before dinner and having it download during dinner. Or even picking it the night before.) In any case, as reported in Scott’s Variety article, the navigation in iTunes sucks. And there is no good rating/social networking element in iTunes.

But distributor Freyr Thor, of Vanguard Cinema says, in Scott’s Variety article:

“Just because these specialty indie platforms haven’t succeeded, that doesn’t mean one cannot succeed. There’s a patience factor and a money factor that have been missing.”

Some of my filmmaker friends have told me I should be the one to start this platform. No thanks. I know that only a single (or two, three at the most) aggregator will win in this niche (just as Facebook and LinkedIn did) while hundreds of other contenders went bankrupt or floundered. And if the smart and funded folks at Jaman couldn’t make it happen, I’m not going to try. I’d rather make films. And then distribute them on the “winner” platform which emerges (I predict) within 3 years.

Sometimes you see a movie so good, you need to tell everyone you meet: go see it. Such is Three Monkeys by Turkish auteur Nuri Bilge Ceylan, which I watched last night on DVD. A brilliant, beautiful, slow-burning, disturbing film. Ceylan comes from a still photography background and the cinematography is painterly, evocative and stunning. But this is not just eye candy. The slow-moving story with few characters pulls you in without you knowing it. One minute you’re thinking it’s an arthouse cinematography fest about lonely people. And then, 20 minutes later, you realize the story, the suspense, the dialogue are masterful and very well-crafted. It’s just that the fuse is long–but it’s path certainly not random.  And that you’re sitting on the edge of your seat. When final sequence rolls, of the father/protagonist on his roof, you are both awed at the beauty of the image, moved by what’s just happened, and left feeling unnerved, relieved and saddened–at the same time.

3MonkeysFinalScene

I won’t tell you the story. But here’s my synopsis:

Faustian deals beget Faustian deals. They’re never neat. No one is untouched.

And the sub-header: politicians are amoral rats.

The trailer, while whetting the appetite for the excellent cinematography, is not at all representative of the movie: the trailer makes me think it is a horror/thriller movie. But it’s not at all. It’s a morality play about unhappy people. Very spare and beautifully economical. Writing dovetails with imagery dovetails with coloring dovetails with editing. It’s not typically a “my kind of movie” (you’re waiting for the woman lead character to be strong, but she’s not–rather pathetic and victimized; the overtly political angle, the mosaic of society is stripped away, etc.), but I came away feeling in love with the movie. And after watching and reading interviews with him, deep respect and a close kinship with the director. Indie filmmakers: this is what you should aspire too! This is what I aspire too. Forget all the comic book retreads, forget special effects, forget formulaic Hollywood movies about weddings you can only get halfway through on a plane, and formulaic “festival films”. This is how to make a movie, lovingly crafted, end-to-end. Moviemaking is not dead. Long love Ceylan!

Oh, and Ceylan shot digitally, apparently on Sony CineAlta F900s. I’ll let him speak about why he loves shooting digitally and give some brilliant insights into filmmaking, in excerpts here from this interview from The Guardian with Geoff Andrew, onstage at the BFI Southbank:

On being self-taught and the importance of knowing all aspects of film-making and business:

I never worked on other films, as assistant director or anything, so I never learned how other directors worked. I learned everything from books myself, and I learned every aspect of film-making, including sales and marketing. Even in Cannes, I was selling the film myself, and they said that there was only one other director who sold his films himself – [Abderrehmane] Sissako from Africa. It’s unusual, and distributors were a bit surprised. I learned how to do it but I don’t do that any more. Now I have a producer and a cinematographer, everything. It is unnecessary, but at that time, I wanted to know it. I think a director should know many things, especially the technical aspects; otherwise you are a slave of the technical people. If you know the technical aspects, you can communicate with them and direct them much better.

On dialogue in films:

I don’t try to make my characters silent. In the script, that scene had a lot of dialogue. But in the shoot, it’s the only place to understand whether what you wrote works or not. Always during a shoot, I try to find more balance in the situation, so I end up taking dialogue out here and there and finally there’s no dialogue. I feel the balance is reached at that point and I don’t know what to do about it. It just convinces me more like that, somehow. And of course, dialogue should be treated very carefully. I’ve investigated this a lot. I’ve recorded many conversations in order to understand the nature of it. It doesn’t follow a logical progression. Somebody says something, the other person says something entirely different; if you analyse it, you see it is that way. So dialogue, even if you use it, it shouldn’t be so logical and it shouldn’t carry much information about the film’s secrets or the meaning of the film. Dialogue, for me, only works if they talk nonsense, anything unrelated to the film. I like to do this as much as possible. I try to tell the meaning of the film without dialogue – with the situation, the gestures, and so on. This is my intention, but maybe I’m not successful.

On why he (and his wife Ebru acted in his own film (“Climates”):

What I wanted to tell with this film was something which is hard to explain and express to other people. I didn’t want to struggle with how to explain to actors how they should act. I wanted them to behave based more on their inclination. Also, when we wrote and talked about the film on holiday, my wife and I, we made a test shot, acting ourselves and we liked the result. So that’s another reason why we did it.

On shooting digitally, in answer to the question “Do you think digital technology is opening up new avenues of expressiveness?”

Definitely. I think it has still more unknown potential to be able to express something deeper or hidden. So film seems like nonsense – why shoot on film any more? This film was shot using old digital technology and now it’s already even much better. Film is expensive and there are many disadvantages. For me, this is it. I’ll never go back to film for movie-making or photography. I think we should be open and use the advantages of this new technology to express our deeper emotions.

On the color grading of “Three Monkeys”:

Actually, I don’t like expressionism – I prefer impressionism, because the feelings and emotions are too underlined in expressionism. But many critics have said that this film is expressionist – maybe they are right. I like to be more subtle and more hidden, making the audience more active. As for the colours, it’s natural that when one looks at something, everybody sees something different. When I look at the world, this is kind of what I see. My photography may have an influence on this – I see colours in this way. When I engaged in the colour grading, I didn’t realise that I had distanced myself from these colours that much. And of course, in this film, I also wanted to isolate the characters a bit. This isolation I made in other ways: for example, I didn’t show any faces other than these characters. And also these colours helped this isolation a bit.

Ceylan’s secret colour grading recipe, so you can easily apply the “Three Monkeys” look to your own projects:

Actually, I didn’t do much: I just increased the contrast and desaturated the colours and then selected one colour, generally red, and pushed it a bit after desaturation.

On sound design:

I don’t like to be realistic in sound. For instance, we heard a sound in the film that I didn’t hear before. Our ears are very selective and we just hear what we want to hear. So, for the audience, I select some sounds and just show them. With the sound, I can guide the audience a little bit in the way I want, and it gives the scene the atmosphere that I want. Also, if you can tell something with the sound, you don’t have to show it.

On starting filmmaking late:

I was quite old, actually, 36 years old. It’s much better if you can start much earlier. I spent at least 10 years without doing anything after university, thinking about what to do for a living. When you’re young, you’re braver and it’s better to make mistakes when you’re younger. When I made that film, I always thought that it would not make a film. I was shooting something but I never expected Cannes would take it, or that I would show it to other people. I thought I was taking something meaningless. In the editing room, I tried to create a concept or a story out of it. There was something in my mind, but I always thought it would not work. And even after I finished the film, I thought it was shit and that nobody would like it. I asked my friends, “Does it look like a film?” I asked the same question when I made my first feature [The Small Town, 1997]. I remember watching it with my sister at the Berlin film festival where it was premiered, and we looked at each other and we were thinking, “It doesn’t look like a film.”

On big vs. small crews:

Actually, both easier and more difficult [to work with a big crew, after working on movies with a small crew]. It depends on how you look at it. I cannot work like the old days – I am older now and I have less energy. Human beings are creatures that very easily get used to luxuries. Until Uzak, I would shoot my films myself. But now, I can’t imagine doing that and it seems to me very difficult. I’m lazy and it seems to me much easier to use a monitor to control the actors, the composition, mise en scène. And I think it should be like this. That’s why I work like this now. But on the other hand, it’s more difficult. In this film, there were about 20- 25 people behind the camera and everything takes time. To move people from one place to another, we need lorries and things. In Uzak, if you remember, there is a snow scene. It lasted a very short time in Istanbul, the snow stayed for only two days. But we managed to shoot everything we needed in two days because we were so small. With only one Jeep, we could move all the crew, the material, all the actors and we could move quickly. We were much faster. So it was easier in that sense. But then, I used to compromise a lot. If I couldn’t solve something, I would change the script and I would adapt myself to many things. Now I compromise less, because I have a producer and he solves many problems, we have more money and we have more people to solve problems. So when you get new possibilities, you don’t want to get rid of them. So, both more difficult and easier, I think.

On his preference for locked off shots:

Ozu is my favourite director, actually. And yes, I don’t move the camera much – but I don’t know if that’s because of Ozu or because I’m a photographer. I jut don’t like to move the camera much, really, because it makes everyone more conscious about the camera. And the height of the camera is mostly decided for me, and I think for Ozu, by the vertical lines in the space. In the books, they say that Ozu put his camera 90cm above the ground but I don’t believe it. It depends on the vertical lines – and there are many of those in Japanese houses.

On relationship of director and cinematographer:

…the psychology of the character is important – if you shoot a person from above, it’s different from shooting them from below. I generally like to shoot at mouth level for a portrait. Especially in closeups, even 1cm is very important. That’s why you should never leave it to the cinematographer, because the cinematographer never knows how to connect it to the next shot; only the director knows the relationship between the next shot and the previous shot. So the director should carefully place the camera to ensure continuity of the psychology.

On music in film:

I don’t like music in cinema, it seems to me like a crutch; if you cannot express something in cinematic ways, then you call the help of the music to underline it. I’m not against it, but if possible I try not to use it. In the editing, I try many pieces of music, but eventually I decide not to use any. And also, the sound of the atmosphere is the nicest sound for me in the cinema, so I prefer to use atmospheric sound instead of music. Because music kills things.

FinalCut Pro 7 and New FinalCut Studio Released!

FinalCut7_ScreenshotUnexpectedly (to me and a lot of others it seems) a whole new upgraded FinalCut Studio’s been released. Top 4 things I’m excited about in it:

  1. Color supports native 4K Red R3D files.
  2. Color support Tangent Wave.
  3. FinalCut supports better editing Red (not sure if it handles R3Ds, but there’s a new flavour of ProRes that handles 4K ProRes4444)
  4. Can burn Blu-Ray from Compressor.

There’s a page talking about improved digital cinema workflow, with a suggested workflow for working with Red in the new FC Studio is:

Final Cut Studio is ideal for digital cinema workflows. Edit in Final Cut Pro using ProRes, then send your project to Color for color grading using the original 2K or 4K DPX media or RED RAW files. When you’re done, use Color to render DPX files for film outs or for mastering to digital cinema — all with full 4:4:4 2K or 4K quality. For broadcast or video release, you can output ProRes 422 (HQ), ProRes 4444, or uncompressed HD. (This text from the Color page.)

Here’s a video on coloring R3D files native in Color.

And here’s the low-down on everything new in FinalCut Studio.

There’s a nice little video of Walter Murch and Francis Ford Coppola talking about the new FC and their new film Tetro.

I saw 犬式 (inushiki) back in 2004 in Shibuya (in Tokyo), when they were just known as “Doggystyle”. Amazing live show, polished performance, and danceable ska, Reggea, funk original music with funny lyrics in Japanese and some English.

A friend from Tokyo was in town last week and gave me a copy of their latest album, 意識の新大陸FLRESH. Which is in heavy rotation on both my iPod and Sonos. Pick up the album, if you have a chance.

FLRESH

Or give them a listen at their MySpace page. Unfortunately, it seems the group broke up just after they released this album late last year.

Older Posts »