Pan and scan
SilvrRx7
his own camera. I was watching the documentary of Stanley not to long ago,
this seemed very important on the whole film industry, any help is appreciated.
Darth Nub
Not 100% sure on the specifics, but as far as I know, there's two
stories:
- for the shoot of 'Barry Lyndon', Kubrick bought lenses off NASA
which were designed for use on the moon (extremely low-light
conditions) & had them modified for use in the scenes which were lit
only by candles;
- Kubrick scammed some guy at Warner Bros in the mid 70's by
purchasing some rare old cameras at a nominal price & it turned out
that these cameras were effectively priceless, & he knew perfectly
well what their value was & put them to good use - pretty sure it was
for 'Barry Lyndon', might have been for 'The Shining'.
Yes, a horrible thing indeed, to cheat a major film studio. What a
despicable thing to do. Don't know how he could have lived with
himself afterwards.
Darth
Padraig L Henry
QUESTION: Now we come to the scenes which have caused more comment
than anything else in this overall beautiful film - namely the
candlelight scenes. Can you tell me about these and how they were
executed?
Barry Lyndon DP John Alcott: The objective was to shoot these scenes
exclusively by candlelight - that is, without a boost from any
artificial light whatsoever. As I mentioned earlier, Stanley Kubrick
and I had been discussing this possibility for years, but had not been
able to find sufficiently fast lenses to do it. Stanley finally
discovered three 50mm f/0.7 Zeiss still-camera lenses which were left
over from a batch made for use by NASA in their Apollo moon-landing
program. We had a non-reflexed Mitchell BNC which was sent over to Ed
DiGiulio to be reconstructed to accept this ultra-fast lens. He had to
mill out the existing lens mounts, because the rear element of this
f/0.7 lens was virtually something like 4mm from the film plane. It
took quite a while, and when we got the camera back we made quite
extensive tests on it. This Zeiss lens was like no other lens in a
way, because when you look through any normal type of lens, like the
Panavision T/1.1 or the Angenieux f/0.95, you are looking through the
optical system and by just altering the focus you can tell whether
it's in or out of focus. But when you looked through this lens it
appeared to have a fantastic range of focus, quite unbelievable.
However, when you did a photographic test you discovered that it had
no depth of field at all - which one expected anyway. So we literally
had to scale this lens by doing hand tests from about 200 feet down to
about 4 feet, marking every distance that would lead up to the 10-foot
range. We had to literally get it down to inches on the actual
scaling.
QUESTION: You say that the focal length was 50mm?
ALCOTT: It was 50mm, but then we acquired a projection lens of the
reduction type, which Ed DiGiulio fitted over another 50mm lens to
give us a 36.5mm lens for wider-angle coverage. The original 50mm lens
was used for virtually all the medium shots and close shots.
QUESTION: And those scenes were illuminated entirely by candlelight?
ALCOTT: Entirely by the candles. In the sequence where Lord Ludd and
Barry are in the gaming room and he loses a large amount of money, the
set was lit entirely by the candles, but I had metal reflectors made
to mount above the two chandeliers, the main purpose being to keep the
heat of the candles from damaging the ceiling. However, it also acted
as a light reflector to provide an overall illumination of toplight.
QUESTION: How many foot-candles (no pun intended) would you say you
were using in that case?
ALCOTT: Roughly, three foot-candles was the key. We were forcing the
whole picture one stop in development. Incidentally, I found a great
advantage in using the Gossen Panalux electronic meter for these
sequences, because it goes down to half foot-candle measurements. It's
a very good meter for those extreme low-light situations. We were
using 70-candle chandeliers, and most of the time I could also use
either five-candle or three-candle table candelabra, as well. We
actually went for a burnt-out effect, a very high key on the faces
themselves.
QUESTION: What were some of the other problems attendant to using this
ultra-fast lens to shoot entirely by candlelight?
ALCOTT: There was, first of all, the problem of finding a side
viewfinder that would transmit enough light to show us where we were
framed. The conventional viewfinder would not do at all, because it
involves prisms which cause such a high degree of light loss that very
little image is visible at such low light levels. Instead, we had to
adapt to the BNC a viewfinder from one of the old Technicolor
three-strip cameras. It works on a principle of mirrors and simply
reflects what it "sees", resulting in a much brighter image. There is
very little parallax with that viewfinder, since it mounts so close to
the lens.
QUESTION: What about the depth of field problem?
ALCOTT: As I suggested before, that was indeed a problem. The point of
focus was so critical and there was hardly any depth of field with
that f/0.7 lens. My focus operator, Doug Milsome, used a
closed-circuit video camera as the only way to keep track of the
distances with any degree of accuracy. The video camera was placed at
a 90-degree angle to the film camera position and was monitored by
means of a TV screen mounted above the camera lens scale. A grid was
placed over the TV screen and by taping the various artists'
positions, the distances could be transferred to the TV grid to allow
the artists a certain flexibility of movement, while keeping them in
focus.
It was a very tricky operation, but according to all reports, it
worked out quite satisfactorily.
===Regarding the confusion about whether front projection was used in
BL:
QUESTION: Was most of the picture shot in actual locations, or did you
have to build some sets?
ALCOTT: Oh, no - every shot is an actual location. We didn't build any
sets whatsoever. All of the rooms exist inside actual houses in
Ireland and the southwest of England.
Extracted From: American Cinematographer
Article Title: Photographing Stanley Kubrick's Barry Lyndon - JOHN
ALCOTT
===========================
And Kubrick's comments about the Zeiss lens in an interview with
Michel Ciment:
CIMENT: Why do you prefer natural lighting?
KUBRICK: Because it's the way we see things. I have always tried to
light my films to simulate natural light; in the daytime using the
windows actually to light the set, and in night scenes the practical
lights you see in the set. This approach has its problems when you can
use bright electric light sources, but when candelabras and oil lamps
are the brightest light sources which can be in the set, the
difficulties are vastly increased. Prior to Barry Lyndon, the problem
has never been properly solved. Even if the director and cameraman had
the desire to light with practical light sources, the film and the
lenses were not fast enough to get an exposure. A 35mm movie camera
shutter exposes at about 1/50 of a second, and a useable exposure was
only possible with a lens at least 100% faster than any which had ever
been used on a movie camera. Fortunately, I found just such a lens,
one of a group of ten which Zeiss had specially manufactured for NASA
satellite photography. The lens had a speed of fO.7, and it was 100%
faster than the fastest movie lens. A lot of work still had to be done
to it and to the camera to make it useable. For one thing, the rear
element of the lens had to be 2.5mm away from the film plane,
requiring special modification to the rotating camera shutter. But
with this lens it was now possible to shoot in light conditions so dim
that it was difficult to read. For the day interior scenes, we used
either the real daylight from the windows, or simulated daylight by
banking lights outside the windows and diffusing them with tracing
paper taped on the glass. In addition to the very beautiful lighting
you can achieve this way, it is also a very practical way to work. You
don't have to worry about shooting into your lighting equipment. All
your lighting is outside the window behind tracing paper, and if you
shoot towwards the window you get a very beautiful and realistic flare
effect.
Boaz
> silv...@aol.com (SilvrRx7) wrote in message news:<20040410032218...@mb-m19.aol.com>...
> > Hello, I was wondering where I could read up on the story of Kubrick designing
> > his own camera. I was watching the documentary of Stanley not to long ago,
> > this seemed very important on the whole film industry, any help is appreciated.
> >
> > floy...@aol.com
>
>
> Not 100% sure on the specifics, but as far as I know, there's two
> stories:
>
> - for the shoot of 'Barry Lyndon', Kubrick bought lenses off NASA
> which were designed for use on the moon (extremely low-light
> conditions) & had them modified for use in the scenes which were lit
> only by candles;
The lenses were for satellite use, not for the moon. They were Zeiss
lenses, which had a maximum aperture of f/0.7.
> - Kubrick scammed some guy at Warner Bros in the mid 70's by
> purchasing some rare old cameras at a nominal price & it turned out
> that these cameras were effectively priceless, & he knew perfectly
> well what their value was & put them to good use - pretty sure it was
> for 'Barry Lyndon', might have been for 'The Shining'.
The camera was for "Barry Lyndon," to have the Zeiss lenses fit on
them. That was a tall order itself, since the lenses were designed for
still photography. The rear elements were much larger than the average
lens, so the camera had to be carefully reengineered to accommodate
them.
The "guy" whom Kubrick "scammed" was really John Calley, once a
producer and later the head of production at Warner Bros. He was
actually one of Kubrick's staunchest supporters in guaranteeing
Kubrick complete autonomy on his productions. Kubrick asked Calley if
he could buy one of the old Mitchells that was still on the lot in the
studio camera department. The camera was a Mitchell BNC that had been
used for rear projection photography, which meant that it had
considerable precision engineering to it. By the 1970s studios were no
longer owning their own camera equipment, and since there was little
to no rear projection work being done at the time (considered too
artificial and arcane for the more realisting style of filmmaking in
the '70s) the cameras all but gathered dust. It was one of these
cameras that Kubrick purchased and then had Ed DiGuilio of Cinema
Products reengineer the Zeiss lens on to it. If you have the time, you
can check in the Google/AMK archives for more detailed information
regarding the camera and lens, since we've covered this ground many
times in the past.
The only person who was really upset by Kubrick's purchasing of the
camera was the late Bob Gottschalk, the founder and president of
Panavision. I have no idea if Gottschalk was bothered by the lowball
price Kubrick got it for, or if it was because he wanted the camera
himself. If the latter, it seems he would have purchased one himself,
since his early Panavision cameras were based on the Mitchell design,
and his company contributed a great deal in putting the Mitchell
company out of business.
Anyway, hope this information helps.
Boaz
M4RV1N
"Clockwork Orange" makes some extraordinary use of wide angle, or "fish eye"
lenses. Some of these were near 360 degrees in image capture--meaning that
pointed at the ceiling of a room, all four walls would be captured on film.
This was used primarily in close-ups of faces. One of these lenses can be seen
on page 215 of Ciment's book. It looks about the size and width of a frisbee.
I believe that one is likely the French Angenieux that Alcott said had a
*minimum* aperture of f/4.
Mark Ervin
Boaz
I'm looking at my copy of the book. What you are seeing is the
soundproof blimp for an Arriflex 2C. It is the Arri Model 120S. When
ACO was filmed (Oct. '70 to March '71), the Arriflex 35BL was not yet
available (it would be by the time Kubrick filmed "Barry Lyndon"), so
if one wanted to shoot a scene with synch sound they had to either use
a Mitchell BNC (most of which still had non-reflex viewing, but had
1000 foot magazine loads, and which is also seen in some production
stills from ACO) or an Arri housed in a blimp (such as you see on page
215), which held only 400 foot magazine loads. That piece of glass in
the front is not part of the lens but glass to help block out camera
noise. From the size of the glass it is obvious that the lens is wide
angle, probably an 18mm, judging from the framing of the shot, as well
as the distance the camera is from the subject, as seen in the page
215 still. (Anything wider, such as a "fisheye") would have meant
shooting without the blimp and post-synching the sound.) If you look
at your copy of ACO on video, or consult your copy of the published
script with the frame blow-ups (provided you have or can find a copy),
you can see it the shot where Mr. Alexander is on the phone to his
"friends," while behind him, on the other side of the door, Alex is in
the bathtub, singing "Singin' in the Rain." Judging from the size of
the room where the scene was shot -- according to the production still
-- Kubrick could have probably used a 25mm or 30mm lens, but the
perspective would have been completely different, the sense of depth
would have changed and the feeling of eerie foreboding probably would
have been lost in a visual sense there.
If one does have a copy of the screenplay/frame blowup book, if you
look at the preceding page, you can see a shot of Julian carrying Alex
away to his bath while Mr. Alexander is seen in the foreground. (Or
you can check the scene on your video copy.) That looks like it was
shot with a 9.8mm lens, and probably done without the blimp,
considering the field of view the lens was able to take in with that
shot.
Ahhh, it's great to be discussing Kubrick's films and his techniques
on the Kubrick newsgroup again!
Boaz
Boaz
I had previously posted this:
**************************************************
Okay, I screwed up. That was not the shot. In checking back a few
pages, I see Mr. Alexander gripping the wheels to his wheelchair in
the same way in the photo. Looking again at the production still, I
see now the position of the Arriflex is in the corner, between the
windows and Christiane's "Seedbox" painting.
So what we are seeing is probably a 9.8mm lens, not quite a 360,
certainly not a fisheye, but very close. So that model of an Arri
blimp could accomodate something as wide as a 9.8mm. I've only worked
with the 2C unblimped and the 35BL. My bad.
On the other hand, I was correct about the lens used when Mr.
Alexander was on the phone, it was just the wrong shot.
****************************************************
Then I said this:
If one does have a copy of the screenplay/frame blowup book, if you
look at the preceding page, you can see a shot of Julian carrying Alex
away to his bath while Mr. Alexander is seen in the foreground. (Or
you can check the scene on your video copy.) That looks like it was
shot with a 9.8mm lens, and probably done without the blimp,
considering the field of view the lens was able to take in with that
shot.
*****************************************************
Noooooooo, not exactly either. It was done with the blimp, as it turns
out. But that is glass, not the front element of the lens, which is
used to block out the camera noise. I'm surprised it did get that much
field of view into the shot, considering how recessed the lens is from
the soundproof glass. One would think the outer edges of the frame
holding the glass would show up with such a wide angle lens. (Then
again, I just might be wrong about the lens and protective front
glass, but I've never seen a 9.8mm lens that big before. The ones I've
seen have a bulging front element, but they weren't the size of a
salad plate.)
Anyway, sorry for the confusion here.
Boaz
Jan
> QUESTION: You say that the focal length was 50mm?
>
> ALCOTT: It was 50mm, but then we acquired a projection lens of the
> reduction type, which Ed DiGiulio fitted over another 50mm lens to
> give us a 36.5mm lens for wider-angle coverage.
That's interesting. I'm no expert on lens design but I think
projection lenses are flat-field which means not really suitable for
photography. I guess the reason it didn't matter much in this case was
that the main lens had practically zero depth of field already at the
maximum aperture.
About lighting - what's so noticeable about US movies nowadayas is how
identical their lighting looks. And I don't mean just the hue
(although it does seem about 90% of movies made within last 5 years
are very strongly blue or blue-green) but the light, it's all flat and
unnatural. Another thing I noticed - nobody ever changes the light in
the middle of a scene. Whenever this does happen (as in Tarkovsky or
Bergman) it's almost a shock! :-)
Jan Bielawski
David Mullen
> certainly not a fisheye, but very close. So that model of an Arri
> blimp could accomodate something as wide as a 9.8mm.
I believe that even a 9.8mm lens has less than a 100 degrees horizontal
view, if I'm reading my ASC Manual correctly. Even 3-camera Cinerama, with
its three 27mm lenses, saw a total view of 146 degrees and THAT was pretty
wide-angle.
David Mullen
David Mullen
> but the light, it's all flat and
> unnatural.
Current lighting styles are pretty all over the place, from super soft and
flat for Hollywood comedies (what else is new?) to pretty contrasty for some
other movies, using processes like skip-bleach, etc. Print stocks are more
contrasty than in the recent past. But negative stocks are getting lower in
contrast.
In general, "romantic realism" is still the main trend -- i.e. motivated
source light but made more attractive and flattering than normal to suit the
scene. But after thirty years of a trend towards realism (probably most
prevalent in the "no lighting" approach of the Dogma movies, which has crept
over into some films like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", which is
almost enturely shot in available and minimal light except for key moments)
we are starting to see some shift back to some of the stylization of older
Hollywood films -- basically glamour lighting. Beautiful people still sell
tickets.
You also have to remember that all it takes is a badly adjusted TV set or
broadcast signal to make a dramatically lit movie look flat and
low-contrast. I notice that a lot of stuff on cable TV seems more washed
out than the same movies on DVD.
>Another thing I noticed - nobody ever changes the light in
> the middle of a scene.
Well, that would be an "unnatural" thing unless logically motivated. But
Storaro does it all the time, unrealistically, for dramatic effect. Remember
the moving patterns of venetian blinds in "The Conformist"? "One from the
Heart"? There's even moments in "Wagner" where Storaro raises and lowers
the "natural" source lighting for dramatic effect (he always runs his
lighting through a big dimmer board.)
I always liked the scene in "Blade Runner" (shot by Jordan Cronenweth) where
Deckard goes into his kitchen area of his apartment and the room lights
raise up automatically, but when he steps out to catch the sight of Rachel
leaving the apartment, the background kitchen behind him drops to black.
Beautiful.
David Mullen
Boaz
Right. I guess I should have been more clear in my post. No lens that
I know of can adequetely create a 360 degree view, and I couldn't see
the logic of a lens that could do such a thing anyway.
But the glass as seen on the front of the Arri blimp, despite its
size, probably could not accommodate anything beyond 146 degrees. It
would be too much, especially with the lens recessed like that. The
blimp on the original 3-strip Cinerama cameras show a soundproof glass
element that is curved and bulging, in order to properly record that
146 degree field of view.
Anyway, thanks for helping clear that up for us.
Boaz
Jan
> >Another thing I noticed - nobody ever changes the light in
> > the middle of a scene.
>
> Well, that would be an "unnatural" thing unless logically motivated.
That's true for indoor scenes. But the light outside changes
constantly, all it takes is a few clouds in the sky. This is
practically never shown and all films look like they are taking place
in Los Angeles (which they in fact do :-) )
Jan Bielawski
Padraig L Henry
Yes, and sadly the number of directors who have chosen such "logical
motivation" has been and remains invariably negligible. In addition to
the ones you mention below, other impressive examples of in-scene
lighting transitions (whether for purposes of dramatic revelation or
simple but sudden character/event mood changes) include Kieslowski's
Three Colours Blue and Three Colours Red, perhaps the best instances
of seemlessly "narrative-sensitive dynamic lighting", creating
epiphanic, poetic moments central to the narrative arc (it is as
though Light is itself a film character) here, since Tarkovsky; Malick
in TTRL,, Wenders in Paris, Texas ... etc
Or its use, imported from the stage, as a standard theatrical device
for indicating/cueing scene changes and cuts (or the passage of time)
in films confined to a single set or location eg, von Trier's
Dogville.
Then there's the pop-video influenced examples, now sometimes used in
horror movies to emphasise an ominous, supernatural-sinister,
pop-surrealist effect, eg The Ring.
Boaz
> > unnatural.
>
> Current lighting styles are pretty all over the place, from super soft and
> flat for Hollywood comedies (what else is new?) to pretty contrasty for some
> other movies, using processes like skip-bleach, etc. Print stocks are more
> contrasty than in the recent past. But negative stocks are getting lower in
> contrast.
>
> In general, "romantic realism" is still the main trend -- i.e. motivated
> source light but made more attractive and flattering than normal to suit the
> scene. But after thirty years of a trend towards realism (probably most
> prevalent in the "no lighting" approach of the Dogma movies, which has crept
> over into some films like "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind", which is
> almost enturely shot in available and minimal light except for key moments)
> we are starting to see some shift back to some of the stylization of older
> Hollywood films -- basically glamour lighting. Beautiful people still sell
> tickets.
Yes, but my own feeling is that there still has to be "motivation"
behind going that route too. For me, the lighting of the "golden age"
doesn't always work in today's film contexts. I suppose it all depends
upon how the lighting is used, the sets, locations and story -- most
especially the story. If you recall in "The Bride of Frankenstein,"
the lighting within a scene would often change when James Whale cut to
a different shot, usually a closeup. It probably adds to the enjoyment
of watching the film today.
I would not care, however, to see a return to the kind of high-key
lighting that was prevalent in the late '50s through the mid-'60s,
where everything tended to look overlit (e.g., Doris Day comedies,
musicals and the like). Even TV shows don't do that kind of lighting
anymore -- with the possible exception of sitcoms, but they really
aren't in the same category as what we are discussing here.
On the other hand, I liked the way Sven Nykvist lit "Fannie and
Alexander." He didn't go for deep shadows, but he also kept his
footcandle level to where his f/stop wasn't that small, and he was
able to keep a much softer looking image using unmotivated and
(sometimes) "romantic" lighting. He even employed a similar lighting
style for the house of the evil Bishop Vegerus, and it worked there
too.
> You also have to remember that all it takes is a badly adjusted TV set or
> broadcast signal to make a dramatically lit movie look flat and
> low-contrast. I notice that a lot of stuff on cable TV seems more washed
> out than the same movies on DVD.
Have you noticed when "Sophie's Choice" is run on TV (cable or
commercial) there is not only a little more color in the flashback
scenes in the concentration camp, but the nighttime closeup of Meryl
Streep, as she is telling Stingo the story, has been "corrected" so
that her skin tone is "pink," instead of the romantic/eerie teal-like
tone that Nestor Alamendros so carefully created for her. He tried a
similar effect on Rosanna Arquette in the Scorsese-directed segment of
"New York Stories."
> >Another thing I noticed - nobody ever changes the light in
> > the middle of a scene.
>
> Well, that would be an "unnatural" thing unless logically motivated. But
> Storaro does it all the time, unrealistically, for dramatic effect. Remember
> the moving patterns of venetian blinds in "The Conformist"? "One from the
> Heart"? There's even moments in "Wagner" where Storaro raises and lowers
> the "natural" source lighting for dramatic effect (he always runs his
> lighting through a big dimmer board.)
In "Apocalypse Now Redux," in the French plantation scene, Storaro
creates a golden late afternoon effect while Willard is dining with
his French hosts. He uses the dimmer to fade the light, to suggest it
is the sun setting, sort of replicating a "real time" effect, similar
to what he later did in "Tucker," when the late afternoon sunlight is
at first streaming through the windows of Tucker's workshop, only to
fade as the "sun sets" over the hills of Ypsilanti, Michigan, but is
really the hills of Napa, California. He tried something similar in
the Coppola-directed segment of "New York Stories," with the "sun"
setting at the end of the concert. So with these examples Storaro was
trying to suggest real time within the environment, though not
necessarily trying to be realistic, since the fading light also served
as its own visual subtext to the aforementioned scenes.
> I always liked the scene in "Blade Runner" (shot by Jordan Cronenweth) where
> Deckard goes into his kitchen area of his apartment and the room lights
> raise up automatically, but when he steps out to catch the sight of Rachel
> leaving the apartment, the background kitchen behind him drops to black.
> Beautiful.
>
> David Mullen
One could say the lighting there was "motivated," in this case
motivated by the scene and its subtext, which is just as important as
any "source" within the scene when determining the lighting.
Boaz
David Mullen
about acting) be psychologically truthful or motivated than logically
or realistically motivated. Often we see a cinematic device that in
the wrong context is distracting and unrealistic but in the right
moment, emotionally, is practically invisible beause it "feels"
correct.
So if I feel that a certain night scene would benefit emotionally from
being bathed in icy blue tones, I don't really sweat over whether
moonlight is actually blue or not (it's daylight-balanced, which is
blue on tungsten-balanced film, but that's another issue.)
However, it was odd in the last version of "Cyrano" to have blue-lit
streets at night when the main character talks about the "saffron
moon" and there's a yellow moon matted into the sky... casting blue
light on the ground!
Even Kubrick played a little with mixing color temperature
unrealistically in "Barry Lyndon", having blue-ish uncorrected
daylight mixed with tungsten for some day interiors. Look at the blue
beam of the arc light shining into the barn from the high window for
the final duel mixed with the big soft tungsten source coming through
the big doors. If anything, a direct beam of sunlight would be warmer
than soft ambient skylight. And it would not have been hard to gel
everything to the "correct" colors but Kubrick and Alcott wanted the
emotional effect of that cool beam of light.
Boaz
> Ultimately it's more important that lighting (the same could be said
> about acting) be psychologically truthful or motivated than logically
> or realistically motivated. Often we see a cinematic device that in
> the wrong context is distracting and unrealistic but in the right
> moment, emotionally, is practically invisible beause it "feels"
> correct.
Exactly. One of the classic examples is Gordon Willis' lighting on
"The Godfather" films. He bases his approach on the theme of the
script, the subtext of the scenes, while working within the director's
vision to come up with a style all his own. He has stated that he is a
"method" cinematographer, looking for "motivation" in his lighting of
a scene in a similar way an actor seeks his or her "motivation."
> So if I feel that a certain night scene would benefit emotionally from
> being bathed in icy blue tones, I don't really sweat over whether
> moonlight is actually blue or not (it's daylight-balanced, which is
> blue on tungsten-balanced film, but that's another issue.)
Right. On the first feature I shot, many moons ago (pun intended --
but don't look for it, since it never got finished), the director
(literally) screamed that he didn't want blue for night scenes. "Night
is black and gray!" he would yell over and over. I cannot tell you the
amount of time we wasted (putting the shoot behind schedule) going
over different combinations and mixes of gels to get a night effect
that wasn't blue, but at the same time wasn't simply more 3200k white
light either. When the "director" talked about printing the whole
thing in black and white I was ready to walk off the shoot. But I
ended up staying on, since I was the only person the actors got along
with. (We were doing this neo-noir film that was practically
paint-by-numbers instead of painting with light; at first I looked
forward to doing this, but by the end I and the actors were just going
through the motions.)
> However, it was odd in the last version of "Cyrano" to have blue-lit
> streets at night when the main character talks about the "saffron
> moon" and there's a yellow moon matted into the sky... casting blue
> light on the ground!
Hey, works for me! ;-) You can sing "Harvest Moon" and "Blue Moon"
at the same time.
I remember at AFI, Kris Malkeiwicz used to use the term "Shogun blue,"
to describe a deep shade of blue used for night scenes, since that was
what the DP of "Shogun" had done. He liked blue for night scenes, but
not THAT blue. I've always liked the cobalt blue James Cameron and his
DP Adam Greenberg would use on the "Terminator" films. It "felt"
right.
> Even Kubrick played a little with mixing color temperature
> unrealistically in "Barry Lyndon", having blue-ish uncorrected
> daylight mixed with tungsten for some day interiors. Look at the blue
> beam of the arc light shining into the barn from the high window for
> the final duel mixed with the big soft tungsten source coming through
> the big doors. If anything, a direct beam of sunlight would be warmer
> than soft ambient skylight. And it would not have been hard to gel
> everything to the "correct" colors but Kubrick and Alcott wanted the
> emotional effect of that cool beam of light.
I loved the lighting in that scene, it really did contribute to the
scene's emotional and psychological core. It's also great when the
director and cinematographer find such a location and then use it and
their talents to their and the scene's best advantage.
Boaz