John Bailey, ASC interview
StormChaser
"At one point, the colorist referred to the scene he brought up as
“the raw film,” as though it were nothing more than a preparatory
sketch for his digital painting. Stamberg called the colorist a “Da
Vinci of movies,” an “artist” who can remove the green in an actor’s
face or turn a sunny day into an imminent winter snowstorm. In the
much simpler world of photochemical printing, the same people are
called “timers,” though surely the best of them are equally artistic.
Also interviewed in the digital suite was one of the film’s producers,
who was making decisions on the grading of the film with the colorist.
I don’t know whether the director was hovering somewhere in the room;
he was never mentioned."
"I fear we cinematographers may have unwittingly begun to write our
own epitaph on the subject of image control. Do I even need to mention
the number of producers, production managers, studio executives and
others who are promoting hi-def video for image capture because, they
say, “You don’t need to light,” and, perhaps more crucial for them,
“You can see exactly what you get?” It doesn’t take a genius to follow
the logic of this chain of reasoning. If you don’t need a
cinematographer to light the scene, or if an executive says you can
“relight” it in post, or if you don’t need the cinematographer to
answer-print the film because the DI fixes all things, including
poorly exposed negative, why do we need the cinematographer at all? "
StormChaser
> http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/June2008/FilmmakersForum/page2...
http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/June2008/FilmmakersForum/page1.php
This is page one of the interview.
Airbus
<b7e2805b-003e-490d...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
ring...@surfglobal.net says...
He is correct that the "stampede toward DI" will forever change the way
movies are made. Some traditional and highly appreciated positions will
become relics of the past, new ones will be created. One is free to hold
nostalgia for the past, but one truly "writes one's own epitaph" by fearing
and denying the future.
It is also easy to see, from Mr Baily's comments about 35mm film, that he
does not often see the film prints and projection conditions that most of
the world sees. . .
Scott Dorsey
>
>He is correct that the "stampede toward DI" will forever change the way
>movies are made. Some traditional and highly appreciated positions will
>become relics of the past, new ones will be created. One is free to hold
>nostalgia for the past, but one truly "writes one's own epitaph" by fearing
>and denying the future.
For the most part, I believe that art is made by one man with a vision.
Art made by committee never works out very well.
The DI allows extremely powerful changes to be made to the image, but
if those changes aren't made by a person with an overriding vision about
what the movie is supposed to be, the end result will not be good.
>It is also easy to see, from Mr Baily's comments about 35mm film, that he
>does not often see the film prints and projection conditions that most of
>the world sees. . .
True, but I don't see DIs or for that matter any digital presentation system
fixing that. The reason projection conditions are so bad is because the
customers are willing to put up with it, and as long as they are willing to
put up with it, they will be bad no matter what technology is employed.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Lincoln Spector
> movies are made. Some traditional and highly appreciated positions will
> become relics of the past, new ones will be created. One is free to hold
> nostalgia for the past, but one truly "writes one's own epitaph" by
> fearing
> and denying the future.
>
> It is also easy to see, from Mr Baily's comments about 35mm film, that he
> does not often see the film prints and projection conditions that most of
> the world sees. . .
horrified about the coming of sound. That was a far more drastic change in
the art of motion pictures than even a total switch to digital. It ended
many careers. It caused major image quality compromises. And yes, cameramen
and even directors complained about how much power the new recording
engineers suddenly had. And yet, most people today, even silent-film fans
like Kevin Brownlow, see it as a necessary part of the art's evolution.
Lincoln
Lincoln Spector
"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:g5e8lf$5i4$1...@panix2.panix.com...
> Airbus <3...@EADS.fr> wrote:
>>
>>He is correct that the "stampede toward DI" will forever change the way
>>movies are made. Some traditional and highly appreciated positions will
>>become relics of the past, new ones will be created. One is free to hold
>>nostalgia for the past, but one truly "writes one's own epitaph" by
>>fearing
>>and denying the future.
>
> For the most part, I believe that art is made by one man with a vision.
> Art made by committee never works out very well.
collaborative. Few films are absolutely controlled by a single
writer/director with final cut privileges. And even those are the product of
many contributing artists.
And getting back to the Bailey article, he's not discussing the director
losing control, but the cinematographer.
Also, if you want to support autorist work, that's what's really going
digital. You have less money you need to make your movie, the more freedom
you have.
Lincoln
Scott Dorsey
>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:g5e8lf$5i4$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>> Airbus <3...@EADS.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>He is correct that the "stampede toward DI" will forever change the way
>>>movies are made. Some traditional and highly appreciated positions will
>>>become relics of the past, new ones will be created. One is free to hold
>>>nostalgia for the past, but one truly "writes one's own epitaph" by
>>>fearing
>>>and denying the future.
>>
>> For the most part, I believe that art is made by one man with a vision.
>> Art made by committee never works out very well.
>
>Then how can you love film as an art form? It is, by its nature,
>collaborative. Few films are absolutely controlled by a single
>writer/director with final cut privileges. And even those are the product of
>many contributing artists.
Because the best films I have seen are controlled by a single writer/director
with a single vision.
Admittedly, some of the worst films I have seen were done that way too, and
I can list some of Lucas' recent productions as an example of what happens
when a single person with a great vision goes wrong.
>And getting back to the Bailey article, he's not discussing the director
>losing control, but the cinematographer.
Who has real control over the look of the film to begin with? I know,
that's a loaded question... and sometimes the answer is nobody.
>Also, if you want to support autorist work, that's what's really going
>digital. You have less money you need to make your movie, the more freedom
>you have.
I think this is a good thing. The problem is that I don't think that
going digital really saves much money in most cases, though it can add
flexibility. But it's true that it's resulted in a lot of fine films
that otherwise may never have been made.
Lincoln Spector
> Lincoln Spector <notm...@address.com> wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" <klu...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>news:g5e8lf$5i4$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>>> Airbus <3...@EADS.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>He is correct that the "stampede toward DI" will forever change the way
>>>>movies are made. Some traditional and highly appreciated positions will
>>>>become relics of the past, new ones will be created. One is free to hold
>>>>nostalgia for the past, but one truly "writes one's own epitaph" by
>>>>fearing
>>>>and denying the future.
>>>
>>> For the most part, I believe that art is made by one man with a vision.
>>> Art made by committee never works out very well.
>>
>>Then how can you love film as an art form? It is, by its nature,
>>collaborative. Few films are absolutely controlled by a single
>>writer/director with final cut privileges. And even those are the product
>>of
>>many contributing artists.
>
> Because the best films I have seen are controlled by a single
> writer/director
> with a single vision.
pretty broad general rule. I certainly consider Casablanca better than Plan
Nine From Outer Space.
But even a film from a strong writer/director is still collaborative (well,
maybe not Chaplin's). Never underestimate the importance of a good cast,
cinemtographer, designer, editor, etc.
>
> Admittedly, some of the worst films I have seen were done that way too,
> and
> I can list some of Lucas' recent productions as an example of what happens
> when a single person with a great vision goes wrong.
The interesting thing about Lucas is that the quality of his work plummetted
when he divorced his wife--film editor Marcia Lucas. I don't think that's a
coincidence.
Speaking of great director's spouses, Hitchcock was also very dependent
creatively on his wife, Alma Reville <sp>, a story editor who worked closely
with all of Hitchcock's many screenwriters. We don't know if his work would
have plummetted had they divorced. Be glad they were Catholic. :-)
>
>>And getting back to the Bailey article, he's not discussing the director
>>losing control, but the cinematographer.
>
> Who has real control over the look of the film to begin with? I know,
> that's a loaded question... and sometimes the answer is nobody.
Usually the person with the money.
>
>>Also, if you want to support autorist work, that's what's really going
>>digital. You have less money you need to make your movie, the more freedom
>>you have.
>
> I think this is a good thing. The problem is that I don't think that
> going digital really saves much money in most cases, though it can add
> flexibility. But it's true that it's resulted in a lot of fine films
> that otherwise may never have been made.
I think it saves a lot for a low-budget movie.
Lincoln
Scott Dorsey
>> writer/director
>> with a single vision.
>
>I agree that, as a general rule, auturist films are better, but that's a
>pretty broad general rule. I certainly consider Casablanca better than Plan
>Nine From Outer Space.
>
>But even a film from a strong writer/director is still collaborative (well,
>maybe not Chaplin's). Never underestimate the importance of a good cast,
>cinemtographer, designer, editor, etc.
Oh, absolutely. And part of the problem is that it takes not only a person
with a vision, but a person with a vision who can communicate that vision to
the rest of the crew and get it across.
>> I can list some of Lucas' recent productions as an example of what happens
>> when a single person with a great vision goes wrong.
>
>The interesting thing about Lucas is that the quality of his work plummetted
>when he divorced his wife--film editor Marcia Lucas. I don't think that's a
>coincidence.
So, what films is SHE working on? Are any of them great?
>> Who has real control over the look of the film to begin with? I know,
>> that's a loaded question... and sometimes the answer is nobody.
>
>Usually the person with the money.
Sadly, the person with the money often doesn't care about the look of the
film these days. Except possibly to make it exactly like the last successful
film.
>> I think this is a good thing. The problem is that I don't think that
>> going digital really saves much money in most cases, though it can add
>> flexibility. But it's true that it's resulted in a lot of fine films
>> that otherwise may never have been made.
>
>I think it saves a lot for a low-budget movie.
I don't know about that... on the low budget end if you shoot film your
whole production revolves around keeping your shooting ratio down. If you
go the digital route you may think you don't have to deal with that, but
there are additional financial benefits to doing so. Also a big deal is
that, in spite of all the hype, it just costs more to light for a format
that has a smaller brightness range. Admittedly with the supply of 16mm
short ends drying up, it's becoming hard to shoot 16mm on the cheap, but
believe it or not I have shot 35mm for less than 16mm would have cost because
of the availability of cheap film.