ASC members were present in five of the juries. The dutiful jurors included Paul Cameron, Stuart Dryburgh, Stephen Goldblatt, Robbie Greenberg, Ed Lachman, Stephen Lighthill, Karl Walter Lindenlaub, Yuri Neyman, Daniel Pearl, Roberto Schaefer and Rodney Taylor.

Main Competition
The Main Competition Frogs for best feature film cinematography were given to a French-Canadian, a French woman and a Kurdish Irani.

Golden Frog
Nicolas Bolduc for his work on the African child soldier story War Witch by Kim Nguyen.

Silver Frog
Caroline Champetier, AFC, for her work on the highly original, surreal film Holy Motors by Leos Carax

Bronze Frog
Touraj Aslani for his work on a poetic story of love and exile: Rhino Season by Bahman Ghobadi.

—

Golden Frog: Nicolas Bolduc – War Witch trailer – watch on YouTube

-

Silver Frog: Caroline Champetier, AFC – Holy Motors trailer – watch on YouTube

-

Bronze Frog: Touraj Aslani – Rhino Season trailer – watch on YouTube

—

Lifetime Achievement Award
The 2012 award went to Vadim Yusov, a Russian cinematographer whose work includes collaborations with director Andrei Tarkovsky on the epic Andrei Rublev and mysterious Solaris.

Cinematographer/Director Duo Award
The collaborative award went to director Gus van Sant and the recently departed Harris Savides, ASC.

Gus van Sant and Harris Savides in a photo from the Camerimage web site

The prize underlines the wonderful collaboration by Savides and van Sant on the director’s stunning “death trilogy”: Gerry, Elephant and Last Days.

Two separate tributes were organized for Harris Savides during the festival, with memories and stories shared by friends and collaborators Gus van Sant, Anthony Dod Mantle, Chris Doyle, Ed Lachman and Jason McCormick.

Award to Editor with Unique Visual Sensitivity
This year’s prize was given to editor Alan Heim, whose credits include Lenny, Network, All That Jazz and The Notebook.

—

Cinematographers’ and Directors’ Debuts Competitions
The two prizes were awarded for the same film, Chaika, to director Miguel Angel Jimenez, and to cinematographer Gorka Gómez Andreu

Polish Film Competition
To Kill a Beaver directed by Jan Jakub Kolski, cinematography by Michał Pakulski

Documentary Feature Competition
Planet of Snail directed & shot by Seung-Jun Yi.

The Jury awarded a Special Mention to Ester Martin Bergsmark and Minka Jakerson for She Male Snails.

Documentary Shorts Competition
No Peace without War directed and shot by Lorenzo Castore & Adam Cohen

The Jury awarded a Special Mention to Jacek Bławut and Paweł Chorzępa for The Loneliness of Sound.

Best Music Video Award
Roger Ballen & Ninja for Die Antwoord’s I Fink U Freeky

Best Cinematography in a Music Video
Matthew J. Lloyd for Flying Lotus’ Until The Quiet Comes

+++

+++

Golden Tadpole winner
The award for best student film was given to Blackstory, directed by Christoph Brunner and Stefan Brunner, with cinematography by Robert Oberrainer from the Institut fur Film und Fersehen Filmakadmie Wien, Austria.

Golden Tadpole: Robert Oberrainer – Blackstory trailer – watch on YouTube

Silver Tadpole winner
Second place went to The Zone by director Lauri Randla, with cinematography by Mikko Kaumunen from the University of Art and Design, Finland.

Bronze Tadpole winner
Third place went to Without Snow directed by Magnus von Horn, with cinematography by Magnus Borge from the Polish Film School in Łódź.

+++

plus Camerimage web site

+++

Here we look at examples from a recent promo he shot for Michelin tires.

+++

tire promo

The two-minute promo, entitled Michelin, the Eyes, was directed by Jean-Marc Gosse for the McCann G Agency in Paris. The promo was shot by two camera units.

Didier Daubeach was the cinematographer for all the ultra high-speed footage, and his colleague Eric Genillier shot the second unit scenes with actors in them. The crew included ACs Marc Stef & Thomas Collard, Gaffers Thierry Baucheron & Benjamin Prevost, and Key Grip Cyril Kunholtz. The video was edited by Christophe Bene. I recommend watching this in HD if your connection speed allows it:

You can also watch this promo on YouTube

+++

cameras, lenses, lights & cars

Didier’s equipment included:
– 1 Photron camera used at 2000 fps
– 1 Red Epic shooting at 50 and 240 fps
– 1 Angénieux Optimo 24-290mm zoom
– 1 set of Zeiss T2.1 lenses
– 1 99K and 1 30K Longstrike light fixtures from Luminys
– 2 Joker 400s from K5600 Lighting

There were three cars, two of which were prepped for a low shot of the tire with the Epic. Didier also used a camera car with an Aerocrane outfitted with a Stab-C stabilizing head for shots of the car on the road.

One of the riggings positioned the Epic facing the tire

+++

slow and ultra slow

Didier shot a range of different speeds: ultra slow at 2000 fps, and slow motion at 240 fps, with a few shots inside the car at 50 fps, including this one of the hand on the steering wheel:

Didier shot the above handheld with the Epic, and his gaffer Thierry Baucheron moved a Joker 400 just outside of frame to create a big flare in the 35mm Zeiss lens. Didier explains that the mild slow-down of 50 fps adds a mellow feeling to the car interior. “The light is moving, but the car isn’t. I just sat next to the driver and shot like I would with a still camera. That’s what I love about the Epic, it’s so compact. We’re shooting at 50 fps, because it’s gentler, less stressful. And the flare adds to the feeling of a peaceful moment.”

The shots of the tire from the Epic rigged on the car were done at 240 fps. Didier comments that he doesn’t like the look of the Epic above that speed. The mixture of ultra slow, slow and half-time speeds gives the commercial its modulated rhythm.

+++

lighting ultra speed

Didier lit the 2000 fps shots of the tire with the 2 Longstrike units, using the 99K to create a big soft source, and the 33K to model the textures of the tire and environment from a side or 3/4 back position. The Longstrike offers a 10 second burst, which is a good match for the 5 second recording buffer of the Photron camera (as described in part 1). Didier chose the fixture because it could provide a big source, and because he knew he could count on having enough power on a gray day, even when he was losing daylight at the end of the shoot.

Didier used the 99K to create a soft frontal source diffused with a 2 by 2 meter frame fitted with special video projection screen material. “To light a car you need a big source. In this kind of shoot you’re going to see the reflection of the source in the subject, so you need to a diffusion that’s very thick and uniform, with no hot spots, because you’re integrating this big rectangle of light into your subject.”

-
The 33K Longstrike source was positioned to give a directional sidelight or 3/4 backlight to model the tire, and also to add an edge to the gravel, water or dust. Didier adds that this light helped to give depth to the image that had a shallow depth of field, because of his long focal length and open aperture. The 33K also provided illumination of the background when the sky was very gray or darkening.

-
Didier comments: “The main problem on most shoots is not technical… It’s time! I like to work simply. In commercials I often combine a strong soft light with a weaker hard light near it. The amount of contrast in the image is then a matter of taste, which depends of course on the director.”

+++

the hero shot

Every good commercial has its hero shot, the shot that highlights the product in a memorable way. Here it is clearly the shot of twirling strands of water clinging to the rotating tire; we repeated it in the clip below to allow you to see it more closely:

You can also watch this hero shot on YouTube

Didier recalls that shooting the promo required a mixture of genres. “The client told us ‘I want an incredible movie about our tire’. When we went too artistic, the client would bring us back to realism, but he let us do some dreamy and poetic stuff, like the water shot. You need to mix the realism with these dreamy moments. At the same time you have to cheat the realism to show certain phenomena; we took air out of the tire to show its shape changing with the curb, and we cut off the ABS system to see the braking better.”

+++

time to see

Didier concludes by stressing that ultra high speed cinematography requires even more attention to detail than regular speed, because the shots are often lengthy. “With these high speeds you need time to read the image. A shot can last 5 seconds or more. So you have time to see everything, including what’s good or bad in the image. In a way it becomes like a photograph, like an animated photograph.”

+++

links

Ultra High-speed Cinematography part 1

Didier Daubeach’s web page

Photron camera

Red Epic

Lightning Strikes Longstrike lights from Luminys

K5600 Lighting Joker Bug 400

A frame from the promo shot at 2000 fps

+++

My sincere condolences to his family.

—

“You shouldn’t see the photography in the film.”
Harris Savides in Interview.

Harris was a pure artist, and a gentle bear of a man, intelligent, considerate and humble. He was universally admired by his peers, and sought out by top filmmakers including Gus van Sant, David Fincher, Ridley Scott and Sofia Coppola.

He is known for having said that he lit spaces, not people. I think we can say instead that Harris created ambiances for the actors to live in. He succeeded in suffusing entire films with luminous moods that were present but invisible, like perfume.

The 3 images above evoke some of Harris’ accomplishments. He was among the first cinematographers to pioneer digital capture, with the brilliant Zodiac. The soft naturalism of Somewhere helps to give the film its light, nostalgic tone. My own favorite is Last Days, which is filled with bleak moments of understated beauty.

Harris’ feature credits include:

The Yards
Gerry
Elephant
Last Days
Milk
The Game
Zodiac
American Gangster
Somewhere
and the upcoming The Bling Ring.

Harris also lit notable music videos for Madonna and REM.

May God bless his soul.

+++

This failed interview shot 3 years ago at the Chateau Marmont is funny and poignant…

An Attempted Interview with: Harris Savides
Interview by Kahlil Joseph. Photographed by Matt Lloyd.

You can also watch this on YouTube

+++

Links

NY Times Harris Savides, Visual Poet, Dies at 55

Moving Image Source’s interview with Harris as part of That 70s Look

Interview Harris Savides

Filmmaker The Toenail of the Curve: Remembering Harris Savides

The Guardian Harris Savides obituary

LA Times Harris Savides dies at 55; cinematographer on ‘Zodiac’ and ‘Milk

Indiewire In Remembrance of Harris Savides: 1957-2012 | Press Play

Slate The Beautiful Cinematography of Harris Savides

The Hollywood Reporter Cinematographer Harris Savides Dies at 55

+++

Everybody Hurts a video shot by Harris for REM

+++

+++

Didier Daubeach is a French cinematographer who is a specialist in high-speed cinematography. Didier has worked on commercials with prestigious products like Dior, Louis Vuitton, Mercedes, Renault, Michelin, L’oréal, Orange, Siemens, Canal+, Ricard, Bacardi, Kit Kat, McDonald’s, Pepsi, Coca-Cola…

+++

ultra vs normal

As a viewer, I distinguish 2 different kinds of slow motion: normal and ultra. With normal slow motion you’re seeing something you normally perceive, only slower. This is true of many modern shoot out sequences. You know, the scene where our hero dives beneath a hail of bullets while glass windows shatter around him. This used to be shot at 150 fps in 35mm film, but with the Red Epic, filmmakers can shoot 2K at 300 fps without switching cameras.

Around 500 or 1000 fps, depending on the subject matter, slow motion crosses the border from normal to ultra, which I define as showing something you can’t perceive. Ultra slow motion reveals a new temporal viewpoint. “You can see the invisible, says Didier. You discover things that are hidden from your normal gaze in physical phenomena, and that’s truly fascinating. There’s a real poetry that comes out of what we don’t see, that comes from freezing time.”

Didier gives an example from a spec commercial for Fillico bottled water that he lit and directed . Watch for the ball of water in mid-air, a good example of the invisible phenomena revealed by ultra high-speed photography. There are two links to the clip, one with audio from Didier’s web site, and a higher-res version without audio:

—
Same video in better definition on YouTube
(but without audio)

+++

cameras

High-speed cinematography requires special cameras. Didier reminds me that with 35mm film, the high speed reference was the Arri III, and then the Arri 435 which could shoot at 150 fps. Photosonics also provided up to 3250 fps cameras with rotating prisms, in 16mm, 35mm and even 70mm. Photosonics shoots were complex affairs that burned a lot of film.

High-speed was revolutionized by the advent of digital cameras, which gave filmmakers instant feedback, and brought the ultra slow motion look into the mainstream. The most common very high speed digital camera is the Phantom, and it is increasingly used on feature films, in addition to commercials. Didier shoots with a comparable, less well-known camera, the Photron, which can deliver 2000 frames per second in 2K or HD resolution. The Photron can also record higher speeds, but at lower resolution, for example 5000 images per second at 1024 x 720 resolution.

the trigger

The first obvious difference about shooting high-speed is the trigger. Digital high speed cameras contain image buffers that are continually replenished while the camera is running, and then frozen when triggered. In the case of the Photron you get a little more than 5 seconds of real time at 2000 fps. The operator has to push a button to define either the beginning, the middle or the end of that 5 second interval. So the director gets to say “Start” or “Cut” but not both. “The trigger, says Didier, is usually set for the end. For example with things falling, it’s often the impact that interest you, the corolla, rather than the object itself.”

what speed?

Novice high-speeders often ask Didier what speed they should select for different shots. He smiles and explains: “once they’ve seen 2000 fps, most people will stay with that for the shoot.” While 2000 fps is sufficient for many falling liquids and objects, some phenomena require more. The balloon below was shot at 5000 fps. “The best explosions are at 10 000 fps” Didier adds, adding that “it’s very difficult to get a bullet without motion blur.”

+++

water balloon

To get a closer look at the water balloons, we repeated the various bursts in this clip. The first shot of the black water balloon bursting on a black floor was filmed at 5000 fps at a reduced resolution of 1024 by 720 pixels.
—

“There are 3 ways, explains Didier, to burst a water balloon: with a sharp object, by shooting a BB gun or with a detonator inside the balloon. And each impact is different.” The clip includes examples of the first two: the balloon in mid-air is shot with a BB gun. “The rubber of the balloon disappears faster than gravity.”

“When you’re shooting high-speed, the problem is usually the exposure. This shot was the hardest configuration for the camera: a black balloon bursting on black plexiglass. But this dark setting allows you to see the water better. After impact, you get a tidal wave effect, because the water is constrained by the ground.” For lighting, Didier used an HMI 18K through full 216 diffusion as a frontal key, with 4 6Ks PARs on the sides, to give a sparkle to the billowing water. “I always try to use diffused lighting, says he, to minimize bright spots in the image.”

flying woman

There are several shots in the spec commercial of a woman in mid-air, which we’ve gathered in this clip:

How do you make a woman fly? Filmmakers often use wires at normal speed, but for high-speed you only need a moment in mid-air, so Didier likes to use a trampoline. Before shooting, the actress had several training sessions on a trampoline, so that she could perform easily on the day of the shoot. Didier shot the first shot at 1000 fps, the other shots were at 2000 fps. As you can see one of the takes is played upside down.

+++

lighting different speeds

The spec commercial also contains relatively low speed shots, like the wide shot of the woman twirling in a room full of black balloons, shot at 50 fps. Didier wanted to “mix different rhythms. The hardest thing for me is to match the lighting between 2000 fps and 25 fps. When you go from one speed to the other, you usually have to change all the lighting. There are other techniques, like playing with the shutter or adding ND, if you can’t find other solutions. Also you tend to light differently for 2000 fps where you’re focusing on action, then at 50 fps where you’re dealing with the emotion of a face, for example. You’re not going to get the emotion you want if you stick an 18K in someone’s face!”

Didier rates the Photron at 800 ISO with a 180 degree shutter, or 1600 ISO with a 360 degree shutter. “I mostly shoot with a 360 degree shutter, unless there’s something going very very fast, and I want to avoid motion blur.” Didier explains that there is a huge exposure difference between 25 fps and 2000 fps: “each doubling of the fps is 1 stop, but actually 25 fps at 180 is equivalent to 50 fps at 360 degrees. So the jump from 25 fps to 1600 is actually about 5 stops, a little more for 2000 fps.”

Didier acknowledges that he often shoots with a wide open aperture. “If you’re at T2 on a wide shot, it looks nice to have a reduced depth of field. It’s aesthetically pleasing because you’re separating the character from the background, which looks cinematic. But if you’re doing a close-up on a product or an object that won’t work as well. Especially when you’re using a macro lens, a very narrow depth of field can be a problem. So you’ll need to close down to T5.6, T8 or even T11, at 2000 fps the lighting can get very difficult.”

+++

We end part 1 with this lighting challenge. In part 2, Didier will give us detailed example of ultra high-speed photography involving tires and water…

+++

links

PART 2

Didier Daubeach’s web page

Photron camera

Vision Research, makers of the Phantom camera

+++

+++

I asked them about the cinematographer’s transition to 3D, and as you will see, Cameron is particularly vocal on the subject.

+++

Vince Pace and James Cameron have been pioneering digital 3D filmmaking for a dozen years, starting with a focus on underwater movies, and culminating in the landmark 3D feature, Avatar. Pace is a cinematographer, stereographer and 3D maven. Cameron’s other directing credits include Terminator, The Abyss, True Lies and Titanic. Cameron also recently set the world record for solo deep sea diving.

+++

+++

Some notes on the interview:

lighting is lighting

The contemporary filmmaker’s landscape is evolving into a mélange of 2D, 3D and virtual. Indeed some projects are dominated by green screens, and a few films even involve no real world elements at all, just virtual camera moves following actors in motion capture suits, (a situation that is wonderfully ridiculed in Leos Carax’ Holy Motors).

Perhaps Cameron’s most memorable point is that, even in a virtual movie, the filmmaker still needs a cinematographer who will apply the very same lighting skills he does in the real world. “Lighting, says Cameron, is lighting”.

It is in this spirit that Roger Deakins, ASC, served as visual consultant on the animation features How to Train Your Dragon and Rango.

I shall return to the intriguing subject of virtual cinematography in more detail in a future post.

+++

double jump

Cameron reminds us that for a cinematographer to make the transition from 35mm to 3D stereography requires a double jump: first to digital, and then to 3D, and he points out that 2011 was the year for single or double jumps for some very talented cinematographers.

The ASC jumpers include Emmanuel Lubezki, whose first digital feature, Gravity will be converted to 3D in post, Roger Deakins, who did his first digital 2D shoot, In Time, and Robert Richardson, who double-jumped with Hugo, and won an Oscar for best cinematography. Vince Pace assisted the Hugo filmmakers in exploring 3D stereo.

It’s equally daunting for a director to venture into stereographic storytelling, and this past year’s 3D novices include some big names like Peter Jackson (The Hobbit), Ang Lee (Life of Pi), Martin Scorsese (Hugo), Ridley Scott (Prometheus) and Wim Wenders (Pina).

Cameron and Pace see this trend as part of an inexorable evolution to an all-3D future. I’m not so sure; it is natural for a filmmaker to explore 3D and try it on a project. The real question is how many of these filmmakers will shoot nothing but 3D, as opposed to jumping back and forth between 2D and 3D. My own intuition is that 3D stereo is destined to become a genre, one storytelling possibility among many, until we make real progress in holography.

+++

change it up

Cameron provocatively asserts that one can learn the essentials of 3D in a couple of days, and he brushes aside the different schools of 3D stereography, saying that he and Pace have used both convergent and parallel approaches, and that he disapproves of “3D cops”.

The director humorously evokes the council of Nicea, a 4th century gathering of christian bishops to define religious dogma, stating that the 3D world needs a similar meeting of minds.

I came away from our discussion with the impression of a very practical, hands-on approach to 3D stereo, with no taboos. As Pace concludes simply: “if you like it, do more; if you don’t, change it up”.

+++

links

Vince Pace discusses Hugo in a Hollywood Reporter article

The Guardian article about Cameron’s upcoming production of 3 Avatar sequels back to back.

Roger Deakins discusses Rango on his forum

+++

Vince Pace and James Cameron have been pioneering digital 3D filmmaking for a dozen years, starting with a focus on underwater movies, and culminating in the landmark 3D feature, Avatar. Pace is a cinematographer, stereographer and 3D maven. Cameron’s other directing credits include Terminator, The Abyss, True Lies and Titanic.

+++

3D mission

It’s fair to say that Avatar, the biggest grossing film of all times, accelerated the worldwide change-over to digital projection, as theater owners scrambled to get the revenue increase from 3D features.

Cameron and Pace are now on a mission to accelerate what they see as an inevitable transition to all-3D broadcast and film production. Cameron has noted that it was the introduction of color television that marked the end of black and white films. Similarly, he reasons that when most home screens are 3D, movies will necessarily follow suit.

The pair of filmmakers founded the Cameron Pace Group, a company that offers 3D services to filmmakers and broadcasters, and sports and performance events like the Cirque du Soleil. Cameron was quoted in the Hollywood Reporter as saying “our strategic plan is to make 3D ubiquitous over the next five to 10 years on all platforms”.

True to its mission, the Cameron Pace Group has helped many prominent filmmakers make their first 3D film, and the company’s credits include an impressive number of big 3D features including Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Transformers 3, The Three Musketeers, Hugo and The Life of Pi.

+++

rigs and cameras too

For the movies cited above, the Cameron Pace Group provided their proprietary 3D Fusion Rigs, along with their workflow expertise, while the cameras came from rental houses.

Recently Cameron and Pace made headlines when they announced that they will be buying dozens of Epic and Alexa M cameras, in special deals with Red and Arri. Red head Jim Jannard stated that they were buying 50 Epics, while Arri confirmed that the Cameron Pace Group will be receiving the first batch of Alexa Ms ahead of everyone else.

I begin the video interview by asking the two about their choice of cameras.

Watch in separate window

+++
A few notes on the interview:

small cameras

Cameron stresses that a small camera is a must for 3D work. Many 3D camera systems are a step back to the old “refrigerator-sized” cameras of the 1950s. On some productions these bulky camera systems spend most of the time on a crane, because it’s easier to move them that way, and Steadicam operators have had a tough time, especially when carrying 2 Alexas. As illustrated above, the Epic is currently much smaller than the Alexa, but the Alexa M should help shrink the camera system to “hotel mini-bar” size.

I first met Vince Pace ten years ago at Panavision in Paris, where he prepped cameras for an underwater film that he shot called Expedition Bismark. At that time Vince was working with Sony 950 “T Cams”, an innovative compact design that separated the small sensor block from the electronics. Last year Arri introduced a similar idea with the Alexa M.

As Cameron notes in the interview, there is considerable brand loyalty to Arri and Red, and for the moment the Alexa M and Epic have emerged as the cameras of choice for 3D feature films.

+++

workflow provider

As Cameron and Pace point out, shooting 3D, and more generally shooting digital, is changing what happens on the set. The cloning of original files and the creation of dailies are now done on set (or more often “near set“). In addition there is an increasing need to transmit meta-data — ranging from color choices and lens settings to camera positions and movements — to VFX, editorial and post houses. On Hugo for example, the filmmakers were able to see pre-visualization images with virtual elements keyed into the live action during the take. As Cameron puts it, “the lab is on the stage”.

This raises the question of who will provide these new near-set workflow services. Will it be the camera rental house, the post house, the production itself or a third party? The vision of the Cameron Pace Group is to have one company provide cameras, rigs and workflow solutions “from slate to screen”.

One thing is clear, filmmakers need to decide who will design and manage their digital workflow, and who will provide the tools for doing so on the set. And equipment rental and post houses need to adapt to new on-set tasks. There will not be a single solution for every production. Small films have different needs than big budget ones. Wim Wenders sought out two stereo 3D specialists to help shoot Pina, while Peter Jackson’s production clearly needs no outside help shooting The Hobbit in 3D with 30 Epics.

+++

evolving tools

One important thing to take away from this interview is that 3D filmmaking is far from set in stone. As Cameron warns, today’s 3D rig may be tomorrow’s giant paperweight. Like all digital cinema technology, 3D tools and techniques are evolving rapidly. While I am not sure that the future will be all-3D, we are fortunate indeed to have passionate pioneers like James Cameron and Vince Pace to help us invent the future of cinema.

+++

links

James Cameron Wikipedia article

Vince Pace bio

What is truly revolutionary about Avatar on thefilmbook

Hollywood Reporter article announcing the Cameron Pace venture

Cameron Pace Group web site

Jim Jannard’s thread about Cameron will buy 50 Epics

Arri video about the Cameron Pace Alexa M partnership

+++

Part 2 of the interview with Cameron and Pace will discuss the 3D transition for the cinematographer.

In my first post about the Gokinema 3D Workshop I attended in Sweden, I noted a few basics concepts: edge violation, screen distance and IA (inter-axial), to complement my article in the November issue of American Cinematographer

I now share two of the simple tests we shot to evaluate the look of distant 3D backgrounds, which I call faraway for short. When watching 3D movies I have often been struck by how objects at distances of more than a hundred meters have a different quality, often lacking the depth we perceive with our eyes. Geoff Boyle‘s 3D workshop in Gothenburg was a great opportunity to begin exploring the faraway image.

Once again, if you don’t already own some, I heartily encourage you to obtain a pair of cyan red cardboard glasses. And once again, I must stress that I am just a student of 3D, not an expert.

+++

Thomas Harbers assisted Geoff Boyle with the course, providing post-production for the 3D footage we shot.

Thomas is a man of many talents: in addition to 3D production and post services, he also does CAD and invents gear; his latest offering is DasRekorder, a file-based recorder for 3D video streams. Thomas kindly prepared the anaglyph movies from the workshop for this post.

+++

faraway flatness

The YouTube icon below displays the separate left and right views, once you click the play arrow, the video will combine them in an anaglyph.
I recommend looking at this full screen.

In case of playback problems, try viewing here

We shot this scene converged with 2 small SI-2K cameras mounted on a Stereotek rig, using 16mm Zeiss Ultra Primes. The point of conversion was about 10 meters, the nearest distance to the incoming boat. There is a HIT of 0%, in other words Thomas left the images as is. (Note that the bottom-screen info is wrong).

This footage illustrates how faraway objects in stereo 3D often look flattened. The bridge in the distance almost looks like a painted backing, except for the moving cars.

(click for larger image in separate window)

The flattening effect is most noticeable to me when the incoming boat is seen in front of the bigger vessels behind it. The foreground ferry’s volume makes the background ships seem that much flatter.

(click for larger image in separate window)

Thomas comments that “this is an impossible shot, you can’t make both the distant objects and the close objects look good”. The lesson here is that it’s the combination of deep nearby and flat faraway objects that doesn’t work.

Stereographers will point out that our perception of depth disappears with distance, yet the flattened faraway here still seems unnatural to my eye. You can give distant objects a little more depth by increasing the IA (interaxial distance), with the risk of miniaturization — seeing the world through a giant’s eyes. Here we used an IA of almost a meter, and we didn’t notice any miniaturization. Next time I’d like to try IAs of 5 or 10 meters, to see how much depth we could give the faraway boats or bridge. As Thomas points out however, a huge IA could make the nearby objects look unnatural.

Another lesson in this test is that receding lines and volumes, like the pier at the beginning, help the perception of 3D, by giving us a continuous transition between nearby and faraway objects.

Note also the edge violation at the beginning, with the pier popping out of the screen.

AC Chiel van Dongen with the SI 2Ks on the Stereotec rig, before we increased the IA.
(click for larger image in separate window)

And if you’re wondering, yes, the Gothenburg harbor was COLD!

+++

faraway softness

In case of playback problems, try viewing here

Most stereographers will recommend shooting with a big depth of field to get good stereo 3D. So naturally I wanted to see what a very shallow depth of field looked like in 3D. We shot this with 2 Alexas on a Quasar rig, closing the shutter to allow us to open the iris all the way.

I really like the way this test looks. In my opinion this effect would work well for some stories or scenes. In a sense, the soft focus background helps make the flattening of the distant buildings less noticeable… and more pleasing to my eye. Low depth of field could be one way of blending deep nearby objects and flat faraway backgrounds. Post specialist Cedric Lejeune cautions that very soft focus could prove hard for both eyes to fuse when seen on a large screen.

(click for larger image in separate window)

+++

big rig

Before we went outside Yke Erkens from Camalot in Amsterdam showed us the Element Technica Quasar rig loaded with 2 Alexas and a Transvideo stereo monitor

Yke and Chiel wrap their Quasar rig across the treacherous icy path
(click for larger images in separate window)

+++

links

greenpost Thomas Harbers’ bilingual site — an eu domain
GoKinema 2012 will reprise workshops and master classes for filmmakers
My first post about the 3D workshop: egdes, screen, IA…

All photos by Benjamin B

+++

Your comments & corrections are most welcome. I’d love to hear of opinions or experiences shooting stereo 3D with distant objects, or shallow depth of field…

+++

I wanted to offer some 3D images and notes from the workshop to complement the article, and raise some 3D topics. I must emphasize that I am still a student of 3D. I do not pretend to be a 3D expert, rather I propose to share my notes and questions on the subject, as I “deepen” my knowledge. Please do not hesitate to give me your corrections and explanations.

+++

Geoff Boyle showing us 2 Alexas on a P+S Technik Freestyle Rig

+++

anaglyph glasses

I now believe that anyone interested in cinematography should own a pair of Red/Cyan anaglyph 3D glasses. I got mine for free at a trade show, but one can also order some on the internet (check the links below). The Greek etymology is ana + glyph, to carve upon. The word originally referred to low relief sculptures with a slight offset between background and foreground. Anaglyph 3D also has a slight offset, a horizontal shift between the red and the cyan images.

It is in this spirit that I will offer some anaglyph images from the workshop to complement my article.

If you don’t have glasses, I would like to convince you to get some soon, and in the meantime, you can analyze anaglyph images sans glasses, like many stereographers do on the set. They do so because viewing anaglyph with glasses quickly tires your eyes, however you can still get a quick visual indication without glasses of the amount of depth from the thickness of the red or cyan offset.

+++

colored edges

During the workshop, I shot the image below with a P+S Technik Freestyle rig on my shoulder — with two tiny SI-2K cameras. Let’s start looking at the anaglyph image without glasses. (You might want to click on the image to see a bigger size in a separate browser window). Look for the colored edges. If there are no colored edges, the image is the same for each eye and the object position is on the screen, just like all the objects in a 2D movie.

Objects with red and cyan edges are either behind or in front of the screen: the larger the colored edge, the greater the distance from the screen. This edge is sometimes measured as a percentage of the total screen. During the workshop, Geoff Boyle once positioned a 1 cm piece of tape on our 1 meter screen, saying “here is a 1% reference”. We also used the built-in grids of our Transvideo monitors to display percentage offsets.

click on any image for closer view

edge violation

Let’s put on the glasses. When I look at a 3D images with my glasses on, I sometimes get confused about where the screen plane is. One way is to hold your hand out and point your finger sideways at where you think the screen is. You can also move your mouse cursor around. In both cases you’ll probably end up finding the screen position halfway up the ramp.

During the workshop, Geoff discussed what is sometimes called “edge violation“. This happens when an object that is in front of the screen intersects the edge of the frame. This creates what a friend of mine used to call “cognitive dissonance”.

In this image, the bottom of the ramp seems to be in front of the screen until you look at the edge, and then it pops behind. This is because we suddenly see the ramp blocked by the screen edge, and our brain tells us the ramp is therefore behind the frame line. You will get a similar disquieting impression of the ramp popping in front of and behind the screen when you slide your mouse cursor near the bottom of the ramp.

+++

screen distance

With a computer screen, you can easily notice how the perceived depth changes with distance from the screen. Move your head very close to the screen and the image appears to get squashed; move your head far away and the image seems to stretch out.

For the geometrically-inclined this depth change is well explained by David Romeuf here. Romeuf argues that there is an “ideal observer distance” for 3D. (This is also addressed by 3D supervisor François Garnier in my article on Pina).

+++

permanent IA

The mantra for the workshop was: “you can’t change IA in post”. IA stands for the interaxial distance, the distance between the 2 camera lenses. IA defines the amount of depth you will have. An IA of zero, with 2 identical images, is equivalent to 2D: there is no depth because all the objects are on the screen. The bigger the IA the bigger the distance between the closest and farthest object in the scene. Geoff illustrated this with some computer simulated slides:

These slides simulate shooting parallel (as opposed to converged), and then using a HIT (horizontal image transform) to align the images from the 2 cameras on the woman in front, which takes more pixels for bigger IAs. The 2 things I noted here are:
1. Varying the IA significantly changes the over-all depth
2. Although you can’t change IA in post, you can, and often do, change the screen position

Geoff discussed 2 possible IA issues:
1. Medical IA. Too much depth can sometimes hurt your eyes by forcing them to diverge. According to Geoff you don’t want to go too much more than 3% total HIT.
2. Human IA. The average accepted value for the distance between our eyes is 65 millimeters (2.5 inches). If you go very wide, you may see the world through the eyes of a giant, and things can appear unnaturally small. Inversely, a very small IA may give you a mouse’s view of the world. That’s the theory, but we didn’t often notice this phenomenon during the workshop.

+++

That’s it for now. I’ll do a second post with a few more images soon.
Thanks to Geoff and Thomas for supplying the images.

Your 3D comments & corrections are most welcome!

+++

links

Anaglyph glasses
The cheapest supplier I found for cardboard glasses offers 10 pairs for 10 dollars, as opposed to 50 pairs for 20 dollars which is the more common offering.
www.studio3d.com
www.rainbowsymphonystore.com

Gothenburg Film Studios Workshops

My next post about this topic is
3D Workshop: Faraway Flatness, Faraway Softness

+++

I must add that PINA is a true 3D masterpiece that combines the cinematic and dance art forms in a powerful, poetic and moving film.

click on images for closer view

+++

emotion

Benjamin B: Can you talk about the emotional impact of Pina’s work on you?

Wim Wenders: I was totally overwhelmed when I saw a piece of Pina Bausch for the first time. Nothing had prepared me for it. I didn’t care much about dance, I must admit. I didn’t think that was for me, or concerned me in any way. My girl friend at the time had to drag me into the theatre to see CAFÉ MÜLLER. And then I found myself on the edge of my seat, after 10 minutes, crying, and finally weeping through the entire performance. What I saw on stage touched me more than anything I had ever seen. It went deep into my heart and really shook me to the bone. This (to me yet unknown) woman by the name of Pina Bausch was showing me more about men and women than the entire history of cinema had done, and all that without a WORD! I was eager to see more, and could not get enough of Pina’s work. (Luckily, there were already 20 pieces at the time!) She had created a new art form, indeed, that didn’t owe much to neither conventional dance nor theatre…

You see, as a film director I fancied I knew something about the language of our bodies. We deal with actors, sometimes famous ones, we often tell them what to do, we sometimes correct them. And after all, the actor’s “presence”, that magic thing some of them have to appeal to the camera, what else is it than their body language? So, in my profession, we think we are experts in that. And then you see the work of Pina Bausch, and you realize: we are all analphabets of that language, we know little or nothing in relation to Pina about how to decipher that most fundamental language on Earth.

I have known Pina (and her work) for over 20 years, and I cannot possibly grasp how much that encounter influenced me. A couple of years after I saw her work for the first time I made Wings of Desire. Which is probably the most “choreographed” film I ever made, and which certainly owes a lot to Pina. (More on subconscious levels, I guess, than on any obvious first-hand “inspiration”.)

BB: Is there a scene in PINA that you particularly liked directing and why?

WW: Yes, one little moment. It is a quote from the piece TEN CHI … An older man is carrying his daughter on his back. He walks leaned over, like carrying a big load, and she is cuddled on his back like a baby. And then he stops and she glides down from his back. And then the unimaginable happens: she bends down, and her father climbs onto her back and also turns into a baby, and she carries him for a stretch of the path. And then she stops and they change parts again. Father and daughter cross the entire stage like this…

We shot this outdoors, and I was looking for the longest time for the ideal place for this little scene, until I found a location, in an industrial area near Wuppertal, that looked like a moonscape. I have seen this father and daughter movement countless times, on stage, and then in the editing room of course, but even now, in the finished film, I get goose-pimples when I see it…

+++

presence

BB: How do you feel about placing people or objects in front of the screen? Can you give an example from the film?

WW: Hard to give ONE example. In 3D there is this whole new aspect to consider: where to you place your characters in space? Are they on the screen level, or behind, or before it? That question appears with every shot. You have to organize the entire depth of the space you have available. In a way that’s the basic work in 3D that you expect, also from watching other 3D films. What really hit me more during the shoot, a whole new experience, was that the actors’ bodies themselves appears so differently.

All of a sudden, these bodies have VOLUME. They are round, and voluptuous, no longer flat surfaces as they have always been on the screen. That presence of the body has surprised me most, more than depth and space as such. And in a way, I felt we were on new territory here with PINA, as the dancers and that incredibly physical work they are doing were the main subject of the film. There was a phenomenal affinity between 3D and our subject. They both brought out the best in each other. Not only was 3D perfect to represent dance, dance also really brought out the essence of 3D, it felt.

BB: Can you talk about how 3D conveys the presence of performers differently than 2D? Is there a shot that comes to mind?

WW: The most simple shot of the film was the most striking one in that regard. It was a recurring set-up, some sort of a “silent portrait” that we made with each of the dancers, over a longer shooting period. They each sat in front of the camera, as if it was a sitting for a painter, or photographer, eventually directing their look straight into the lens. I always sent the entire crew away, when the stereo cameras were running, so I was alone with each of the actors/dancers, and we would have a really intimate situation. I sat behind the rig with our TRANSVIDEO monitor on my lap, so I became invisible for the person in front of the cameras, while I could watch in 3D what we were shooting. So there was just a person sitting in front of a three-dimensional camera, and I was watching a live feed on a monitor.

I tell you: it blew my mind! This was the most exciting thing in my 3D experience, I felt, far more compelling than huge crane shots with hundreds of camera positions and a complex choreography. The presence of that person on my 3D monitor was breathtaking. It really felt, for the first time, as if I could actually touch the dancers. There was an aura around them I had never experienced in cinema before. They were THERE is an ever before unseen way! We could use the entire little space – the person on a chair with a wall a feet behind them – for our stereographic representation. There was nothing “spectacular” about the whole thing, only that the very presence of a human being was utterly spectacular in itself. The face was a real landscape, the body had volume and roundness, “weight”… I cant even put it in words why this was so thrilling and extraordinary. The “reality” of the body, the “existential truth” of this representation, the very miracle of a human being alive not only in front of the camera but also captured absolutely “live-like” by this new medium… it struck me each time we did this shot (and I went through the experience each time anew) that this was, indeed, the future of filmmaking, especially of documentary filmmaking.

You always say that great actors have that special “presence” in front of the camera, but here was an even more magnified presence. You can only guess how this would be filled by a great actor in a story that would actually USE this potential of 3D and not just treat the new language as a production value in itself. The real attraction of 3D is how people can appear in this new space! I have just not seen that yet in a movie. 3D movies are all about themselves, it seems to me, all self-fulfilling prophecies. There was only one masterpiece in the genre so far, and that was Avatar. Ever since I wait for a film that would incorporate 3D with all its new possibilities for storytelling.

+++

wide

BB: How does 3D change your mise en scène ?

WW: What changed most for my own approach to filmmaking and directing was the use of lenses. The use of a wide angle, let’s say a 24mm lens for a huge wide shot (if we are talking 35mm film lenses) or a 32 to 38 for a medium wide shot, or a 50-65 for a close-up, or an 135 for a tight close-up… As a film director (like most of my colleagues) I have that in my blood, I “think” in set-ups and focal lengths that go with it.

That just didn’t work for me in 3D. I soon realized that the ideal lens for a 3D shoot was the one that came as close as possible to our human eye and its angle of perception. For our SONY 1500 cameras that became a set of 10mm Zeiss prime lenses, and we shot the entire film with that focal length, with the exception of very few closer shots that we did on a 14mm. (Which is still relatively wide.) I just thought that changing lenses did some harm to the stereographic perception. If you changed focal length when going from a wider shot to a closer one the entire space would be compressed. I experienced that as unpleasant when I made the first cuts in 3D and started to refrain from changing lenses. We would just go closer or wider with the camera, this way respecting as much as possible a 3D approach that was as “physiologically correct” as possible.

+++

future

BB: What do you think is the future of 3D for features and documentaries?

WW: There is no future if the new medium isn’t done more justice soon! If the studios keep producing trash with it, strictly action-based roller-coaster rides, the medium will collapse. It can do so much more!!! I can’t wait to see filmmakers, independent directors and authors and documentary crews take up 3D, make the best out of it and use it finally to its full potential. Stories that are “space adventures”, not in outer space, but on our own planet. Intimate stories of real people, not just of fantasy characters! I can’t wait to see the first round of documentaries exploring the new three-dimensional language to its max, taking us into the lives and the work of people in ways that we have never seen before. THEN 3D has a brilliant future, then it is a change comparable to the step from silent movies to sound!

BB: How about you personally, which kind of projects would you like to shoot in 3D or 2D in the future?

WW: I have done a couple of short films since PINA, documentary-style, or as an installation for the Architecture Biennale in Venice. I am working with a writer on a feature film that could be shot in 3D, an intimate story that would have the “affinity” to 3D that I mentioned before. I am also very tempted to shoot another feature-length documentary in 3D, with a very small crew, travelling a lot and filming in remote places. I’m really addicted to 3D, I must say. Very hard to return to conventional flat screens once you have tasted the thrill of a three-dimensional shoot.

+++

+++

Links

September 2011 Preview of American Cinematographer. You can read my PINA article on pages 44 to 55.
(If you are a subscriber you can download the entire issue).

Berlinale Podcast by my colleague Iain Stasukevich. Iain did thoughtful interviews of Wenders, Guy Maddin and Wojcieszek at the Berlin Film Festival.

Wim Wenders’ official web site

Wikipedia article on Pina Bausch

+++

Photos by Donatella Wenders, courtesy of Road Movies

+++

Scene in Stills is an extension of the work on scenes in my book Reflections, 21 Cinematographers at Work, published by the ASC Press.

I start with a scene from one of the most perfect films ever made, Rear Window (1962) by Alfred Hitchcock, starring James Stewart, Grace Kelly and Thelma Ritter, with cinematography by Robert Burks, ASC. Burks collaborated on 12 films with the legendary director, using his friend Leonard J. South, ASC, as camera operator.

Robert Burks was nominated for an Oscar for the wonderful Technicolor cinematography of Rear Window.

+++

How do you introduce an important character? Every story has to. In Rear Window, it goes like this, about 15 minutes into the movie:

The scene

The camera moves across the courtyard buildings at dusk, a singer is doing scales, windows light up, the camera moves into our hero’s darkened apartment, he is asleep, a shadow crosses his face…

A brief shadow that indicates danger…

We cut to
a point of view (POV) of a beautiful woman moving towards camera in the silence of the room. Our shadowed hero opens his eyes, seems briefly concerned, then smiles. We cut back to his POV as the woman approaches, getting very close to camera.

We cut to a side shot of 2 close-up profiles. She moves in and kisses him. Then comes a whispered dialogue between the two close faces, punctuated by a final short kiss:

LISA: How’s your leg?
JEFF: Hurts a little.
LISA: Your stomach?
JEFF: Empty as a football.
LISA: And your love life?
JEFF: Not too active.
LISA: Anything else bothering you?
JEFF: Uh-huh, who are you?

This intimate shot lasts 30 seconds, an eternity, then she moves out of frame and the camera pulls back to a looser shot of him.
We cut to follow her as she turns on one, two, three lamps to light up the room, and we see more and more of her, ending with a full figure shot of her in an elegant dress.

LISA: Reading from top to bottom…
Lisa…
Carol…
Freemont

+++

Foreshadowing

Grace Kelly’s character, Lisa, has been introduced in a sequence that has taken all of 1 minute 20 seconds, full of the Hitchcockian motif of shadows and light.

The audience has already heard of Lisa Freemont before meeting her. In the sequence just before this one, Jeff has admitted to his nurse, played by Thelma Ritter, that he does not want to marry Lisa, that she is too perfect.

So Hitchcock has already succeeded in building up a certain anticipation. The audience would like to meet this Lisa who is "too perfect". This kind of foreshadowing is pure Hitchcock, another form of suspense. Looking at moments of the scene is detail, it becomes clear that this scene also prefigures both the form and the content of the film’s ending.

+++

POV portrait

Burks’ first POV portrait of Lisa is beautifully moody. Lisa is keyed from the right with a strong frontal fill to soften the face shadows. Bright panes on the dark wall motivate the lighting in the room, evoking a streetlamp outside. The image feels quite modern except for the hairlight which gives the portrait a touch of glamour. Lisa’s sudden approach is heightened by an eerie silence: the courtyard singer has stopped her scales.

POV is essential to the voyeur theme of Rear Window — almost every shot of the courtyard is shot from the hero’s point of view. However the POV is rarely used inside Jeff’s apartment. The two notable instances of POV interiors are this scene and the climax at the end when the murderer comes into the apartment to kill Jeff. This is one of the ways in which this love scene foreshadows the attempted murder at the end.

+++

Love and murder

Director François Truffaut once said: "Hitchcock filmed murders like love scenes, and love scenes like murders." Our first encounter with Lisa illustrates this perfectly, combining a sense of surprise and danger, with excitement, and a flicker of fear on James Stewart’s darkened face.

In the third act climax, Jeff’s only weapon will be light, the flash of his photographic bulbs to blind his assailant in the dark. This theme of light and shadow is present here too.

+++

The dark kiss

During a recent round table session, Peter Weir mentioned in passing that he had studied Hitchcock’s kisses. I would love to find out what he discovered. In any case, in this scene it is Lisa who is the instigator, while Jeff is passive.

The kiss also continues the motif of Lisa’s ominous shadow. Once again she obscures his face, putting his eyes in shadow, and then completely darkening him when she moves in to kiss him. The audio track is quiet enough to hear the final contact of her departing lips.

Burks’ lighting is elegant. A rim light accents Lisa’s profile, with a hot spot on her lips. A hard light on the left creates her shadow on his face. A fill lights her face, while his stays dark. A band of bright streelight in the background draws attention to their lips, as the lovers kiss and speak softly. When Lisa moves in, there is some light on her face, but Jeff’s face is swallowed by her shadow.

+++

From darkness to light

When Lisa pulls away from Jeff and states her name, Hitchcock offers a third round of the darkness and light motif. This time it is Lisa who is in the shadows and gradually emerges into the light, by turning on three practicals to reveal herself.

The darkness before the first lamp feels real, with some backlight to delineate Lisa’s silhouette, and the faintest fill to bring out her teeth and pearls. The final full figure image has lost all trace of the earlier ominous motif. Lisa is finally revealed as a charming, elegant woman in an ordinary night interior, any trace of the threat has vanished.

+++

In a minute and a half Hitchcock has introduced us to Lisa, but he has also foreshadowed the ending when the murderer will come to attack Jeff in his darkened apartment.

Truffaut was right, in Rear Window, Hitchcock films the love scene of a woman waking her lover with a kiss, as if it were a murder. We will see another time whether he films one of his murders as a love scene.

+++

links:

The scene in Italian

Robert Burks, ASC

Wikipedia: Rear Window

The Hitchcock Truffaut tapes

Reflections, 21 Cinematographers at Work