Comments on: Where Do We Go Now? “Avatar” and Beyond http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/ John Bailey's thoughts on cinematography and artistic expression Sat, 04 Feb 2012 18:12:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Ikko Suzuki http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-131 Ikko Suzuki Tue, 04 May 2010 03:50:27 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-131 First of all, thank you for sharing us the historical perspective and profound thought about 3D film both in the blog and lecture. One thing I found interesting about a 3D film is a gap between what cinematographer physically looking at during a shooting and what the audience actually watch it at the screening after the all computer process of 3D graphics. I think one of the challenge 3D film has is how convincingly bridge the gap of looking created by the technology through a narrative. When I watched 3D movie like Avator, and when characters and object pop out from the screen, they becomes like graphics more than humans, flowers and trees become objects than nature even though they are very beautiful enough to keep attracting my eyes. And I believe neither cinematographer or graphic artists indented to creat. As you mentioned, 3D experience is not natural for our eyes, and requires more suspension of disbelief especially when 3D objects moving around the screen. Appropriate editing pace and sound effects for a 3D scene might help to suspend this problem of unnatural looking, but I believe fundamentally there exists a conflict between pleasure of visual effect created by 3D graphic artists and emotional engagement of the cinematographer when he or she is physically shooting a subject. And at this point they are opposing each other, not collaborating. What I think needed for a 3D is a new type of narrative structure that bridges the gap between cinematography and visual effects. First of all, thank you for sharing us the historical perspective and profound thought about 3D film both in the blog and lecture. One thing I found interesting about a 3D film is a gap between what cinematographer physically looking at during a shooting and what the audience actually watch it at the screening after the all computer process of 3D graphics. I think one of the challenge 3D film has is how convincingly bridge the gap of looking created by the technology through a narrative. When I watched 3D movie like Avator, and when characters and object pop out from the screen, they becomes like graphics more than humans, flowers and trees become objects than nature even though they are very beautiful enough to keep attracting my eyes. And I believe neither cinematographer or graphic artists indented to creat. As you mentioned, 3D experience is not natural for our eyes, and requires more suspension of disbelief especially when 3D objects moving around the screen. Appropriate editing pace and sound effects for a 3D scene might help to suspend this problem of unnatural looking, but I believe fundamentally there exists a conflict between pleasure of visual effect created by 3D graphic artists and emotional engagement of the cinematographer when he or she is physically shooting a subject. And at this point they are opposing each other, not collaborating. What I think needed for a 3D is a new type of narrative structure that bridges the gap between cinematography and visual effects.

]]> By: Tom Ingle, CSC, SASC http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-130 Tom Ingle, CSC, SASC Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:04:01 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-130 All the hype aside, I found "Avatar" technologically intriguingly different. However, when asked about the film in general by non-filmmakers my reply was that it could at best be described as a children's fantasy and at worst as an utter indulgence by Cameron. It seems a shame that these CGI high budget movies with little story have become evermore popular with the masses nowadays. Today, I saw "Creation" (the life story of Charles Darwin). As usual, my wife asked on my return how it was. I replied that it was a very pleasant change not to have been bombarded with guns, girls, gangsters, sex, car chases and explosions. Thank goodness the Brits are still making movies about human inner conflicts that stir the emotion and set the audience thinking. It is the writing that should be in the forefront of movie making and not multi-million dollar budgets expended on already overpaid actors and CGI effects. All the hype aside, I found “Avatar” technologically intriguingly different. However, when asked about the film in general by non-filmmakers my reply was that it could at best be described as a children’s fantasy and at worst as an utter indulgence by

Cameron.

It seems a shame that these CGI high budget movies with little story have become evermore popular with the masses nowadays.

Today, I saw “Creation” (the life story of Charles Darwin). As usual, my wife asked on my return how it was. I replied that it was a very pleasant change not to have been bombarded with guns, girls, gangsters, sex, car chases and explosions. Thank goodness the Brits are still making movies about human inner conflicts that stir the emotion and set the audience thinking. It is the writing that should be in the forefront of movie making and not multi-million dollar budgets expended on already overpaid actors and CGI effects.

]]> By: Richard Walden http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-129 Richard Walden Sat, 23 Jan 2010 00:01:43 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-129 Regarding the type of 3D glasses used in the fifties. I was seeing movies on my own from mid decade onward and my recollections are of the Red / Green variety through out that time period. They were really cheap cardboard “glasses” with the “lenses” made of colored plastic or cellophane. I don't remember seeing the polarized variety until the late sixties. Regarding the type of 3D glasses used in the fifties. I was seeing movies on my own from mid decade onward and my recollections are of the Red / Green variety through out that time period. They were really cheap cardboard “glasses” with the “lenses” made of colored plastic or cellophane. I don’t remember seeing the polarized variety until the late sixties.

]]> By: Jim Hemphill http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-128 Jim Hemphill Fri, 22 Jan 2010 17:27:50 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-128 Thanks for continuing to speak out in favor of the vanishing adult drama - in prepping for my own film right now, I've been watching some of the character-driven films you've photographed (such as THE BIG CHILL and LIVING OUT LOUD) and have wondered whether it would even be possible for such pictures to be made at major studios today. In a weird way your blog, though somewhat pessimistic about the future of films like this, was quite inspiring too. I enjoy big spectacles as much as the next guy when they're well done (I couldn't have loved THE DARK KNIGHT more), but with the recent passing of Eric Rohmer I couldn't help but ponder how important humanist, behavior-driven films have been to me both as a cineaste and as a human being. I couldn't agree more with your lament about the behemoths that keep half a dozen more meaningful stories from being told. So thanks for keeping the faith, and for writing such an eloquent plea for the subtle, intelligent drama! Thanks for continuing to speak out in favor of the vanishing adult drama – in prepping for my own film right now, I’ve been watching some of the character-driven films you’ve photographed (such as THE BIG CHILL and LIVING OUT LOUD) and have wondered whether it would even be possible for such pictures to be made at major studios today. In a weird way your blog, though somewhat pessimistic about the future of films like this, was quite inspiring too. I enjoy big spectacles as much as the next guy when they’re well done (I couldn’t have loved THE DARK KNIGHT more), but with the recent passing of Eric Rohmer I couldn’t help but ponder how important humanist, behavior-driven films have been to me both as a cineaste and as a human being. I couldn’t agree more with your lament about the behemoths that keep half a dozen more meaningful stories from being told. So thanks for keeping the faith, and for writing such an eloquent plea for the subtle, intelligent drama!

]]> By: Tom Koester http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-127 Tom Koester Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:35:11 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-127 In an other wise well reserched, intelligent, and thoughtful article, I was appalled but the reference to the 3D movies of the 50's as being viewed through red and blue glasses. The red/blue, red/green, red/cyan glasses were not used for Bwana Devil or any of the other 50 or so 3D movies of what is sometime referred to as the golden age of 3D. It was polarized glasses used throughout. I think some of the confusion about this comes simply from people who weren't alive then and Andy Worhal. Life magazine did a famous cover B&W photo of the audience at Buana Devil screening, a sea of faces all wearing "magic 3D glasses" (polarized ones). Along with the 3D craze came 3D comics, which were all anaglyph - there's hardly any other way to do it. Also 3D still publicity photos and magazine illustrations - all anaglyph. Later, Andy Worhal took the Life magazine cover and made it one of his art works, he colored the glasses red and green. This is the image that remains in most prople's heads, not the original Life Magazine cover, or the experience of those, like myself, who loved 3D and saw as many of the movies as he could - all with polarized glasses. True some of the 50's 3D movies were releases in anaglyph (Creature From the Black Lagoon, It came From Outer Space) in revival form in the late 60's and 70's. It was a cheap way of doing it with nly one projector and no special screen required. But the 50's projected with 2 projectors, a silver screen, and polarized glasses. Period. Please stop spreading the false myth. In an other wise well reserched, intelligent, and thoughtful article, I was appalled but the reference to the 3D movies of the 50′s as being viewed through red and blue glasses. The red/blue, red/green, red/cyan glasses were not used for Bwana Devil or any of the other 50 or so 3D movies of what is sometime referred to as the golden age of 3D. It was polarized glasses used throughout. I think some of the confusion about this comes simply from people who weren’t alive then and Andy Worhal. Life magazine did a famous cover B&W photo of the audience at Buana Devil screening, a sea of faces all wearing “magic 3D glasses” (polarized ones). Along with the 3D craze came 3D comics, which were all anaglyph – there’s hardly any other way to do it. Also 3D still publicity photos and magazine illustrations – all anaglyph. Later, Andy Worhal took the Life magazine cover and made it one of his art works, he colored the glasses red and green. This is the image that remains in most prople’s heads, not the original Life Magazine cover, or the experience of those, like myself, who loved 3D and saw as many of the movies as he could – all with polarized glasses.

True some of the 50′s 3D movies were releases in anaglyph (Creature From the Black Lagoon, It came From Outer Space) in revival form in the late 60′s and 70′s. It was a cheap way of doing it with nly one projector and no special screen required. But the 50′s projected with 2 projectors, a silver screen, and polarized glasses. Period. Please stop spreading the false myth.

]]> By: Earl Rath.ASC http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-126 Earl Rath.ASC Wed, 20 Jan 2010 04:49:41 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-126 Hi John, Outstanding article, your writing skills as well your cinematic skills are of the highest of quality, congratulations and many thanks. I worked with Karl many times in the 60's 70's he was one of the Greats and a true gentleman. I'm sure you know Karl won the first Academy Award for Cinematography for "Sunrise", beautiful black and white of course. Best regards, Earl Hi John,

Outstanding article, your writing skills as well your cinematic skills are of the highest of quality, congratulations and many thanks.

I worked with Karl many times in the 60′s 70′s he was one of the Greats and a true gentleman. I’m sure you know Karl won the first Academy Award for Cinematography for “Sunrise”, beautiful black and white of course.

Best regards,

Earl

]]> By: juan namnun http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-125 juan namnun Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:03:53 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-125 the look of avatar, its rich, inspiring and very well achieved, could not find any hint of the work of mauro fiore in it, but the asc members usually knows better than us simple spectators, but the movie itself seems to me like a cartoonist high budget version of "the new world" truth be told it may very well signal the end of cinema as the dominant art form of our civilization the look of avatar, its rich, inspiring and very well achieved, could not find any hint of the work of mauro fiore in it, but the asc members usually knows better than us simple spectators, but the movie itself seems to me like a cartoonist high budget version of “the new world” truth be told it may very well signal the end of cinema as the dominant art form of our civilization

]]> By: S. Lynn Wendt http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-124 S. Lynn Wendt Tue, 19 Jan 2010 20:18:32 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-124 "We want a story that starts out with an earthquake and works its way up to a climax." -- Samuel Goldwyn Whether it's film, digital video or petroglyphs on cave walls, the story is what connects people to the image. Perhaps it's our troubled and disconnected (or over-stimulated) lives that make the communal experience of movie-going (or theater-going or museum-visiting) seem like a habit of the past. It takes a lot to lure an audience from their 52" home flat-screens. And what's more immediate than the intimacy of Youtube or Facebook? Whether 3-D lasts or not isn't as dispiriting as the idea that when we share the same stories, we create a sense of communal identity. We build an ethos. Spectacle like "Avatar" has its place, but it's not exactly mental soul food. Cable tv seems to have usurped film in its quest for deeper storytelling, providing an outlet for a new kind of shared, albeit isolated, experience. But at this moment in time, perhaps change itself is the new story--as more people turn to the internet. Youtube spawns the next Nouvelle Vague? Who knows? Great post, John. “We want a story that starts out with an earthquake and works its way up to a climax.” — Samuel Goldwyn

Whether it’s film, digital video or petroglyphs on cave walls, the story is what connects people to the image. Perhaps it’s our troubled and disconnected (or over-stimulated) lives that make the communal experience of movie-going (or theater-going or museum-visiting) seem like a habit of the past. It takes a lot to lure an audience from their 52″ home flat-screens. And what’s more immediate than the intimacy of Youtube or Facebook? Whether 3-D lasts or not isn’t as dispiriting as the idea that when we share the same stories, we create a sense of communal identity. We build an ethos. Spectacle like “Avatar” has its place, but it’s not exactly mental soul food. Cable tv seems to have usurped film in its quest for deeper storytelling, providing an outlet for a new kind of shared, albeit isolated, experience. But at this moment in time, perhaps change itself is the new story–as more people turn to the internet. Youtube spawns the next Nouvelle Vague? Who knows? Great post, John.

]]> By: Frank Love http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-123 Frank Love Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:19:55 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-123 John, I greatly appreciate everything you say here, and nice to know I'm not alone in some of the sentiments I feel we share. I'm 26 and an aspiring Cinematographer, and I am a staunch film supporter. Up until about 2 years ago I was all for digital, I had been 'weened' on it as you say. Things looked good enough and film was just harder to use. Then I decided to apply myself and try my hand at 35mm film stills. Once I got the hang of it I could really see a difference. I began shooting less and less digital and more film, also in my work as a motion picture AC I really started to learn more and cultivate my eye to discern differences in the image. I have really come to be amazed at the potential in the photo-chemical processes, an seeing "The Dark Knight" in IMAX with it's 65/15 sequences really excited me for potential movement towards the larger format film as standard on those big budget event movies. In the last yearhowever I've seen a dramatic shift in the other direction. Firstly with IMAX creating those faux IMAX theaters with the 2k Chrystie(sp?) projectors, then with the en mass shift to HD in TV episodicals, and now culminating with "Avatar" and Cameron's campaign to change how we shoot and see ALL motion pictures. I am not against stereoscopic filmmaking, I just take offense to how Cameron & Co. are basically dictating how we should all start shooting films, watching films in the theater and homes, and retroactively changing pre-existing films to conform to his S3D and higher framerate standards. That, coupled with the box office he's pulling, and people are not only taking notes, but implementing them. I would have a whole different attitude towards it if they were trying it and made it possible for us to try it, but I feel like they want to make it so we can't try anything else. Also I think this mass move to digital, at it's current state, is premature if not unnecessary. I did have the fortune of shooting a short film on 35mm anamorphic this past summer, but with what I see happening now I fear for what my future options will be as I grow in this craft. And I think that in this instance, with film vs digital, it is different than silent vs sound or b&w vs color, because unlike these, film supply is very much dependent on there being a demand for it to exist, and exist at a cost effective supply. If things shift enough over the coming years I worry for Kodak or Fuji to pull a Polaroid and announce a cease and desist on film production, even while there is some demand, if they say they don't see a sustainable future in it. If not that then shifts in post houses or the fight with some producers to shoot film(unless you're an established name, an maybe even not then) will perpetrate the shift either way. I don't want to try and make predictions, but shifts in practices I see, and the implications on what it will mean not just for me personally, but on the craft of cinematography and filmmaking as a whole...well I'd be lying if I said I'm not worried. John, I greatly appreciate everything you say here, and nice to know I’m not alone in some of the sentiments I feel we share. I’m 26 and an aspiring Cinematographer, and I am a staunch film supporter. Up until about 2 years ago I was all for digital, I had been ‘weened’ on it as you say. Things looked good enough and film was just harder to use. Then I decided to apply myself and try my hand at 35mm film stills. Once I got the hang of it I could really see a difference. I began shooting less and less digital and more film, also in my work as a motion picture AC I really started to learn more and cultivate my eye to discern differences in the image. I have really come to be amazed at the potential in the photo-chemical processes, an seeing “The Dark Knight” in IMAX with it’s 65/15 sequences really excited me for potential movement towards the larger format film as standard on those big budget event movies. In the last yearhowever I’ve seen a dramatic shift in the other direction. Firstly with IMAX creating those faux IMAX theaters with the 2k Chrystie(sp?) projectors, then with the en mass shift to HD in TV episodicals, and now culminating with “Avatar” and Cameron’s campaign to change how we shoot and see ALL motion pictures. I am not against stereoscopic filmmaking, I just take offense to how Cameron & Co. are basically dictating how we should all start shooting films, watching films in the theater and homes, and retroactively changing pre-existing films to conform to his S3D and higher framerate standards. That, coupled with the box office he’s pulling, and people are not only taking notes, but implementing them. I would have a whole different attitude towards it if they were trying it and made it possible for us to try it, but I feel like they want to make it so we can’t try anything else. Also I think this mass move to digital, at it’s current state, is premature if not unnecessary. I did have the fortune of shooting a short film on 35mm anamorphic this past summer, but with what I see happening now I fear for what my future options will be as I grow in this craft. And I think that in this instance, with film vs digital, it is different than silent vs sound or b&w vs color, because unlike these, film supply is very much dependent on there being a demand for it to exist, and exist at a cost effective supply. If things shift enough over the coming

years I worry for Kodak or Fuji to pull a Polaroid and announce a cease and desist on film production, even while there is some demand, if they say they don’t see a sustainable future in it. If not that then shifts in post houses or the fight with some producers to shoot film(unless you’re an established name, an maybe even not then) will perpetrate the shift either way. I don’t want to try and make predictions, but shifts in practices I see, and the implications on what it will mean not just for me personally, but on the craft of cinematography and filmmaking as a whole…well I’d be lying if I said I’m not worried.

]]> By: Richard Walden http://www.theasc.com/blog/2010/01/18/where-do-we-go-now-%e2%80%9cavatar%e2%80%9d-and-beyond/#comment-122 Richard Walden Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:09:06 +0000 http://www.ascmag.com/blog/?p=906#comment-122 Weather true or not Samuel Goldwyn or Harry Cohen were often credited with all manner of witticisms, one of my favorite is “I never predict anything; especially the future”. The “film industry entering a decade of chaos” reminds me of a December 7,1970 issue of Newsweek Magazine entitled “The New Movies” in it the writer declares the death of Hollywood , films will no longer be made in studios or sound stages but rather on location using the newest technological tool; the Cinemobile. Additionally the “ Days of the Million Dollar Stars are gone forever” our film future was to consist of low budget Easy Rider type films because that was reality and what the hip wanted to see. The article (which I have a copy of and can email to anyone that is interested) was laughably out of date within a few years. So predictions are probably good for selling magazines or telling people what they want to hear but that’s about all. As for new technology, I have often asked my self how anyone years ago could oppose the introduction of sound or think that color was a gimmick and not here to stay. But then I think how would I have reacted eighty something years ago if I were comfortably working in the industry and a new technology, sound for example, came along to rock my comfortable boat. I hope I would have embraced it. I think the main thing now is to distinguish which of the new technologies have merit and which don’t. Remember Eight Track Tapes, the RCA Video Disc that relied on phonograph technology, Polaroid’s’ instant movie film, The Cinemobile, The Popeil Pocket Fisherman, et cetera??? Weather true or not Samuel Goldwyn or Harry Cohen were often credited with all manner of witticisms, one of my favorite is “I never predict anything; especially the future”. The “film industry entering a decade of chaos” reminds me of a December 7,1970 issue of Newsweek Magazine entitled “The New Movies” in it the writer declares the death of Hollywood , films will no longer be made in studios or sound stages but rather on location using the newest technological tool; the Cinemobile. Additionally the “ Days of the Million Dollar Stars are gone forever” our film future was to consist of low budget Easy Rider type films because that was reality and what the hip wanted to see. The article (which I have a copy of and can email to anyone that is interested) was laughably out of date within a few years. So predictions are probably good for selling magazines or telling people what they want to hear but that’s about all.

As for new technology, I have often asked my self how anyone years ago could oppose the introduction of sound or think that color was a gimmick and not here to stay. But then I think how would I have reacted eighty something years ago if I were comfortably working in the industry and a new technology, sound for example, came along to rock my comfortable boat. I hope I would have embraced it. I think the main thing now is to distinguish which of the new technologies have merit and which don’t. Remember Eight Track Tapes, the RCA Video Disc that relied on phonograph technology, Polaroid’s’ instant movie film, The Cinemobile, The Popeil Pocket Fisherman, et cetera???

]]>