|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
Sigel decided that the Genesis camera, when used with a range of spherical Panavision Primo prime and zoom lenses, was so close to the responsiveness of film negative that no specific modifications to his lighting would be required. “Panavision and Sony have come up with a camera system that emulates the log curve and the color space of film very closely,” he says. “The Genesis has about 1?2 to 1 stop less dynamic range in the highlights than film, but that is well made up for by being able to go deeper into the blacks without getting noise — you can be a little braver at the point where you let the light fall off.” The large volume of visual effects required for Superman Returns was another reason the filmmakers chose a digital format. In fact, much of Sigel’s prep time was devoted to working out the details of the effects sequences, an aspect of filmmaking that he believes is continually expanding the cinematographer’s role. “In effect, you’re shooting your film several times over now,” he observes. “I like to be very involved in how scenes are blocked and how the camerawork is choreographed. The aesthetics and technical restrictions of visual effects have a huge influence over how the final film is going to look, and the more preconceived notions there are about a scene or sequence, the less exciting it can be for a cinematographer to shoot. But whether you like it or not, it’s the way these type of movies are made.” Digital previsualization was used extensively during the prep phase, and not just for complex action sequences. Sigel explains, “Bryan’s use of previz is certainly extensive and elaborate, but it doesn’t dictate the way we shoot. Instead, he uses it as an extension of the writing process. Many of the guys who work in the previz department are comic-book and computer-game aficionados, and they’ll often give Bryan suggestions.” For Sigel, previz is best used with discretion. “There were times when I respected the previz, such as the flying scenes, which take place in a virtual environment. But for scenes involving the actors interacting in a physical environment, I tended to use the previz as a reference only if something wasn’t working.” Given the heavy visual-effects load for Superman Returns, Sigel saw no reason to change the Genesis’ internal menu settings. “I did as little electronic manipulation as possible in camera to allows us the greatest range in post,” he says. “We could’ve created one overall look-up table [LUT] and dumped our dailies right into the Avid, but because I knew I would be using many of the tools of the digital intermediate [DI], I wanted to grade the dailies so they would more closely reflect the final product. Every director falls in love with his work print, and knowing Bryan would be living with this material for months in the editing room, I wanted him to be comfortable with the final look. Also, I wanted to give the visual-effects team a general guide so they could make sure their work didn’t conflict with the picture’s overall look.”
All data was recorded to Sony SRW-1 decks. “Our original camera tapes, the digital ‘negative,’ went to The Cutting Edge in Sydney, and an archival/security copy was immediately made,” says Sigel. “Then our colorist, Trish Cahill, would apply our grade based on what we’d worked out in preproduction and my color-corrected digital stills, which I sent her every day. Then audio would be added and an Avid copy would be made, and the next day we’d look at the dailies during lunch in our screening room, where they were projected with a 2K Barco projector. The projection quality was amazing.” Sigel made all of his lighting decisions with his own high-definition (HD) monitor, a process he likens to learning a new film stock. “The Genesis exists in log space, but because you’re watching the footage on a CRT monitor that is video space, you’re not seeing the full dynamic range. I was looking at a slightly compressed image that was a little flat, certainly not as crisp and subtly beautiful as it would be in its final form. So I had to learn how to translate what I saw on a monitor to what I knew would be projected on HD and seen in the release prints.” Conway describes Sigel as a “very gutsy cinematographer. On set, he’ll let areas of the frame drop off to black, but you know there’s going to be plenty of detail in the dailies. We didn’t really use any fill on this film; Tom just let the soft light wrap around to create contrast.” Conway also found the process of lighting from the monitor to be beneficial. The monitor was set up next to the remote-head controls in a black, lightproof tent on the soundstage. “Gaffers don’t get a lot of time looking through the lens,” says Conway. “On this movie, once I knew Tom was happy with the lighting, I was able to sit behind the monitor and carry out any tweaks he wanted. It was like looking through the viewfinder all day, and it was a great learning experience. I began to wonder how I would go back to film!” “When we made the decision to go with Genesis, all that existed was a prototype,” says Sigel. “Panavision assured me we would have seven cameras by the time we began, and I took them at their word. In hindsight, I think I must’ve been out of my mind. There were still a lot of things we had to work out, like power ports, accessory handles and viewfinders. For the first few weeks, it felt like we were still building the camera, but it was fun to have that kind of input and see Panavision try to respond. “We did run into one strange technical problem,” continues the cinematographer. “About halfway through the shoot, we noticed a faint vertical line in an aerial shot. Our visual-effects team went back and looked at other footage and discovered that this aberration was on most of the camera chips, but it was generally invisible to the naked eye. The data was all there, but somehow a tiny portion was being suppressed. I believe Panavision has since fixed the chips, and we simply did a software fix to eliminate the problem in our footage.” Although using the Genesis did not alter Sigel’s approach to lighting, the camera did require him to reconsider his usual operating style. He normally operates his own camera, throwing himself into the thick of the action and making many of his lighting decisions while looking through the lens. However, the non-optical viewfinder system of the Genesis prompted some adjustments. “The image in the viewfinder was so unrepresentative of the lighting that it could be disconcerting,” says Sigel. “The plus side was that I had an output from the camera to a 24-inch monitor with a sharp, clear image that in some ways was better than an optical viewfinder.” The cinematographer decided to do about 90 percent of his operating using the remote head, with the monitor acting as a viewfinder. “That gave me a great ability to see what the lighting was doing as I was shooting, but it also defined a very specific type of operating style,” he says. “Fortunately, Bryan’s taste in camerawork is fairly classic and formal, so this style complemented Superman Returns very well.” Sigel points out that over the course of his work with Singer — which includes Apt Pupil, X-Men (AC July ’00), X-Men 2 (AC April ’03), and the pilot for House (AC Feb. ’05) — his operating style has changed. “On The Usual Suspects, we evolved a certain style that combined dolly movement with imperceptible zooms so that you’d always have a sense of motion in a limited space. One of the results of that approach is you’re always moving in, so you tend to work on the longer end of the lens. When we got to X-Men, we shot anamorphic, partly so we could dolly more. For Superman Returns, we’ve probably worked with wider lenses than before, just to open up the compositions and create a bigger vista.”
|
|
| |
<< previous || next >>
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
