Emmanuel Lubezki and August issue of ASC

[James B.]

Hi
Highly recommend the August issue of ASC whether or not you're a Lubezki fan. Great "Tree of Life" story. What I found most fascinating was Malick's uses of 'rules' to help determine what type of shots were needed, and the focus on 'naturalness' which underscored almost everything in the film A great read.

 

[Richard Foster]

+1 - great article - interesting insight into developing a look for a purpose thinking.

 

[Tom Lowe]

i need to get my hands on a copy of this...

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There is an electronic edition of "American Cinematographer" that you can subscribe to...

 

[Tom Lowe]

Fantastic article! Quite interesting to hear how Terry worked so hard to keep the acting true and eliminate any "false" notes in the film. I would say that his plan worked out perfectly.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Terry knew exactly what he wanted with each of his movies.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

This particular article is free to read online! http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2011/TheTreeofLife/page1.php

 

[Stefan Antonescu]

This particular article is free to read online! http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/August2011/TheTreeofLife/page1.php

Nice !

Thanks Shawn. Really wanted to read it...

 

[Kim Frank]

First I want to say, that watching the movie for me felt like spiritual viewing experience. It felt like my childhood, though my childhood was very different but the film showed a somewhat general vision of childhood, for me.

A few questions come to me after reading the article and maybe someone could enlighten me

Mallick-Lubezki Dogma on Tree
• Shoot in available natural light
•Do not underexpose the negative Keep true blacks
•Preserve the latitude in the image
•Seek maximum resolution and fine grain
•Seek depth with deep focus and stop: “Compose in depth”
•Shoot in backlight for continuity and depth
•Use negative fill to avoid “light sandwiches” (even sources on both sides)
•Shoot in crosslight only after dawn or before dusk; never front light
•Avoid lens flares
• Avoid white and primary colors in frame
•Shoot with short-focal-length, hard lenses
•No filters except Polarizer
•Shoot with steady handheld or Steadicam “in the eye of the hurricane”
• Z-axis moves instead of pans or tilts
•No zooming
•Do some static tripod shots “in midst of our haste”
•Accept the exception to the dogma (“Article E”)

1. I always thought the term to underexpose means the same no matter if you're shooting negative or positive and means not giving "enough" light. So the point •Do not underexpose the negative Keep true blacks, and Lubezki earlyier saying:
“The most important rule for me is to not underexpose,” he continues. “We want the blacks; we don’t like milky images. Article E does not apply to underexposure!” The cinematographer concedes that there is a single underexposed shot in Tree, an amazing accomplishment for a film shot in such free form.
I'm getting confused because in my understanding overexposure would result in milky blacks.

2. ** *•*** Z-axis moves instead of pans or tilts
I am not able to figure out how a Z-achses move, so moving in or out on the subject, would compensate for tilt or pan. I would understand if they would state to move on the xyz-axes, so up-down, left-right, in-out with the subject instead of paning or tilting behind, but that's not what is said.

3. ...the lenses most often used were the 14mm, 18mm, 21mm and 27mm, and that the camera was usually very close to the actors, “often between 1½ and 2 feet.
Although I realized how close the camera was in many shots and really enjoyed it I wanted to just make sure that a 27mm is a 27mm is a 27mm right? So when I'm picking up my Canon FF a RED or a Arricam Lite with a 27 mm the field of view should always be the same, right? I'm asking because I have no hands on experience with shooting film (just as a director) and was wondering that the lenses they used were that wide. Of cause I recognized a lot of wide angle shots, but a 14mm to me seems very extreme, and it didn't feel that way.

And just aside I think it's strange that in many articles it's said that they used no movie lights at all 'sent them all back to the rental house' and they shot all in natural light and using no bounce at all, when they used negative fill, practicals and a 2K with a chimera for night interiors. Is the fact that they didn't use a stand but handholded the 2K making it no movie light?
I don't mean it disrespectful but what would be bad in saying that most of the film wasnt light or they tried to keep the light as natural as they could. I mean there's nothing bad in knowing when you really need to enhance something to tell the story or emotion you are after IMO.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

I'm getting confused because in my understanding overexposure would result in milky blacks.

I am not able to figure out how a Z-achses move

As I understand what he was talking about:

1) You always need full exposure of the color film negative to stay out of the foot of the curve, this does not apply to Digital Cinema Cameras if you overexpose Digital you lose the highlights (unless you use HDR). But to get good blacks you give full exposure to the color negative, then print down. Same goes in digital but rather than overexpose you give normal exposure and more fill light, the print down to make the blacks show less noise while still having some detail in them, by using the right shape of S-curve.

Sensors are linear with regard to lens flare, but film has a S-curve so the contrast of lens flare vs. shadow detail varies with exposure, lens used, and subject matter, and how you grade the shot going to dup stocks that also have S-curves of their own.

2) When you use push-in and pull-back the subject does not move side to side in the frame, so you don't violate the rules for pan and tilt rates to produce picket fencing. When shooting 24fps and people watching on the "big screen" you don't want to sweep the subject around on the screen, it makes motion blur, but you can push-in and pull-back keeping the actors eye stationary in the frame and since that is where the audience is looking there is no motion blur or picket fencing seen by them.

Shooting 24fps requires careful use of the rate of subject motion on the screen rules as to how many degrees of pan and tilt you can have per frame for a given enlargement of the image, otherwise the picket fencing and motion blur make the images unplesent to watch.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Dan !!!

Great post!!!

 

[Peter Dmitriyev]

can someone please explain why front lighting is so bad?

 

[Phil Holland]

can someone please explain why front lighting is so bad?

I don't think it's "so bad", but it is fairly noticeable and distinct most of the time. There's also a lot of subtle hues to be found in shadows. Especially for skin tones.

There's no right or wrong answer when it comes to lighting. You choose how to light to convey a feeling, set a mood, and to further the story.

 

[Dan Hudgins]

Inverse Square Law

Inverse Square Law

can someone please explain why front lighting is so bad?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law

People tend to put lights near the camera when shooting with "front lighting" and produces a very "low budget" film look where as the light falls off giving the "Roger Corman" or "Edward Davis Wood, Jr." etc. school of filmmaking, a very "student film" look of the 1960's like home movies with the movie light on top of the camera.

When you have the lights away from the camera there is less linkage between the distance between the camera and actor and the inverse square law.

Seeing the inverse square law on the camera's axis makes the audience aware of the existance of the camera and dampens the suspension of disbelief.

You always need a small bare bulb on the matte box to act as an "eye light" to put highlights in the actors eyes, but that is a bare bulb with a black backing (no reflector), not a bright light to act as heavy fill but a small bright point light that when you cast a shadow on the actor with your hand the shadow is barely visable showing that there is just a hint of fill, but it still makes highlights in the actors eyes.