Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

For your consideration-the best cinematography

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks Ron,

but also must add that here in this tread I'm not silly to claim or whatever in this direction that an Academy member making any decision about her/his vote that is determined on camera was used or so...

Guys, you should definitely get that I'm not talking about in that kind of direction of bias or a similar way...

But probably is the best to continue this tread after the nomination just because then it's more to talk about a certain artistic decision to use this or that camera (system) and what is actually standing behind that.

It's more about an art and policy in one way or another...
 
The Best Cinematography nominations will come from the Cinematographers Branch of AMPAS, a little over 200 members (of which I am one.) I've been voting on the nominations for a couple of years now and the process is not "suspect" -- we get a list of hundreds of movies that qualify that year and vote for the ones to be nominated. It's that simple. There are no secret meetings, no pressure from anyone to vote a certain way, we get our very long list by mail and we vote by mail. What emerges is basically what the majority of the committee think should be nominated. Usually about three of my five choices end up in the final ballot, so most of us seem to be pretty much in agreement for about 2/3's of the choices, it's the last two that provide the surprises when the nominations are announced.

"For Your Consideration" ads are just that, advertisements paid for by studios.
 
Last edited:
Meryem Ersoz said:
I am rooting for Martha Marcy May Marlene - great flick, does anyone know what it was shot on? DSLR, maybe? I can't tell and couldn't find it listed in any of the stories. Sanjin, you must know, if it isn't RED, then what?
Click to expand...

100% film. Definitely not DSLR.

Great movie! Saw the premiere at Sundance and have been recommending it ever since.
 
BLADE RUNNER in 1982 did not win Best Cinematography.

What were they thinking? That something actually was better visually?
 
Well we all have opinions. Hey how's this for one.......we all go anonymous and discuss the cinematography in specific films being released throughout the year or nominated for awards..just a thought. I know this is polemic. As far as I know there does not exist a forum of professionals who comment on the quality of cinematography as seen in features. Sometimes as an after thought, a film critic will say the film looked "gorgeous" or throw out a line like, "....the cinematography was experted handled by......"
Perhaps in a Forum like this an "anonymous" box could be checked and honest opinions given. Just a crazy idea. Comments mes amis?
 
Martin Stevens said:
BLADE RUNNER in 1982 did not win Best Cinematography.

What were they thinking? That something actually was better visually?
Click to expand...

What's worse, it didn't even get nominated. It won the BAFTA award though. I guess the Oscar branch members were a lot more conservative back then. Keep in mind that members tend to skew older, overall many Academy members who have time to be active and see every movie released tend to be retired. Most members of the Academy and the ASC would all agree today that not nominating "Blade Runner" for cinematography was a major oversight; it's generally considered one of the most visually influential movies of the 1980's. Remember that "The Godfather" parts 1 & 2 didn't get nominated for cinematography either.
 
so maybe this thread should take a slight tangent, how about, what shot on RED films this year thinks deserves a oscar nom, and why? That my feel a little more productive than a conspiracy theory that doesn't exist...
 
why do comments need to be made anonymously? i think it's a good idea, though, let's critique some films. that would only help us all get better and learn more about cinematography from each other... i like it.

so i guess when somebody sees a new (or old) film, just start a thread in cinematography to open up discussion. i'd love to hear what some of you guys think about.
 
Good comments all! Now another point. Submitted material to the Academy, in some instances, on balance, does not even represent the DP's work. Second Unit, special units, aerial units working independently contribute major percentages to films. Just look at the "trailers". I remember a large format feature winning Best Cinematography several years ago, in which 60 to 70% was aerials and I never even saw the main DP during the shoot. Now do you think there was a word of thanks? But I will quickly add that there are some wonderfully gracious people out there and I have had the pleasure to work with them.
 
paulherrin said:
why do comments need to be made anonymously? i think it's a good idea, though, let's critique some films. that would only help us all get better and learn more about cinematography from each other... i like it.

so i guess when somebody sees a new (or old) film, just start a thread in cinematography to open up discussion. i'd love to hear what some of you guys think about.
Click to expand...
Hey Paul: You ever hear the phrase, "You'll never work in this town again" ?
 
there are two ways of looking at that statement... i don't think anyone will have anything to worry about if they are respectful and honest, and present their ideas clearly
 
David Mullen ASC said:
The Best Cinematography nominations will come from the Cinematographers Branch of AMPAS, a little over 200 members (of which I am one.) I've been voting on the nominations for a couple of years now and the process is not "suspect" -- we get a list of hundreds of movies that qualify that year and vote for the ones to be nominated. It's that simple.
Click to expand...

A bit off topic, but relevant: the Emmys are handled in a very similar way. Submissions are made by both individuals and companies for consideration. Campaigns are created (those "for your consideration" ads, mailers, screeners, and emails) by some of those entities to get Academy members to pay attention. Panels are held for each of the peer groups (I was a member of the Visual Effects/Title Design peer group for a number of years) and the panels screen the submissions. Rules are presented at the screenings (which are purely on a volunteer basis, although many faces you might recognize usually show up) that specify that the members cannot talk about the screened material until after the session, usually an all-day affair. The 5 or 6 entries in each category that get the largest number of votes become the nominees. There is then a larger presentation (for visual effects it's done in a theater as a "bake-off" in which each team gets to present its own material) and the entire peer group votes on who gets the award. As David said, it is not "suspect," it is simply peer group voting in a structured way. And although I even found myself questioning some of our choices (Star Trek shows seemed to win every year for quite some time), I had to admit that based on the screenings, I rarely disagreed with the ultimate outcome. The general public doesn't screen these entries one right after another, but the blue ribbon panels do. In that environment, the superiority of some over others becomes a lot more apparent.

It's very easy as an outsider to criticize something one has no direct experience with. But when you become part of the process, you realize very quickly how unwarranted the criticism actually is.
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Hey guys,

I didn't want to talk about what the Academy is going to decide who will win the next Oscar or Award for the best achievement in cinematography 2011.

It was more about a consideration choice and a sort of relation to RED cameras RED ONE MX and Epic just because there were a lot of movies last year shot with them.

The consideration choice was done my The American Cinematography Magazine that is the official publication of ASC: The American Society of Cinematographers.

So that means something and it should be considered as a sort of message that was sent to RED, RedUsers and beyond...

But that's me and how I'm thinking or analyzing... just a thought….
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't get one single thing on what the train of thought would be lol. That red needs to step up in the game on how to lobby their camera for "real artists". Or that maybe the cameras are not good enough lol. Why is it that reduser is flooded with useless conversations - come with real technical debates instead. Or discuss the fact that you don't agree with their choices from an artistic POW. This conversation is useless as it has no real content.
 
Guys,

we don't need to worry so much about the academy awards just because still box office counts towards RED/Epic.

The next is Thanksgiving weekend.

Muppets vs. Hugo, or this camera vs that camera.

It is to except that Muppets will win for sure...

But this is not what I wanted to discuss at all.

More precise formulated my question could be something like this one:

What is mainly deciding factor or factors that one digital camera system is chosen instead of another one?

Let's us wait, see and continue after the Academy nomination...
 
Fredrik Callinggard said:
Sorry, but I don't get one single thing on what the train of thought would be lol. That red needs to step up in the game on how to lobby their camera for "real artists". Or that maybe the cameras are not good enough lol. Why is it that reduser is flooded with useless conversations - come with real technical debates instead. Or discuss the fact that you don't agree with their choices from an artistic POW. This conversation is useless as it has no real content.
Click to expand...

LOL!! Really!!!
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Marc, you can always say: Your camera doesn't matter or no matter how advanced your camera you (a cinematographer) still need to be responsible for the images... BUT must say also this or that camera determines the quality of images...
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced it does, above a certain point. The fact that people routinely interchange cameras and then match them in post tells you that the camera alone is not necessarily the biggest determining factor. I really believe the lighting and the lenses are the two most important issues.

As one example, Transformers 3D was shot on film, on Alexa, on Red, on the SI 2K, and on the Sony F35. I'll be damned if I can tell the difference. It all matched very well, and it's very well shot.

What is tough is when you get projects that use (say) Red and Canon 5Ds in the same scene. Trying to get those close in final color-correction is very tough. But in that case, we're talking a $20,000 camera and a $2000 camera; it figures there'd be a big difference there. With four $100,000+ cameras, I can imagine the differences would be a lot smaller, assuming they're all properly white balanced and in the right color space.
 
Martin Stevens said:
BLADE RUNNER in 1982 did not win Best Cinematography.

What were they thinking? That something actually was better visually?
Click to expand...

Nestor Almendros, Sophie's Choice
Allen Daviau, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Owen Roizman, Tootsie
Jost Vacano, Das Boot
Billy Williams and Ronnie Taylor, Gandhi (winner)


Not even nominated.
 
A really good news!!!!

A really good news!!!!

I've just got the latest issue of The American Cinematographer (January 2012)

and have found there the following add:

dragon_tattoo_AC010112.jpg


A really good news!!!!

Must read:

Cold Case: David Fincher reteams with
Jeff Cronenweth, ASC to remake
the Swedish hit
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.
By Jay Holben
Pages: 32- 47

Source >>>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top