Jump to content


Photo

What is "Cinematography," Now That an 80% CG Movie Has Won Its Highest Honor


  • Please log in to reply
96 replies to this topic

#1 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 March 2010 - 08:17 AM

Does anyone else feel a slap in the face to our craft?


The Cinematographer's work, whose name escapes me, aside, this feels as awful to me as if Star Wars Episode I had wone an award for best cinematography ten and a half years ago.


Clearly, the people voting don't know what the F--- cinematography is. It is photographing, "painting" with light.

It really, really ought only apply to the practical parts. Parts that involve blue-screen lighting, computer programming, and CGI, or optical effects too, shouldn't be privy to this award.

2nd Unit work ought not be honored with a nod to the cinematographer who had nothing to do with it, except a phone call.

MY OPINION
  • 0

#2 Jeremy Hunt

Jeremy Hunt
  • Guests

Posted 08 March 2010 - 08:30 AM

Does anyone else feel a slap in the face to our craft?


The Cinematographer's work, whose name escapes me, aside, this feels as awful to me as if Star Wars Episode I had wone an award for best cinematography ten and a half years ago.


Clearly, the people voting don't know what the F--- cinematography is. It is photographing, "painting" with light.

It really, really ought only apply to the practical parts. Parts that involve blue-screen lighting, computer programming, and CGI, or optical effects too, shouldn't be privy to this award.

2nd Unit work ought not be honored with a nod to the cinematographer who had nothing to do with it, except a phone call.

MY OPINION


I dunno about you, but the film had a strong visual style, and even the cg stuff had to be lit.

What was the process in doing it? from my experience, using computers for cg is almost harder than in real life, i cant imagine the how the lightin works in it.

i didnt actually like avatar however.

-Jeremy

Edited by Jeremy Hunt, 08 March 2010 - 08:31 AM.

  • 0

#3 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 March 2010 - 08:38 AM

[. . .]and even the cg stuff had to be lit.

[. . .]

i didnt actually like avatar however.

-Jeremy


How do you light CG environments? Have you ever written computer code? No, of course not, now someone does it for you and sells you the end result for $700 :unsure:


I *liked* "Avatar," but its winning best Cinematography is an affront to my life's work, frankly.
  • 0

#4 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1501 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 08 March 2010 - 09:03 AM

This is definitely one of those gray areas.

Someone still has to be "in charge" of the overall "look" of the movie in terms of lighting style, whether it was done practically (which was done on Avatar) or in a computer (which was also done on Avatar). This means making the initial choices of lighting units (real and virtual) as well as color, brightness, quality, etc. and keeping an eye on consistency on every set (practical and virtual).

This person also presumably would be integral in lens choices (real and virtual) and camera movement, just like on a traditionally created movie.

Whether Avatar deserves to win based on the lighting and camerawork is an entirely different discussion, but it's not entirely out of the question to recognize the Director of Photography in a situation like this because of the overall job that falls under the realm of a DIRECTOR of Photography.
  • 0

#5 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 08 March 2010 - 09:04 AM

How do you light CG environments? Have you ever written computer code? No, of course not, now someone does it for you and sells you the end result for $700 :unsure:


I *liked* "Avatar," but its winning best Cinematography is an affront to my life's work, frankly.



It just means that the Oscar for Cinematography ,from now on, will start to mean f@&k all.

Edited by Serge Teulon, 08 March 2010 - 09:07 AM.

  • 0

#6 Ari Davidson

Ari Davidson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 08 March 2010 - 10:59 AM

Naysayers,

Please read the Feb. 2010 issue of AC, and in the course of doing so please check off every step of Mauro Firoe ASC's workflow you've executed successfully.

I realize that as artists we're expected to hate on anything commercially successful. I was one of those people and after months of my little sister begging me to see it with her I did. While standing in line at 830am with people who had seen the film multiple times (the woman in front of me had seen it 18 times!) I asked them why they would pay $10 to see a film that relied on a gimmick (3D) to draw an audience. Without missing a beat they were all buzzing about the imagery. Not the special effects, i.e. the CG everyone seems to be complaining about. Matter of fact one woman who had seen it 5 times focused her comments specifically on the lighting!

A little note about lighting cg, it isn't done in lines of code. That would be like engineering your own globes.

The choice of medium or complexity of story has no effect on the cinematographer's ability to compose awe inspiring images. It takes a world of knowledge to be a good cinematographer, and an additional one to apply everything to a digital workflow and/or cg environment. Not to mention the mathematical accuracy required to create interocular distance that won't distract or confuse the audience!

In closing I think we all need to take a step off our pedestals in order award credit where it is due. Keep your mind open and your eyes focused friends.

Best,

Ari Davidson
  • 0

#7 Gus Sacks

Gus Sacks
  • Sustaining Members
  • 287 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, NY

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:22 AM

Ari,

I've personally read that article a few times over. It makes the point clearly that the majority of the look and feel of the film, including a large amount of the photography, was done before Fiore was even hired for the production. It seemed that more than likely a majority of the camera operation, lighting, framing, and "art direction" was done by the director, James Cameron. If the voters in the Academy (Cinematographers are the only ones voting at a certain point on the winner) felt like the look and feel and technical achievements of the film was the best of last year, then it did win for Visual Effects and Art Direction, for which I suppose it deserved it. Buuuut Cinematography is not in a basket with those two, as it relates to Avatar. The DP shot the live action sequences, which were few and far between, only a small fraction on practical sets. Otherwise it was his Director operating a camera towards Mo-Cap suits on a sound stage. Meh. Pretty unimpressive and the fact that Bob Richardson, Barry Ackroyd, Bruno Delbonnel and Christian Berger lost out to that sends a pretty bad message.

Gus

Naysayers,

Please read the Feb. 2010 issue of AC, and in the course of doing so please check off every step of Mauro Firoe ASC's workflow you've executed successfully.

I realize that as artists we're expected to hate on anything commercially successful. I was one of those people and after months of my little sister begging me to see it with her I did. While standing in line at 830am with people who had seen the film multiple times (the woman in front of me had seen it 18 times!) I asked them why they would pay $10 to see a film that relied on a gimmick (3D) to draw an audience. Without missing a beat they were all buzzing about the imagery. Not the special effects, i.e. the CG everyone seems to be complaining about. Matter of fact one woman who had seen it 5 times focused her comments specifically on the lighting!

A little note about lighting cg, it isn't done in lines of code. That would be like engineering your own globes.

The choice of medium or complexity of story has no effect on the cinematographer's ability to compose awe inspiring images. It takes a world of knowledge to be a good cinematographer, and an additional one to apply everything to a digital workflow and/or cg environment. Not to mention the mathematical accuracy required to create interocular distance that won't distract or confuse the audience!

In closing I think we all need to take a step off our pedestals in order award credit where it is due. Keep your mind open and your eyes focused friends.

Best,

Ari Davidson


  • 0

#8 Richard Vialet

Richard Vialet
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Hollywood, CA

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:39 AM

I actually thought the cinematography was great in Avatar! I wouldn't have voted for it as the best, but I don't mind it winning. It's frustrating when people dismiss its cinematography just because it was so heavily computer-generated. Would you also dismiss the cinematography in Ratatouille, Wall•E, and UP, because they're all animated? If you would, I would completely disagree. Cinematography is the use of composition and lighting to tell a story (among other things of course :)), regardless of whether the lighting or composition was computer-generated or achieved with a 535 and a 10K on set.

I'm sure that some of my favorite shots in movies in recent years were aided by some sort of computer generated camera move or lighting (Lord of the Rings, Amelie, and Dark Knight anyone?).

Now the issue I have with the Oscar win is about who should be included in the award, because even though I'm sure Mauro Fiore played his part, I have seen more than one Avatar EPK naming Vince Pace as the DIRECTOR OF PHOTOGRAPHY, not just 2nd Unit. So the titles are getting a little hazy. Check out this featurette for naming Vince Pace as the DP, with no mention of Mauro whatsoever:

Edited by Richard Vialet, 08 March 2010 - 11:44 AM.

  • 0

#9 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:45 AM

Ari,

Nobody is having a dig at Mauro Fiore or his work. If anything there is an overall feeling of sorrow as he might just be thinking that this award should've gone somewhere else.
Mauro's work is and has been always of top standard.
The comments are based on the fact that the CINEMATOGRAPHY AWARD has been given to a film that comprises 80% of it as animation.
And by giving the award to the film that has 20% of actual filming work in it, what does that say to the other films that are 98% filming work?
What award did the VFX DP get for his 80%?
Zip.

At the end of the day the 20% cinematography work is beautiful and complements the 80% of animation. But it does not, in mine and may others opinion, warrant the cinematography award.
  • 0

#10 Richard Vialet

Richard Vialet
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 133 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Hollywood, CA

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:48 AM

Also, do people consider the Oscar to be the "highest honor" for cinematography? You'd think it should be the ASC Award...
  • 0

#11 Tim Partridge

Tim Partridge
  • Guests

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:53 AM

It just means that the Oscar for Cinematography ,from now on, will start to mean f@&k all.


As oppose to the glory days of the Black Hole being nominated over Alien, The Godfather getting snubbed and Towering Inferno winning over the likes of Chinatown. ;)

I have no beef whatsoever with virtual cinematography. My problem with Avatar is that I felt that even if it had been a live action movie, the colour pallettes chosen, lighting and compositions would still have been ugly. I thought most of the live action interiors seemed like they were high key lit like a sitcom (and not at all like the characteristic, contrasty lighting I associate with Mauro Fiore's work).
  • 0

#12 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:53 AM

Yeah, I have the utmost of respect for Mr. Mauro Fiore, it's just that he got rewarded for work that four times out of five wasn't HIS. . .



And, no a F-in cartoon should never win an award for cinematography, no matter how good its animation is.

That is a separate category.

No matter how good the CGI is, and regardless of the literal definition of cinematography as "painting with light" cinematography remains the art of PHOTOGRAPHING (film or digital) a movie with a lens, a camera, and a light, or at least a practical lighting source and some kind of bounce if you want it to look good.



This award is an affront to our work, and I am honestly going to write a letter of complaint with "Avatar" winning this award.


At the same time, I am not biased. I saw "Avatar" five times. I LIKE "Avatar," I really do. But it is totally unqualified for best cinematography. . .
  • 0

#13 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:58 AM

My problem with Avatar is that I felt that even if it had been a live action movie, the colour pallettes chosen, lighting and compositions would still have been ugly. I thought most of the live action interiors seemed like they were high key lit like a sitcom (and not at all like the characteristic, contrasty lighting I associate with Mauro Fiore's work).


Tim, I disagree. I thought "Avatar" was utterly gorgeous in both 2D and 3D. Maybe you saw a poorly-timed (graded) film print or an out-of-calibration DLP projector.

The movie was utterly gorgeous, but it was POOR during the live action parts. The colors were flat, the environments were lit defensively. There was nothing award-worthy about the lighting of Sigourney Weaver et al.


Cue up a trailer of "Alien" and "Avatar" side-by-side, and tell me the live action parts aren't a distant second to Cameron's earlier work.




I think the people voting don't know what the fu¢|< they're talking about, just like they had their heads up their a$$es picking a low budget movie (due, in part, to the 2008 recession in picking "Slumdog Millionaire" last year).
  • 0

#14 Serge Teulon

Serge Teulon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London UK

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:59 AM

Also, do people consider the Oscar to be the "highest honor" for cinematography? You'd think it should be the ASC Award...



Its not about the highest honor.
Without wanting to patronise, an award is a symbol of appreciation and congratulatory to one's work. Right?
Its an industry organisation judged by professional members or a panel of judges that say that one's work is of excellence above all others at that event/year.
Mauro Fiore's work on it is VERY GOOD, just like in the other films that he's shot.

But yes the ASC award is regarded as the torch of cinematography as it solely concentrates on cinematography and not marketing etc.....
  • 0

#15 Tim Sibley

Tim Sibley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto

Posted 08 March 2010 - 11:59 AM

Ari, I couldn't agree more. This isn't the best 'cinematographer' award, it's rewarding the best cinematography. Obviously, everyone can have their own opinion about the artistic merits of each nominated film, but to disqualify something because it's not physically photographed would be ridiculously unfair to those that crafted its look.
I think there's some misconceptions out there about designing shots and lighting in CG - these are not geeks hammering out lines of code, they're artists using a different set of tools to realize the same goals. They care about the technology to the same extent a DP cares about his camera package; they're tools that are used to achieve their goal and should be studied and understood to get the most out of them, but a cinematographer working with CG images doesn't care about the underpinning lines of code any more than a live action DP would care about the polymerization process of the plastic in a film mag.
At the end of the day, it's about rewarding those responsible for the image that ends up on the screen; just because there might be some ignorance regarding the process and tools that are used to create those images shouldn't mitigate anyone's level of appreciation of the final product.
I'm happy to be challenged on this, but I think the same choices of lighting a character, choosing a lens, framing shots to serve the story apply to both mediums, with the exact same level of importance.
  • 0

#16 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 08 March 2010 - 12:40 PM

Tim, I don't disagree that they're artists, but I do disagree on our definition of a "paragraph. . ."


"Best Cinematography" awards shouldn't be handed out to cel animators anymore than they should be handed out to CGI photographers or SFX guys.


Even if you are oblivious to CG code, the code still exists. Back a long time ago, I WROTE code for software like this.

If you "light" it, then someone wrote a code for that. Then again, I guess someone would argue that God wrote a code for the real world.
  • 0

#17 Tim Sibley

Tim Sibley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
  • Other
  • Toronto

Posted 08 March 2010 - 12:55 PM

So for you, Karl, a physical camera is required, otherwise the end result is without merit?
If that is your opinion, I'll just respectfully disagree - maybe you'd be happier if they changed it to "Best Live Action Cinematography". I just don't see why the live action DP should be elevated to any higher level than a CG DP, if the end result is the same for the audience - pictures on the screen telling a story set in a world we can relate to (unlike cel animation). I don't think celebrating one has to come at the expense of another, necessarily.

Edited by Tim Sibley, 08 March 2010 - 12:57 PM.

  • 0

#18 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2087 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 08 March 2010 - 01:00 PM

I think the silly old farts that are members of the "Academy " sitting in their nursing homes watching a DVD of the movie thought its was all live action and hence voted for it !!
  • 0

#19 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 491 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 08 March 2010 - 01:16 PM

It’s just not a level playing field. James Cameron said one of the best things about CG is he never has to wait for a sunset.

What if you’re shooting a scene in a building fifty stories high and you want sunlight streaming through the windows? You may have to compromise. CG movies don’t have that problem.

If you don’t include the sweat (literally) involved, then CG movies should win for the rest of time. DP’s on live action films can’t simply use their imagination and get whatever they want. They have to deal with the situation they’re actually in and it no doubt affects the end result.
  • 0

#20 frederico parreira

frederico parreira
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Student

Posted 08 March 2010 - 01:17 PM

if they have a 'best animation film' category, why not create a 'best animation film cinematography' ?
  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

The Slider

Zylight

CineLab

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Robert Starling

Cinelicious

NIBL

K5600 Lighting

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Pro 8mm

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

Glidecam

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Zylight

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

NIBL

Robert Starling

Pro 8mm

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Cinelicious

Aerial Filmworks

K5600 Lighting

CineTape