Jump to content


Photo

Early 80's Cinematography


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 Daniel J Callahan

Daniel J Callahan

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student

Posted 09 December 2010 - 04:26 PM

In any of the following films:

Day of the Dead, 1985

Into the Night, 1985

The Wraith, 1986

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, 1982

Theif, 1981

Innerspace, 1987

The 'burbs, 1989

Firestarter, 1984

Fright Night, 1985

Escape From New York, 1981

Vice Squad, 1982

Waxwork, 1988

Sixteen Candles, 1984

and finally

Alone in the Dark 1982

Some are late 80's i know, but i still like the look of these films.


Can anyone tell me,any of the film stocks used in any of these productions? And if so i would also like to know, if it is possible to make movies look like these films nowadays? How about with a digital camera? And if so which one?

If these movies were on a low buget back then, would they not be able to be made cheaper the same way today?

On top of that i would like to note that i am eceptionaly fond of the way night in the city is captured with these films,(Vice Squad) do cities still look like this today, or have the street lights changed?
  • 0

#2 Michael Kubaszak

Michael Kubaszak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Chicago

Posted 09 December 2010 - 04:37 PM

film stocks are only half the equation. lenses, are the other.

look into a program called MagicBullet for 'filmic' effects on video.

Edited by Michael Kubaszak, 09 December 2010 - 04:39 PM.

  • 0

#3 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 09 December 2010 - 05:09 PM

Print stocks and the fact that those were all optically created films will also have had a lot to do with their looks.
All that being said, were one on film, I don't see much reason why one couldn't get close to the look out of the gate using a film like the '79 from Kodak combined with the power of the Digital Intermediate.
Now, on a fully digital system you're fighting a bit of a loosing battle as, for one, you'll be out resolving the films and that higher resolution have a distinctive look and feel which is thoroughly, in my opinion modern, and be dealing with a more limited contrast range the imagers can capture-- not as true for the current "cutting edge," cameras, such as the Alexa, F35, Epic (not yet availible) and to a lesser extent RED One MX, and as such you'll need to bring a bit more lighting equipment with you to keep things within range.

The cost of a film isn't really ever related to camera system, at least not in a big way, when you get to a certain level. The costs of the crew, the talent, locations, etc will all keep the prices, I would say, roughly congruent once you adjust for inflation, if any. Thats my own opinion and I have no hard facts to back it up with aside from the fact that on bigger budget projects you're really devoting a miniscule portion of the budget to stock/lenses/lights etc and much more for things such as talent, wardrobe, art direction, etc.

Yes streetlights have changed a bit, but how much will depend on where you are. Also cities have changed a lot in terms of their archetecture so it'll depend on which city and where-- for example Shanghai of today looks little like Shanghai of the 1980s, and the same is true for many cities, whereas other places, such as Philadelphia-- where I live-- looks about the same (minus the new Comcast Building, as I believe the Liberty Towers were up in the 80s).
  • 0

#4 Michael Kubaszak

Michael Kubaszak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Chicago

Posted 09 December 2010 - 06:15 PM

adrian, couldn't you try different diffusion filters to get a little closer, if you're using a digital origination?
  • 0

#5 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 09 December 2010 - 06:21 PM

You know you certainly could, but I'd say that older lenses would be a better starting point; as a start to lower down resolution and take off that "edge."
I might shy away from filtration with filters and test out a few nets behind the lens myself.
  • 0

#6 Michael Kubaszak

Michael Kubaszak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Chicago

Posted 09 December 2010 - 07:39 PM

we may be getting off topic but,

why? and what are the differences in softness? Never used a net or had a DP that used 'em.


edit: and Daniel, I can't believe you've seen Waxwork! One of my all time favorite movies!

Edited by Michael Kubaszak, 09 December 2010 - 07:40 PM.

  • 0

#7 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 09 December 2010 - 07:47 PM

The main difference is that w/o glass in front of the lens you're not going to get the same flares/halos you'd get with a typical diffusion filter. It's just a different feeling than putting a classic soft or a fog or a WBPM on front of the camera in terms of how it diffuses. It's also one of those things you just gotta test out. Others with more experience on filtration can explain better, it's just my own "gut choice," given what one's after.
  • 0

#8 Michael Kubaszak

Michael Kubaszak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Chicago

Posted 09 December 2010 - 08:46 PM

Are they all homemade or is there a company that makes 'em? I've seen ones for video cams on filmtools.
  • 0

#9 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 09 December 2010 - 09:19 PM

Generally you home-brew 'em, though a lot of people seem to like Fogal stockings, which you can get @ the DOP shop who is a sponsor here. I've used tons of things, gauze, nylons etc. Well worth playing 'round with if you happen to have DSLR camera behind their lens.
  • 0

#10 Daniel J Callahan

Daniel J Callahan

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student

Posted 09 December 2010 - 10:14 PM

we may be getting off topic but,

why? and what are the differences in softness? Never used a net or had a DP that used 'em.


edit: and Daniel, I can't believe you've seen Waxwork! One of my all time favorite movies!


Yeah, I just watched it agian this morning actually. It is also one of my favorites.
  • 0

#11 Daniel J Callahan

Daniel J Callahan

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student

Posted 09 December 2010 - 10:18 PM

Hey thanks to you both for the info
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 December 2010 - 12:05 AM

The key developments around that time were higher-speed stock and HMI lighting. Before 1982, most movies were shot on 35mm Kodak 5247 (100 ASA) often push-processed by one-stop for night work. Then in late 1980, Fuji released a 250 ASA stock (8518) and suddenly Fuji was being used by a number of productions, notably "Star Trek 2", "Das Boot", "Room with a View", later "Legend" (though that was the next generation of the stock, 8512 I believe). Kodak came out with their own version, 5293 (not to be confused with the later EXR 200T 5293), also 250 ASA, sometime in early 1982.

The 1983 Oscar nominees for Best Cinematography show this development in stocks, they were:

E.T.
Sophie's Choice
Das Boot
Tootsie
Gandhi

"E.T." was all shot on 5247, "Das Boot" on the new higher-speed Fuji. "Sophie's Choice" used the new 5293 for some scenes, not sure about "Gandhi" but I believe it was all 5247. "Tootsie" used the new 5293 stock. As I said, "Star Trek 2" from 1982 also used the Fuji. "Blade Runner", a key work of 1982 that should have gotten an Oscar nom for cinematography, was shot on 5247.

The new high-speed stocks were on the grainy side, plus some exposure and filtering techniques still being used from the 1970's didn't work as well with the new stocks -- you can see this if you compare "The Terminator" (1984) to "Terminator 2" (1991), Adam Greenberg dropped the low-con filters he used on the first movie. With the grain and flatter contrast of the fast stocks then, you had to be careful about fog-type filters and with underexposure because it brought out the grain structure more quickly than it did with 5247.

HMI lighting became reliable in the 1980's and it seemed every movie, especially low-budget ones, had a lot of uncorrected HMI lighting for night exteriors, hence the extensive blue look. Plus, as noted, cities back then used more mercury vapor streetlamps (blue-green) rather than the lower-powered sodiums (yellow-orange-green) that are now more common.
  • 1

#13 Daniel J Callahan

Daniel J Callahan

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student

Posted 10 December 2010 - 10:49 AM

Hey thanks, I'm saving all this information in a file.

But I did still have one question, if i were to purchase a digital camera and lense. What would get me the closest to this look? That is what digital Camera, (cause i can't affort to buy a film camera right now) would you suggest for a modest price, would come close?

I was looking at the Cannon HV30 camcorder, but what do you guys think? Is that just way out of the league, or could it be alright for starting out.
  • 0

#14 Daniel J Callahan

Daniel J Callahan

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student

Posted 10 December 2010 - 11:35 AM

Also, Hypothetically, if i were a director. And wanted certain scenes throughout the entire film to look like ones from the movies above(even showing clips from them, to the cinematographer). How would i go about telling it to the Director of Photography or Cinematographer? That is the most respectable way to say it, so as i'm not sounding like i'm trying to tell them their business.

Does the Cinematographer comply with the interest of the Director, or is he himself in charge of how a scene is to be lit and seen?
  • 0

#15 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 December 2010 - 12:57 PM

Also, Hypothetically, if i were a director. And wanted certain scenes throughout the entire film to look like ones from the movies above(even showing clips from them, to the cinematographer). How would i go about telling it to the Director of Photography or Cinematographer? That is the most respectable way to say it, so as i'm not sounding like i'm trying to tell them their business.

Does the Cinematographer comply with the interest of the Director, or is he himself in charge of how a scene is to be lit and seen?


Visual aids are a good idea, you show the DP the intent, let him figure it out lighting-wise and camera placement/movement, then discuss further on the set if necessary.

These are 35mm movies we are talking about, so I wouldn't get wrapped up in trying to make a 1/3" sensor camcorder match it. You'd have a better shot with a larger sensor. Grain is only something that can be added in post, though a bit of gain / noise may be enough for you. You can try using the old filters of the day, Fogs or Low-Cons.
  • 0

#16 Daniel J Callahan

Daniel J Callahan

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student

Posted 10 December 2010 - 02:16 PM

So would it be incorrect for me to say that i wanted a (For instance) shot of the villian's lair tilted a little to the side like the 60's Batman show, and as the Villian comes in i want a Birds eye view shot, and finish with a worm's eye view.

Edited by Daniel J Callahan, 10 December 2010 - 02:17 PM.

  • 0

#17 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 10 December 2010 - 02:29 PM

So would it be incorrect for me to say that i wanted a (For instance) shot of the villian's lair tilted a little to the side like the 60's Batman show, and as the Villian comes in i want a Birds eye view shot, and finish with a worm's eye view.


Why would that be incorrect??? That's your job as a director, to direct! You just don't micromanage the other artists, you don't tell the DP what f-stop to use, you tell him how much depth of field you want, you don't tell him to use a tweenie instead of a baby, or 250 instead of 216, etc. But you can say that you want the light to be softer or harder, or that the color isn't right, whatever (within time and budget constraints).

But you need to discuss what the shot is, what you want, of course.

Now you'd have to define those terms like "bird's eye" or "worm's eye" because it's a bit vague, better just to point where you want the camera lens to be and talk about the angle of view of the shot.

Now the DP may have an opinion of course, may suggest things, etc.
  • 0

#18 Dean Vian

Dean Vian
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 December 2010 - 09:58 AM

this is what is great about movies.. too many things are not fully under control so it will never be replicated. I say use older lenses than they used on those 82 pictures (look at Cooke SPs, Kowas or 70s Canons) Shoot on eterna 500t vivid and push it a stop for night and maybe use the 64D in day and push it a stop or the 160 vivid and push it one stop. The Ektachrome 100D pushed a stop is also a very early 80s/late 70s feel but real expensive.
but yeah the lighting is important too.

as for digital.. over light and over expose maybe.
  • 0

#19 Daniel J Callahan

Daniel J Callahan

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 7 posts
  • Student

Posted 15 September 2011 - 07:55 AM

Alright, lets say I'm freash out of school. I want to put together a series of low budget films, with older looks to them(Probably one of the most important aspects for me) . Now forgeting for a moment about any other expense, actors est. How much could I expect to pay for the services of a Cinematographer to help me get this look?

Edited by Daniel J Callahan, 15 September 2011 - 07:55 AM.

  • 0

#20 Jeremy Buttell

Jeremy Buttell

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 January 2015 - 05:34 AM

I've had this bookmarked for about 6 months now, mainly because of David Mullen's highly detailed post regarding specific film stocks used on various films... hopefully this thread still has some life in it ;P

 

Watching older films (particularly 70's and 80's films), I'm always fascinated by the look of the film, the way skin reads, the softness of glare, contamination of the blacks all resulting from a combination of the things mentioned in this thread. I recall reading that (maybe it was this thread, I can't remember) that film stocks were designed to make skin tones read in an ideal way - the flesh tones in films of this era sometimes seem a bit overly (technically) orange to me. With digital post being ubiquitous now, it seems its fair game to sort of do this by keying skin tones and selectively pushing them around, but obviously back in the 80s this wasn't practical and seemed to rely on a great DP who knows how to light their subjects and at the very most, some full frame color timing. 

 

I'm sure its quite doable to emulate the look with a careful attention to detail in post, there are some variables I'd love to have more scientific data on. For lack of a better description, the color response curves of the particular film stocks David Mullen mentioned - does such data exist? Were these films exposed to McBeth charts (or something else?) so one can fairly accurately create a color profile that matches these stocks?

 

In the grand scheme of things none of this is extremely important as I believe artistic emulation can fill the gap in most cases, but it would be a great starting point if some of this data exists somewhere.


Edited by Jeremy Buttell, 26 January 2015 - 05:36 AM.

  • 0


FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Tai Audio

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

CineLab

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Wooden Camera

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape