Jump to content




Photo

The Love Witch


  • Please log in to reply
150 replies to this topic

#1 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 May 2015 - 12:04 PM

I'm shooting an indie film called "Love Witch" for director Anna Biller, who has posted on this forum in the past about classic studio cinematography.  We met back in film school at CalArts and I shot a short film for her in the mid 1990's in 16mm in the style of an old Technicolor movie.  She asked me to shoot her latest feature in a similar hard-light style, modeled somewhat on 50's-60's color movies such as "Marnie".  Anna is also doing the production design, costumes, and later, the editing.

 

We are shooting in standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 on an Arricam ST and plan on a photochemical finish, and then a transfer to digital from a timed IP.  FotoKem is handling the processing and HD dailies (to ProRes 422 LT). I'm shooting most of the movie on the slowest speed tungsten stock available, Kodak Vision-3 200T, rated at 100 ASA in order to get the printer lights up higher for more saturation and contrast.  This means I need to get up to 100 foot-candles of key light just to achieve an f/2.8.  For day interiors scenes on stage, that's a lot of light and a lot of heat.

 

We are using mostly Zeiss Super-Speeds and I'm averaging near an f/2.8 for everything inside.  For a couple of interior locations where I have to balance to daylight and don't have enough light to use an 85 filter (and thus end up with an effective 64 ASA), I'm switching to Vision-3 250D rated at 125 ASA.  With HMI lighting, I can get to an f/4 a little easier but it's easier to do this old school hard lighting style with the tungsten fresnels.

 

We're about halfway through the shoot so far.  We spent two weeks in a warehouse converted to stage space in North Hollywood shooting on sets, then a week outdoors in a park, and then spent last week at the old Herald Examiner building using some of their spaces.

 

I won't be able to post any images for a couple of months at least, so when that happens, I can discuss the technical aspects more clearly.

 

Ideally, the best stock to use for this Technicolor look would have been the EXR 100T that Kodak used to make a decade ago, printed to Vision Premier 2393, also obsolete now.  Or maybe the Fuji Vivid stocks, though I think they only made 250D and 500T in that style, and I would have needed a 100T or 250T version.  Anyway, the choices have been reduced to Vision-3 negative and regular Vision print stock.  Vision-3 200T is pretty sharp I'm finding and I'm using a lot of diffusion filters to knock that back and get a more glamorous look, which is fun.

 

I'm finding that I need to use a direct 2K (Mole-Richardson stage Junior) at full flood about 15'-20' away or so to get an f/2.8 key, for closer work, a 1K or 650w Tweenie is bright enough, again, all direct.


  • 3




#2 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2196 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 24 May 2015 - 04:39 PM

David like the sound of this have fun .


  • 0

#3 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 26 May 2015 - 08:51 AM

We are shooting in standard 4-perf 35mm 1.85 on an Arricam ST and plan on a photochemical finish, and then a transfer to digital from a timed IP.  FotoKem is handling the processing and HD dailies (to ProRes 422 LT).

 

Yeah, baby! :D

 

Sounds like a blast, David.  I remember you said you wanted to get back to shooting film, so enjoy.  Anna sounds like a director who truly appreciates the medium of film.  Looking forward to seeing the frames. 


  • 0

#4 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 May 2015 - 11:28 AM

Muy interesante! Are you enjoying working photochemically? I'm trying to picture overexposed but diffused medium speed stock but I can't - it sounds cool, though.


  • 0

#5 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 17 June 2015 - 08:33 AM

Hi David.  Any updates on your project?...


  • 0

#6 Justin Hayward

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

Posted 17 June 2015 - 11:26 AM

He's still waiting for dailies.  :D


  • 0

#7 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2196 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 17 June 2015 - 01:31 PM

Don't think so ! Film lives, Alpha Lab Mobile should in your part of the woods soon . 


  • 0

#8 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 350 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 July 2015 - 05:12 PM

Hey David, it sounds great that you guys are following the photochemical workflow. Do you find any advantages to photochemical workflow over DI - considering you will have to get the color timed print digitized? Cost wise and quality wise. Thank you and good luck with the shoot.


  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 July 2015 - 08:00 PM

I'll answer that once we go through post... personally I'd prefer to do a D.I., there are too many advantages in terms of matching contrast, blending shots, etc.  But when the footage is perfectly shot and exposed, then nothing beats a straight contact print, the quality is amazing.  It's just that movies are more than pretty but isolated shots, there is continuity and storytelling involved where sometimes it is more important to keep a seamless feeling from cut to cut with in a sequence.  But since I believe that you should deliver footage as close to the final look as is practical, I tend to shoot as if I weren't going to do a D.I., even when shooting digitally -- it's a matter of pride to have footage that cuts smoothly and looks properly exposed for the look, etc. But sometimes there are post tricks that can save time on the set, so you have to be pragmatic.


  • 2

#10 Giray Izcan

Giray Izcan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 350 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 July 2015 - 09:11 PM

The reason I am asking is that I am prepping for a project that I'm planning on going with flat 85 and photochemical workflow. I was just wondering about digital versus photochemical workflow in terms of cost. Thank you.
  • 0

#11 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 July 2015 - 10:52 PM

D.I.'s are pretty expensive so shooting 4-perf 35mm and doing a neg cut and contact printed finish is cheaper assuming you have few digital effects... But if you do a D.I. you could shoot 3-perf and save some money to pay for some of the D.I. costs, but also consider you need to finish to 2K and HD minimally these days for theatrical and home video. If scanning a color-timed I.P. then it's a cheaper D.I. than working from uncut o-neg scans and doing a conform, and color-correction will take fewer days, but you still are going through some form of a D.I. or at least an HD telecine.
  • 0

#12 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2262 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 02 July 2015 - 10:47 AM

-- it's a matter of pride to have footage that cuts smoothly and looks properly exposed for the look, etc.

 

You said it, David!


  • 1

#13 Jay Young

Jay Young
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lexington KY

Posted 09 July 2015 - 02:07 PM

This is my kind of production.  It's nice to hear someone else using hard lighting and make a "studio" picture.  If you're talking about "Marnie" the Hitchcock film, it's got an interesting look, as most of his films do. You could always do what Hitchcock did, shoot rear projection in the studio for those outdoor scenes!

Of course, I guess we would chromakey it today.  Who has time to sync a rear screen projector....


  • 0

#14 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 July 2015 - 02:59 PM

Re: Scanning the IP, why scan the IP rather than a showprint? Intermediate stocks are designed to print and be printed from while release stocks are designed to hold the desired image, right? And how many prints do you have to make to warrant intermediates?

 

Looking forward to seeing frame grabs.


  • 0

#15 Kenny N Suleimanagich

Kenny N Suleimanagich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 843 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York

Posted 09 July 2015 - 03:16 PM

If you scan the IP you don't lose a generation in the printing. The image will be ever-so-slightly sharper. Then you can just apply the color timing you did in the print to the digital version. 


  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 July 2015 - 03:54 PM

The contrast of a projection print is too high to make a good-looking transfer for digital presentations... Just look at some old movies on DVD where only a projection print existed for transfer to video, they look rather harsh. Plus a print is usually made on a continuous belt printer whereas the IP is made on a step printer so is steadier and sharper.

An IP has the gamma of camera negative but would be color-timed and single strand with no splices.

There used to be a poor man's compromise which was a low-con "telecine" print, too flat for good projection quality but cheaper to make than an IP, but I believe Kodak discontinued the stock.

Anyway a distributor would expect the quality from a transfer from the o-neg or IP; they generally would not be happy with a telecine of a projection print unless it was an old movie and the only source.

For example, the blu-ray of the long European cut of Ridley Scott's "Legend" was made from a print because the original negative had been recut to make the U.S. version and there are no surviving IP's of the European version (with the Goldsmith score). So some reviewers were disappointed with the quality of that blu-ray.
  • 1

#17 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 July 2015 - 03:58 PM

There is no hard rule but generally you wouldn't want to make more than a dozen prints or so directly from the o-neg and you'd definitely want a protection IP made first. But historically there are famous cases where hundreds of prints were made from an original negative, causing much wear and tear (the original King Kong for example, or Star Wars).
  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 09 July 2015 - 04:03 PM

Intermediate duplication stocks are designed to copy a piece of film with minimal increase in grain or contrast, i.e. show as little generational loss as possible.

A projection print has a high contrast so that blacks look black when a bright projector lamp shines through the film and throws an image onto a white screen, so there is a loss of dynamic range compared to the information stored on the negative or an intermediate dupe of that negative.
  • 0

#19 cole t parzenn

cole t parzenn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 287 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 July 2015 - 05:44 PM

Ah - thanks! What steps are between scanning a timed IP and projecting a DCP?


  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 18789 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 19 July 2015 - 12:32 AM

Anna Biller said I could post a few frames now online.  I pulled a range to give you a sense of our non-contemporary (i.e. classic Hollywood studio style) approach.  Besides directing, Anna did the sets and costumes, which is a huge part of the look of this movie.

 

lovewitch1.jpg

 

lovewitch2.jpg

 

lovewitch3.jpg

 

lovewitch4.jpg


  • 4


CineLab

Technodolly

Zylight

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Pro 8mm

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Abel Cine

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

Pro 8mm

Glidecam

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

The Slider

Zylight

Willys Widgets

Technodolly

CineTape