DIY "Anamorphic" Lens Flare

We've all seen them. Horizontal lens flares that streak across the screen. If you've seen Star Trek, then you know what I'm talking about:

JJ Abrams likes him some lens flares. So does Michael Bay:

These are great examples of the anamorphic lens flare. A lot of Indie filmmakers dream of making images that look like this. In order to get images like this, you need an anamorphic lens. The only problem is though, that those puppies cost thousands and thousands of dollars that said Indie filmmakers don't have.

Recently though (within the last year or so), I have seen a surge of DIY solutions that don't cost much to put together, and you can use the lenses that you already have, and the best part is (I think), that you get the coveted horizontal flare (!).

I put anamorphic in quotations in the title, because technically it's not an anamorphic lens flare. It just looks like one.

So here's the skinny: get some fishing wire (I got the 30 lb. stuff), and run it vertically (yes, you read that right: run the fishing wire vertically for a horizontal flare) in front of your lens. Now, here is the place where I should mention that your lens needs to be at least a 50mm. If it's not, then the flare won't extend across the whole frame.

I tried out this little trick with a lens that I don't really use all that often anymore: the 14-42mm kit lens that came with my Panasonic GH2. I drilled a hole in the top and bottom of the lens hood and threaded the wire through both holes. I knotted the wire on the top and the bottom so that it would be tight.

EDIT:
Here is a few seconds of the test that I did last night:

So it's super noisy (ISO 6400 or so), but you get the idea. The flare is there, and all with my cheapo kit lens! Granted, this was at 42mm with ETC mode on (which works out to be about 100mm or so on a Full Frame equivalent).

This was just a quick and dirty test, and I will update this post once I have done more with it. I currently have some step-up rings coming for my 24-70 and 70-200 lenses to see what this flare will look like on a full frame sensor rather than a Micro 4/3 sensor.

I'll keep you posted.

Battle of the NLE's - Noam Kroll

Saw this over at Noam Kroll's blog and thought I'd re-post it here. Noam is a great cinematographer and if anyone needs anything shot, you should look him up.

"The future of the three major video editing platforms – Avid, FCP X, and Premiere Pro is a topic that has been coming up a lot lately. Since FCP X was released and shook up the post-production world over two years ago, a lot has changed. Premiere Pro has developed really nicely and gained some ground with indie filmmakers and small companies, Avid has stayed on course and brought back former users despite financial trouble within the company, and FCP X has slowly and silently matured, while being given a second look by many users that had previously abandoned it.

Right now many editors are still in limbo and the debate as to which NLE will dominate the market (if any) seems to have heated up again lately – likely due to the upcoming release of both FCP X 10.1 and the new Mac Pro. This is also probably why I’ve had lots of editors asking me which of the major NLE’s are worth learning in order to stay relevant and employed as an editor today. Throughout this article I’ll touch on the current state of each of the various NLE’s and not only speculate on their future, but also give insight into whether or not they are worth taking the time to learn based on what your needs are.

I’d like to preface the post below with this - I use all of the the major NLE’s (FCP 7/X, Avid, Premiere Pro), but can’t say one is better than the other, and that’s not what this article is about. Picking the right NLE is simply a personal decision that should be made by experimenting and finding the software best suits your needs.

So let’s jump right into it and look at our options:

Avid Media Composer 7

While the latest version of Media Composer isn’t radically different from previous iterations of the software, it is undoubtably a solid and extremely reliable piece of software in today’s post-production world. To this day, the vast majority of studio level feature films are cut on Avid MC, and it’s used on a massive amount of television series and other broadcast content. Although in many ways the program feels clunky, older, and generally less intuitive to use than some of the other NLE’s out there today – it does what it’s supposed to do, and it does it really well. In fact, for collaborative editing (as most post-houses are set up for, especially those handling TV series), it is still unmatched by Premiere Pro and FCP X. Neither of them really come close. Not to mention the software has been around long enough and matured long enough to trust it unquestionably with large scale, media intensive projects.

The issue with Media Composer right now is that even though so much high end content is being cut on it, the larger markets (low budget/independent/commercial, etc.) have largely stayed away from it. I don’t have any colleagues or friends that switched from FCP 7 to Avid, other than one that had to because the post-house he works for switched over. The lack of users switching over is likely due to the steep-ish learning curve of MC, but nonetheless the point is that Avid is having a lot of trouble right now. Every quarter they have been losing money, and there’s only so much longer they can function as a company given their financial losses. For this reason, I think Avid may have a really rocky future ahead. Just because they are still industry standard in some circles, doesn’t mean it will last forever. Who knows though, they may be able to pull themselves out of this slump with a drastic move aimed at the larger market, but in my opinion if you’re just learning an NLE for the first time – this probably isn’t the one to choose. That might sound pessimistic, but unless you live in NY or LA and want to work immediately at a large post-house (which are a dying breed as well), then you are better off putting your focus elsewhere.

FCP X

I’ve been using FCP X since it’s first release (10.0.0), and have been very happy with what Apple has done with it. While many editors still won’t give it a chance, more and more have decided to give it a go, and lately I’ve even found myself being less embarrassed when telling people I use it! The radical new design and functionality is definitely not for everyone, but there’s no denying that Apple is committed to making the software extremely powerful and very competitive. In my opinion, FCP X is the most evolved, efficient, and forward thinking system out there. And with the upcoming 10.1 release in December, things are going to get really interesting. I’m sure there will be a load of new features integrated, many of which will take advantage of the power of the new Mac Pro that will be released around the same time. To put it in perspective, the new Mac Pro is said to be able to edit up to 16 streams of multi-cam 4K video simultaneously. That’s pretty amazing.

So while I do see FCP X having a very optimistic future given the developments over the last year, there are still some large issues to be addressed, and major roadblocks that may prevent it from ever taking the place of Media Composer. The biggest issue is of course the difficulty of working with it in a collaborative environment. Until this is addressed, FCP X will never be able to penetrate the broadcast/high end feature market, or at least not as a primary NLE. That said, I don’t see FCP X’s controversial features like the magnetic timeline (which I really like), being an issue long term. Some new FCP X features take some getting used to, but eventually they seem to grow on most editors and convert even the most cynical users of the product. The upcoming release of FCP X 10.1 may very well address the issue of working in a collaborative environment, but until that happens I would advise that anyone learning the software should do so to work on their own projects, or at least on projects where they can choose the software they’re cutting on. In other words, if you’re learning a new piece of software just to get hired at a big post house, this isn’t for you. Avid is what you want. But if you want a really powerful and affordable tool for your own work, then FCP X is hard to beat.

Premiere Pro CC

I have to give Adobe a lot of credit for taking the bull by the horns and putting a lot of manpower behind the last couple of versions of Premiere Pro. Since FCP 7 was EOL’d, the Premiere Pro team seem to have made a conscious effort to not only improve the software dramatically, but cater it in many ways to former FCP 7 users, making the transition easy. In a lot of ways Premiere Pro feels like a hybrid of FCP X and Avid to me, both in terms of the design characteristics and general functionality. Adobe is very aware of what it’s users want and take the best features and ideas from other NLE’s and integrate them into Premiere Pro. It is one of the most flexible editing systems out there, taking just about any video format you can throw at it, and integrating beautifully with third party apps as well as seamlessly integrating with other Adobe applications like After Effects and Speedgrade.

Generally I think Premiere Pro has a real chance of sustaining itself as a growing, evolving, mature NLE. That said, there are a number of issues that are also plaguing Premiere Pro right now that may well prevent it from developing to the level that FCP 7 had reached. The biggest issue and setback for Adobe so far, has been their forced Creative Cloud model. A lot of Premiere Pro users were of course upset by this and have since taken a second look at FCP X or Media Composer. And the ones that have stayed, aren’t necessarily the most dedicated users. Out of all of the editors I know that use Premiere Pro, very few of them are married to it as they once were with FCP 7. I do have one or two colleagues that are big supporters of it (and I myself think it’s great and has it’s place), but a lot of users that I know seem to approach it almost as a temporary solution – waiting to see how it will develop compared to the other NLE’s out there. So generally, I think Premiere Pro has a fighting chance, but has been playing catch up with FCP 7 for too long and hasn’t yet made as big of a splash as it has the potential to.

So where does that leave us?

It’s a confusing time right now, especially for new editors or those just now finally switching from FCP 7 to another NLE. Is Avid the way to go given it is still industry standard? Or is a waste of time given the state of their company. FCP X has promising new features, but is largely rejected by many large scale productions, so why bother converting when it may never be fully accepted? And then we have Premiere Pro which is another feature rich, modern piece of software, but it requires that you rent it and also hasn’t been adopted by most large scale post-companies and productions.

The answer to these questions really just lies in the type of user you are. If you see yourself editing episodic TV in a major city and know you’ll work in a collaborative environment, than Avid is unquestionably the way to go. Alternatively, you might be an independent filmmaker or producer, looking for a modern, low cost editing solution that will get the job done really efficiently, in which case you can either look at FCP X or Premiere. Choosing between these two in my opinion is simply a matter of taste. Maybe you thrive on change and enjoy the creative freedom that FCP X allows, or maybe Premiere’s approach of integrating great components from other NLE’s makes it the most well rounded for your type of work.

The good news is that it doesn’t hurt (or even cost anything) to try out any of the three major NLE’s. If you haven’t already done so, I would actually suggest you do just that – learn all three. At least on a basic level and see which one clicks with you. Even if you never think you’ll use all three systems, knowing them all will only make you a better editor and a more valuable asset to any team. If I had to put money on it, I would say that the next 6 months will give us a much clearer idea of what the future holds for all the major NLE’s. The release of the new Mac Pro will be the final test of whether or not FCP X will be given another shot on a large scale, and depending on how the release plays out, the ripple effect will surely change the course of both Avid MC and Premiere Pro.

Regardless of which software you choose, remember that they are all just tools. None of them will make your film better, they will only help you achieve your vision."

Some Star Wars News...

There have been some exciting updates in the development of Episode VII of Star Wars. The first, is that screenwriter Michael Arndt has left the project and that the writing has been taken over by Lawrence Kasdan and JJ Abrams. According to Starwars.com:

"As Episode VII continues pre-production, Lawrence Kasdan and director J.J. Abrams have assumed screenwriting duties for the film. Kasdan, who has been serving as a consultant on the film, is a veteran of several classic Lucasfilm productions, writing the screenplay for Raiders of the Lost Ark and serving as co-screenwriter for The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Acclaimed director and screenwriter Abrams' credits include Super 8, Mission: Impossible III, Fringe, and Lost.

"I am very excited about the story we have in place and thrilled to have Larry and J.J. working on the script," states Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy. "There are very few people who fundamentally understand the way a Star Wars story works like Larry, and it is nothing short of incredible to have him even more deeply involved in its return to the big screen. J.J. of course is an incredible storyteller in his own right. Michael Arndt has done a terrific job bringing us to this point and we have an amazing filmmaking and design team in place already prepping for production."

This is good news all around. First of all, Kasdan wrote 'The Empire Strikes Back'. Many critics agree that Empire was the best film of the original trilogy. Kasdan can be seen below on the left, along with George Lucas and Mark Hamill:

Secondly, Kasdan wrote 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'. This, in my opinion, is the best Indy film of the three (yes, there are only three real Indy films). It has the elements that make a film endearing. It's just plain old fun to watch.

So what does this mean for the new Star Wars? It means that it's going to be great.

Other news in the Star Wars universe this week: the main crew for the production of the film has been revealed! Let's take a look.

Director of photography will be Dan Mindel, South African-born American Society of Cinematographers member who has previously collaborated with Abrams on Mission: Impossible III, Star Trek, and Star Trek Into Darkness.

Sound designer Ben Burtt will be back as well. He worked with George Lucas on the sounds for all of the Star Wars films and the Indiana Jones adventures. Not only did he create the voice of the droids but also helped Spielberg design the voice of E.T. and was the voice of WALL-E and M-O in Pixar’s WALL-E. He has a long history with Kathleen Kennedy, George Lucas and also JJ Abrams, having previously collaborated with JJ on Star Trek, Super 8 and Star Trek Into Darkness.

Visual effects supervisor Roger Guyett of Industrial Light & Magic got his start on the Kathleen Kennedy/Steven Spielberg produced animated film We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story. His credits include Casper, Twister, DragonHeart, Mars Attacks, Saving Private Ryan, the Harry Potter films, Mission: Impossible III, the last two Pirates of the Caribbeanfilms, and Cowboys & Aliens.

And previously announced, John Williams is returning to score Star Wars: Episode VII after providing the music for the prior installments. No credit listing needed.

That's a pretty exciting list! I can't wait to see what they all come up with! Stay tuned for more.

Virgil & Raquel's Wedding Video

Hey all. It's been a while, but things have been busy!

Back in July I was able to video a wedding while my wife took the pictures. It was a great wedding and a fun reception!



Shot on the Panasonic GH2 with the Lumix 14-140mm lens, as well as the 20mm f/1.7 lens. Edited in Sony Vegas. Music is copyright it's original owner.

Movie Review: The Lone Ranger

What follows are my thoughts after seeing Disney's The Lone Ranger last night. Spoilers to follow.

Disney has tried to recreate a classic with their latest film, and, in my opinion, have failed miserably. Although I have only seen one episode of the classic TV series (which ran from 1949-1957 with 221 episodes), I can tell you that the similarities go only as far as the title and main characters.

One of the things that really put me off about this movie was the amount of violence that was in it. I knew going into the film that it was going to be a little darker than, say, Pirates of the Caribbean, but I was not expecting this amount of violence and gore from a Disney film. For instance, about 30 minutes into the film, the Dan Reid, one of the Rangers for the town of Colby, Texas, gets shot off his horse. They could have ended the scene right then and there, and the audience would have known that he was dead, as many classic Western films have done, but again, Bruckheimer and Verbinski didn't stop there. The antagonist, Butch Cavendish, proceeds to cut his heart out and eat it. He ate his heart. WTF Disney?! Judging from a few other moments in the film (Red's ivory leg), Butch got his name from butchering people and eating them. I digress.

Another thing. I totally understand John Reid's moral code of not killing anybody, and bringing them to justice in a court of law. It's one of those themes that the classic Western The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is all about. But Rance Stoddard never donned a mask to fight his enemies. The Lone Ranger did. I'm not arguing for a double-standard of morality, I'm just saying that you live in the Wild West. There are no laws. There is no authority. The only justice there is is the 6-shooter on your side. USE IT.

The cinematography on the film was rather odd, actually. Some of the framing, particularly in the beginning of the film, frames some people who are talking so that their head is cut off. I'm not sure if this is because the filmmakers wanted us to feel uneasy about this particular character, or if they just got lazy, but either way, it worked. The film was shot in Colorado, southern Utah, New Mexico, and California. I loved the expansive landscape shots in the d. One of them in particular is during the end credit sequence, where it shows Tonto and The Lone Ranger riding off to bring justice to the wild west. Cinematographer Bojan Bazelli used a mixture of film and digital to capture the beautiful scenery. The daytime exteriors were shot on Kodak VISION3 50D 5203 35mm film, and the night time exteriors and interiors were shot on the Arri Alexa Studio camera. I actually liked how the film looked and felt in terms of it's grittiness, because the wild west was a gritty and dirty place.

The music was one of the few things in the film that I actually enjoyed. Once the film gets it's legs (at about 2 hours into the film), we finally hear the classic William Tell's Overture, as The Lone Ranger starts to do his thing. I wish there was more of that in this film.

One of my beefs with the film are the many times that Tonto somehow miraculously appears in the right place at the right time, or how he got out of jail, etc... Instead of showing us some tricky way of how he did it (ala Jack Sparrow style), the filmmakers cheapened the experience by cutting away to the older Tonto telling the story to the young boy at the fair, and having the boy ask the question that was on the audience's mind, only to be met with a cross-eyed gaze from the aging Tonto, who just proceeds with the story. Also, how did they know that the dynamite and the kerosene was in the vault at the bank? There were many other plot holes, and they make up the whole of the movie. 

Oh, and Tonto is really Jack Sparrow in disguise.

I feel like this film was trying to be something that it wasn't. It was trying to be fun, but by the climax of the film, you're worn out and just want to leave anyway. The climax (the only real fun part of the show), reminded me of Buster Keaton's 1926 classic film The General. Except that everything that you see in The General is honest-to-goodness real. There were no bad CGI buffalos or disorienting camera moves, or cannaballistic rabbits in The General, either. But I definitely had more fun with that film. Oh, and did I mention that it's a black and white silent film?

I give The Lone Ranger a 4/10, and that's being generous.

Date Night with DoTERRA

DoTERRA, the internationally-known essential oils company, recently had a video contest, where the participants were asked to submit videos of how they use their DoTERRA products, and here is the finished video:

Pre Production

Well, my wife and I were  with some friends at a baseball game when she had the idea of making it into a short, narrative style video about a couple who use DoTERRA products to get ready for a date that they're going on. That idea was bounced back and forth and went through many iterations before I actually sat down and wrote a script.

Does anyone know why scripts are always written in this font?? haha

Writing the script was an interesting exercise, because there was to be no dialogue in the film. It was just going to be our actors acting out their roles. The script went through many revisions as well, as you can imagine. At one point, the ending was completely different. Austin went in for the kiss and Diana slapped him, and when he woke up, he was on the floor of an empty theater. I felt that that ending left us with a negative feeling, as a sort of "bad ending", and I really wanted it to be a happy ending, so Austin ended up getting the girl in the end. 

Production

On our first day of shooting, we went to Water Gardens Cinema 6, who were nice enough to let us film (for free!!) before their business hours. Very special thanks goes out to those guys. They were very nice and easy to work with. Anyway, we filmed on one of their screens for about an hour and a half. I actually plugged my laptop into their Christie 2K Projector, and projected some footage that I had shot on my GH2 recently. It was so cool to see some of my work on a real movie screen! I think that that was one of the highlights of the whole shoot for me. The GH2 footage looked gorgeous on the big screen (and most of it was 720p that was upconverted to 1080p). 

GH2 footage looked great on the big screen!

Filming Austin & Diana while they watch their wedding video!

Part of the second day of shooting consisted of filming Austin playing Xbox and getting a text from Diana. These were just filmed in their apartment with Austin acting like he was playing Xbox. I recorded the sounds of the game later when I was playing Halo 4, and I just dropped the sound in on the timeline, and I think it worked out well! The sound of the phone going off was added later as well. I had the idea for the floating text from the BBC show 'Sherlock'. I love that show and I really liked how they show the text on the screen when someone in the show gets a message. I simply tracked Austin's phone in After Effects and made a new null object, and applied the tracking data to that null object. I then parented the text to the null, and vwalla! Instant tracked text! 

Another thing we shot on the second day was Austin getting ready for his date. In my opinion, this is one of the key sequences in the video, because it shows Austin actually using the DoTERRA products. I shot some of it handheld with the 24-70mm lens and then I got the cutaway shots with the 70-200mm zoom. I was standing all the way back in the bedroom and all the way zoomed in to get the money shot of him selecting which oil to use from the collection, so as to get the nice depth of field. This required a rack focus during the shot, so I think we had to do it a few times so that I could nail the focus. This is my favorite shot in the video.

We also shot the exterior of Diana's house that night. By the time we got there though, it was already pretty dark, and I didn't have any other lighting equipment with me, so I cranked the ISO up to 2500 and prayed it wouldn't be too noisy. To my surprise, when I was editing and looking at the footage, it looked pristine! I was amazed to see that there wasn't too much noise! There is a little bit of noise, but it looks very filmic and organic so it wasn't actually an issue in post.

Filming the door shot. 2500 ISO worked out great!

We filmed the exterior of the theater that night and nailed it in two takes.

Filming the exterior of the movie theater. Nailed it in two takes.

We did film some extra scenes that didn't end up making it into the video. One of the scenes that got cut was Austin pulling up to Diana's house and acting really nervous, so he pulled out some Lavender essential oil and took a few whiffs to calm himself down. I felt that this slowed the pacing of the video down too much, so it was cut out. The other scene that was cut was showing Diana getting ready for the date using her essential oils. The original idea was to intercut between Austin and Diana as they were both getting ready. I felt that that approach took the focus away from Austin, as he is the main character, and he's trying to impress the girl on their date, so that didn't make it into the video, either. 

One of the scenes that got cut: Diana getting ready for the date

Post Production (Sculpting with Marble)

Editing the video was fairly straight forward. Allow me to pause for a second and talk about editing in greater detail. I recently finished taking an Advanced Avid Editing class, in which we were required to read Walter Murch's famous book about editing, entitled "In the Blink of an Eye". I had read this previously (probably about 6 years ago now), but I didn't really get anything out of it back then. 

Anyway, one of Walter Murch’s many analogies that I found interesting was where he was discussing the differences between a KEMediting machine, and a Moviola (on page 45 in the book). He writes, “Other than the standing/sitting question, the differences between the Moviola system and the KEM system boil down to sculptural ones…” He goes on to compare editing on the two different systems to sculpting clay and sculpting marble. With the Moviola, he says, you start with nothing and then gradually build or sculpt the film as you would sculpt clay, piece by piece, until the finished film is before your eyes. With the KEM, all of the material is there in front of you, and Murch compares this to sculpting something out of marble. “The sculpture is already there, hidden within the stone, and you reveal it by taking away, rather than building it up piece by piece from nothing, as you would do with clay.” 

When I first read this, I had to stop and think about what he had just said, as I had never approached editing a film the way a sculptor would approach a block of marble. So, for this editing project, I took all of the footage that was shot and placed it in the timeline, and I just started chipping away at it until there was a finished product! It was a fun and different way of working than I had previously done before, and one that I am definitely going to experiment with more in the future.

You probably didn't notice the effects shot in the movie, did you? That's the way it's supposed to be though! The very last shot of the film, of Austin and Diana kissing with fireworks on the movie screen in the background, is the effects shot I'm talking about. On the day of the shoot, I didn't have any fireworks stock footage yet, and so what I did was to make a still frame in Photoshop with some tracking markers on it. In hindsight, it probably would have worked better if it was green, rather than white, so that it would have keyed out better, but I really didn't want to deal with the green-spill later. So I basically tracked the shot in After Effects and then applied that tracking data to a null object, and then made a garbage matte (one each for Austin and Diana), and rotoscoped around them for the duration of the shot. I then brought in the stock footage and parented that to the null object, so that it would move when the camera tilted up towards the screen. I then added the DoTERRA logo and parented that to the null as well. I added some grain as a finishing touch and vwalla! Money shot!

Below is an example of how it looked before and how it looked after.

Before

After

I purchased the royalty free music from premiumbeat.com, and the track worked perfectly with the feel that I was going for in this video.

Conclusion

All in all though, this video was a lot of fun to make. I love the process of trying to secure locations, and trying to align the stars so that everybody's schedules work out, and the filming and the outtakes, and the laughs, and the editing, and then looking at the final product and being proud of it! One of the main reasons why I love making movies is because of the experience that I have along the way. Yes, the final product is cool, but for me, it's really about the experiences I have along the way.

You'll notice that I didn't shoot in raw, or 4K, or have the most dynamic range, or have a kitted-out camera rig with lenses that cost more than my house, or matte-boxes with filters and wireless follow focus systems, or an external monitor for checking my focus. And the video still turned out great. At the end of the day it's about the story. Cameras and equipment are the tools you use to tell the story, and in my opinion, many of the doo-dads that camera companies are making nowadays are just eye-candy. Don't worry about all that extra stuff and just go out and make your movie. 

Huge thanks to Austin and Diana Gunn for helping me out and acting in the video for me, and thanks to Kristina Bills for taking the behind the scenes pictures and helping to critique the edit. Very special thanks to Water Gardens Cinema 6 in Pleasant Grove, UT, for letting us shoot there early on a Saturday morning, and thanks to Emily for letting us borrow her DoTERRA products!

More BTS pics:

Yeah yeah, I know: the theater is empty! haha

Alternate ending that wasn't used.

Getting a close up of Austin watching the movie.

Using my Steadicam for a shot that was ultimately cut from the film.

I wanted a really compressed foreground and background, so I used the 70-200 @ 200mm. Worked like a charm!

Kylie and Fayoz's Wedding Video

Kylie and Fayoz got married back in March, and I just realized that I forgot to post their wedding video here!

The process for this video was the same as the previous two. I used my Steadicam for most of the shots with my GH2 using a 14mm lens (28mm FF equivalent) and shooting at either 60 frames per second or 29.97, so that I had the option of slowing both of them down when I dropped the clips into a 24p timeline. We went back to the temple a few weeks after their wedding to get most of the pickup shots, and I'm happy with the way that they turned out! All of the lens flares, etc... in this are real. It was just that awesome of an evening. Perfect sunset, and a great couple! Editing was done in Sony Vegas.

Preston & Emilee's Wedding Video

I had the chance to film my friend's wedding on the 26th of April, and here's the video I made from it:




I filmed most of this at 29.97 frames per second, so that when I got to editing, I could slow it down 20% to 23.98 fps, thus creating a slightly slow-motion version of the clip. I think it worked well.

For the outdoor shots, I wanted to get as wide of an angle as I could, so I flew the Lumix 14-140mm @ 14mm. For the indoor stuff, I needed a fast lens, so I went with my 20mm f/1.7. I also left it wide open, which I was surprised to find out that it worked beautifully!

Gear used in this shoot: Lumix GH2, the Weildy HDV steadicam, Lumix 14-140mm lens, and the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens. Edited in Sony Vegas.

Austin & Diana's Wedding Video

I had the chance to attend my cousin's wedding back in February, and of course I brought my camera along! Here's the video I edited of their wedding:



I did a few things differently with this video. First, I filmed most of it at 29.97 frames per second, so that when I got to editing, I could slow it down 20% to 24 fps, thus creating a slightly slow-motion version of the clip. I think it worked well.

Another thing that I did differently was that this was the first time I used my steadicam for an event. I thought that it would get heavy or tiresome after a while, but it didn't. For the outdoor shots, I wanted to get as wide of an angle as I could, so I flew the Lumix 14-140mm @ 14mm. For the indoor stuff, I needed a fast lens, so I went with my 20mm f/1.7. I also left it wide open, which I was surprised to find out that it worked beautifully!

Gear used in this shoot: Lumix GH2, the Weildy HDV steadicam, Lumix 14-140mm lens, and the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 lens. Also used the Indie Slider Mini for the two slider shots. Edited in Sony Vegas.

The Cinematography of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi"

This was a post from a DP (ie: not myself) discussing the cinematography of "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". 

Comparing Apples With Apples 

A Comparison Between The Cinematography Of "The Empire Strikes Back" Against "Return of the Jedi"

Firstly I won't beat around the bush on this point. I love the photography and lighting of "The Empire Strikes Back" and a positively LOATHE the photography and lighting on "Return of the Jedi". I, along with several professional DOP's that I've met and worked with, feel the "Empire" is just one of the best shot movies ever made. In contrast, I think "Jedi" is - in photographic terms - a right old bore and incredibly blase  dull, uninspiring, unoriginal and basically was put together in a "shoot by numbers" manner.

This is pure opinion of course. None of this is a matter of fact. I am fully aware that there are legions of fans and filmmakers who adore the photography of "JEDI" and that's perfectly fine. But what's great about this is that you end up with two films, shot relatively close to each other, with similar kinds of technology available, with very different looks, feel, mood and shooting philosophies.

This post isn't designed to convince you one way or another, but through my observation of the differences in the films, at least get people thinking about how they shoot and light their own films. Even if you are a fan of how "JEDI" was shot, I think it can be a very useful exercise to think about the differences in styles and philosophies so you know what you ARE doing and what you are NOT doing.

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

"The Empire Strikes Back" was photographed by Peter Suschitzky, a relatively young (early 40's at the time) DOP who didn't have a huge filmography behind him, but has since gone on to shoot films such as "Dead Ringers", "Immortal Beloved", David Cronenberg's "Crash", "Mars Attacks" and "A History of Violence". The film was directed by the great Irvin Kershner whose credibility as a director isn't even worth establishing on forums like these. We all know he was firing on all cylinders on this project at least.

The photography and lighting of "The Empire Strikes Back" is an extreme change of gears from "Star Wars". Most laymen will say it was a "darker" film visually and they wouldn't be wrong in that assumption, however there is something still quite different about the "darkness" of "Empire" versus the "darkness" of "Jedi" and the prequels that have followed.

The first thing that really strikes me about the lighting is that, generally speaking, most of the light in the scenes come from light-sources established within that scene. In layman's term, the character's faces are lit by things that create light in the room, their faces are NOT lit up by some magical spotlight that follows them around. This I think is in stark contrast to both "Star Wars" and "Jedi" which have a much more traditional notion of lighting - light the room, then light the actors. It's not to say that the characters in "Empire" are solely lit by set-dressing light sources, but that the film lighting they use is cleverly disguised. The end result is that the film is very shadowy, heavily atmospheric and portrays a greater range of mood.

The next obvious thing about the lighting is the intensive use of color. "Empire" is the film in the OT that uses colored lighting more than any other film. Even in our memories we can quickly bring up the cold blues of Echo Base, the hot red glow of the Carbonite Chamber, the sickly cold atmosphere of Dagobah.

Thirdly, what makes "Empire's" photography so superior, is Suschitzky and Kershner's very dynamic framing and moving camera setups. The Echo Base segment is a perfect example of it - sweeping crane shots, rack-focusing during conversations, dynamic tilted and skewed angles and of course lots and lots of smoke. Even the framing in the film is exemplary with excessive usage of VERY wide lenses (almost 180 degree field of vision) and tight framing to construct beautiful pictures.

In short, "The Empire Strikes Back" seems to have a philosophy of making every shot in a movie into a beautiful picture, a work of art.

RETURN OF THE JEDI

"Return of the Jedi" was, of course, directed by Richard Marquand and veteran old-school cinematographer Alan Hume, who had a track record as long as a man's arm. Hume, since then, has had to take a back seat and shoot mostly B-films and low budget dramas, though he did shoot the "Supergirl" movie, the cult horror "LifeForce" and the comedy "A Fish Called Wanda" since working on "Jedi".

Not to disrespect the memory of Marquand, but whenever I watch "Jedi" I always see a very old-fashioned and assembly-line approach to their cinematography. While "Empire" was put together using carefully constructed concept-shots, "Jedi" has a strong feel of the old coverage system: establishing shot, master of the whole scene and then the closeups at the end. "Jedi" just seems to be riddled with scenes photographed in that same old formula with very little fresh ideas or risk-taking.

Likewise in terms of the lighting, the movie has a very old-school feel about it. Every scene in the movie seems to be dotted with very convenient, unnatural light that follows and floods the actors faces and robs the scene of its mood or atmosphere greatly (in my humble opinion). There also seems to be a great lacking in use of color in the lighting except on very rare occasions (Luke and Leia's Ewok Village conversation for instance) which is what I personally miss the most.

Even the quality of the framing isn't to my taste. Many of the shots have an uncinematic lacking of DOF and a lot of beauty of the framing seems lost because of narrower lenses and/or the shot is a little too wide, has boring composition or leaves a great deal of headroom. There is a GREAT lacking of crane-shots, moving dolly or steadicam shots. And many of the angles are shot at eye-level and rarely do we see something from a high or low-angle, unlike "Empire".

In short, I propose that the photography of "Empire" is one of many amazing elements about that film that made it such a great success while "Jedi's" by-the-book methods of shooting seems to have endowed the final chapter in the saga with a less than epic feel.


But let's have some examples shall we?

THE EVIDENCE

Let's see how they've lit up Vader across the two films. The ESB Vader (top image) has a very interesting lighting philosophy where they try to create the illusion that his shape and his lines are being lit up entirely by the room itself - lights from the computer consoles etc. The JEDI Vader (bottom image) while, admittedly, is in a larger room, seems to be less dynamically lit. Also the framing of the ESB Vader is - in my mind - a little more artistic, his placement in the frame, the amount of background behind him and the way it stretches across the canvas of the frame. The look for JEDI Vader doesn't seem all that flattering in his scene.

Two similar sort of images - one from ESB (top) and one from JEDI (bottom). Notice how, despite the illumination coming from space via the massive porthole windows, there is still a strange white light that is illuminating the floor and stairway that Luke and Vader climb. The whiteness of that light seems a little out of place in a room that has very little visible light sources and also establishes that the light from space is "blue". The image on the top, iconic as it is, suggests a far more threatening notion of a spider biding its time or a monster in its lair and feels far more aggressive than the Emperor ever feels in any of his shots. The ESB image has the illusion, again, to be lit only by the lighting in the room.

Here are a couple of comparison images of the interior of the Millennium Falcon from ESB (top) and JEDI (bottom). Notice how much brighter, more colorful and more atmospheric the lighting of the Falcon's interior is in the ESB shot. There even appears to be a slight diffusion applied to the image, possibly via a filter, to really bring out the lighting quality. Notice how the JEDI image is remarkably less interesting and dull, but also is again illuminated by a blank white light coming from "space" beyond. I personally prefer the ESB style again.

Here's a perfect example of the difference in quality of framing, composition and lens-sizes. Which is the more artistic and beautiful image? Which image really implies action, intensity and focus? ESB (top) or JEDI (bottom)? I know my pick is definitely for the top. The bottom image is a great example of poor, very boring framing in my mind.

Despite ESB being a much "shadowier" and "darker" film, its interesting to note the degrees and variations of lighting. ESB (on top) uses lighting to imply different layers and levels within the scene as the light grows, gradually, more intense as our eye follows the action from Luke to Boba Fett walking across the hallway. Compare that to the image from JEDI (below) which implies only two-tones of lighting at best and lacks subtly  You can't even see what's in the foreground because much of it is either not lit, or the exposure of the camera is turned down too low.

Here's an example of what - in my opinion - is a similar idea done two ways: very well and very badly. The scene from ESB (above) is a carefully composed shot that not only imbues a sense of space, but also beautifully shows the ships in the background and has lots of interesting clutter in the foreground (the backs of the pilots heads). Notice how the expansive width of the lens and the arrangement of the actors naturally causes the eye to focus in on Princess Leia? It should be noted that this is also a crane-shot, it opens with a pilot running over to the huddle and then craning down to focus on Princess Leia. The shot from JEDI (bottom) is what happens when you don't have a specific idea on how to cover a conversation and just end up shooting everything from every angle. We're seeing an unflattering angle of the back of Bib Fortuna's head, 3PO and R2 are squashed onto the bottom left hand end of the frame (even though they are the focal point of the shot) and the back wall is lit up from a light source that is never established within the scene (and so is 3PO who is shining like a piece of jewelry in a supposed dark and dank tunnel). It should ALSO be noted that in the scene depicted in the ESB screenshot (above), after Princess Leia delivers her speech she is interrupted by a pilot asking "Two fighters against a Star Destroyer?". When he asks that question, the camera RACK-FOCUSES onto him over her shoulder and then RACKS BACK onto Princess Leia when she answers the question. ESB = dynamic, JEDI = paint by numbers. You decide which is better.

Here are a series of establishing shots. Notice how the ESB shots (top) use the entire width of the frame and the expansiveness, given by the lens, to show the room and the scenery? Also take note of the colors as well. Compare this with the JEDI shots (bottom) which force the eye to focus only on what's in the center of the frame, thereby deadening the impact of the shot in of itself? You barely have time to notice the shuttle landed in the background because you're too busy concentrating on the poorly framed Han Solo and Rebel Soldiers marching on the bottom of the frame. Would it have been too much to ask to pump some smoke into that forest shot? Have some light-beams filtering through those trees? Of course that was the Director and DOP's decision, but it seems a shame to me to waste such a beauty shot. Again keep in mind that the ESB shots are also dynamic, MOVING shots, while the JEDI ones are locked-off and standing still. 

Although these are two very different scenes that are shot under very different circumstances (so perhaps judging the lighting may be moot), the framing is still uniquely interesting. In short notice how the framing in the ESB screenshot (top) isolates Luke on the far right hand side and leaves a huge gap of nothingness on frame-left, heightening his isolation and his sense of helplessness. In the JEDI screenshot (below), the frame is crowded with tonnes of actors all standing in a neat row (a classic "Hollywood Group Shot" from the 40's and 50's). This scene is, of course, meant to be about Luke walking the plank, but the shot doesn't focus on his face where his emotions are being played. It's too wide and has even been compositioned "up" to include Chewbacca in the frame, even though he's irrelevant to that "moment" in the drama. Luke doesn't seem isolated or in danger, he looks like he's waiting to get on a bus. A little harsh? Maybe, but I certainly am not a fan of this kind of framing at all.

So here's an interesting comparison. Notice the very subtle, but highly atmospheric lighting used to not only illuminate Luke and Yoda, but also the mist and tree trunks behind them. Note the eerie color and subtle, but effective use of shadows on Luke's face and the area surrounding them. Contrast that with the JEDI image below of Luke and Leia. Firstly I don't know WHY they're framed like that - i mean sure there's something way off in the distant background there, but I can't actually SEE what it is nor do I find it particularly interesting to boot. And whats with all that head space above Luke and Leia's head? It's not balanced by similar space below, so again its squashing both characters into the edge of a relatively boring and not very well-lit frame. In the ESB Yoda scene (above), he is actually talking ABOUT his size and the Force "around them" so a shot that wide works well with the dialogue. But the Luke and Leia scene is nothing about their surroundings, its about their emotions and really ought to be a lot tighter on their faces and really emphasizing Luke's turmoil and Leia's conflict.

IN CONCLUSION?

There's loads more examples I could cite, but basically these are just some illustrations to show the difference between being "dynamic" in how you shoot your film and being "by the book". One way isn't actually harder than the other, in terms of the advice that I've been given, it's just that one way is what you'll always find in the film books while the other requires experimentation, vision and being willing to go that step further and have more patience with your shot construction. 

Just like in storytelling, concepts and other aspects of production like acting, production design, art, wardrobe, makeup and everything else, cinematography is something that people only give a "certain amount of thought to" before dropping it and moving on. But what you do end up with is a film making style that doesn't evolve, doesn't improve and, frankly, ends up looking like everyone else's. If you're not going willing to push yourself further in how you shoot a film your movie will end up looking like a costume drama, which is (in MY OPINION) exactly what "Return of the Jedi" looks like.