Barry Ackroyd (Captain Phillips), Sean Bobbitt (12 Years a Slave), Bruno Delbonnel (Inside Llewyn Davis), Phedon Papamichael (Nebraska) and Stuart Dryburgh (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty) sit down for a candid conversation.
This is a rare treat: a discussion with cinematographers, the most under-rated artists behind every film. Thank you once again to The Hollywood Reporter. These roundtable videos are genuinely inspiring and educational.
I'm glad they did a roundtable on cinematographers. It's a nice change from the usual actors, directors roundtables. I hope they do more over positions that don't get much limelight like composers.
Keenan Duke I do remember them doing a composers roundtable one year. I forget who was involved, but if these roundtables are archived on their site somewhere, you might be able to look it up if you're interested.
Thanks for uploading this. Fascinating conversation, thanks for putting the spot lighters on the spot light. I can watch this conversation again ... again and again.
Anyone notice the picture profiles were different between cameras? Or that the sound, besides being out of synch sometimes, was also mixed at different volumes per speaker? Pretty basic production mistakes for a video about cinematography. Pretty ironic
I think the language of digital is "clean slate." You can shoot soft, sharp, clean, grainy. If you're pining for the look of old films, you can get digital to look close. It's a great brush.
this guys are very humble an brilliant in some way their personality seems much healthier than the directors and the actors, and their conversation is much more interesting
Wish Emmanuel Lubezki was there, Gravity has by far the best cinematography of 2013. Also would've loved to see Roger Deakins (Prisoner, No Country for Old Men, Skyfall,etc)
Very surprised that Roger Deakins isn't in this. In my honest opinion, he's the greatest cinematographer working in the industry. His work for Skyfall and this year's Prisoners was incredible. And Emmanuel Lubezki for Gravity.
...except digital isn't higher quality yet, it merely accentuates certain details and sharpness to give the illusion of being higher definition. Because they were making fun of "new antique" lens doesn't mean they're mocking the old equipment. I love that these guys are so ernest in their affection for film, not wanting to see it fade off, and yet adaptable (dare I say hopeful?) for the new technology. Delbonnel was probably the most critical and incisive in his words against digital, and rightly so. It's going to be a damn long time still before the average digital movie looks near as good as the average 35mm movie. Very good conversation. The only thing that annoyed me was the constant intercutting of the "photoshoot" nonsense, and gratuitous movie clips that THR is wont to edit into every singe Roundtable!
approx 20min in: The comment about digital was as he says taken from his experience about 7 years ago (perhaps 2006). Monitors need calibrating, the viewfinder is brighter than the human eye etc.. This is all true and I can see why he and others would prefer film. However, technology and primarily engineers and entrepreneurs and businessmen look for solutions. They want to sell products that people do want. If there are criticisms new things need inventions. The developments get better. New problems, new solutions. As for shooting at resolutions beyond what we can see. One can grade a shot to what feels right, but having the flexibility if you want it is a benefit. At some point if the tech can give the cinematographer more than he wants, he could always choose to omit a feature, i.e. don't show me what I can't see, don't employ the function I don't wish to use. But have the feature if / in case you need it. And from time to time a man will bring his realized idea to a concrete that suddenly allows us to achieve previously unimagined benefits. This is the journey.
Digital doesn't bother me so much in video but digital music is unbearable to listen to. Give me analog any day. I do prefer the old Technicolor over the way movies look today though on second thought, they just look more like movies.
Wally Smith Again, perhaps the tech still has quite a way to go for the most discerning ear. Now I know far less about audio, so I give way to those that know more. I assume to some extent the sample rate is a contributing factor. With a higher enough sample rate, the wave form will be indistinguishable from an analogue waveform. There is a theory that the universe itself is in essence digital. I don't know. But a theory for this answers Zeno's arrow paradox. If any distance travelled can be halved infinitely then the arrow ought not be able to move - and yet it does. If the universe spatially at the uber small level were in fact digital, then the arrow could move because there would be a point at which it would no longer occupy one space but appear in another without needing to travel there. Interesting idea. It gives some clout to a level of super sampling beyond our senses, both visual and audible. What do you think? - I'm far less knowledgeable when it comes to sound. Are there any other factors beyond sample rate?
Avidcomp You are right about the sample rate. It will eventually be close to the same but there is something about pulling an LP out of a sleeve and placing it on a turntable and reading the sleeve while it's playing that is lost with a digital format. I know a DJ and he was talking about mixing with LPs compared to CDs and he said "it's the same but it's like using a rubber". Technology is always advancing and some people use it to improve the quality but there is always something else that is lost in the process.
Wally Smith Ah. This is a different matter and it is guided by feelings and in this case nostalgia. Sadly it leads to an irrational attack on new wondrous things. The Puritans would have hated it all on the basis of experiencing pleasure. Sinful they would cry. Well, so much for emotions as a tool of cognition.
+Wally Smith Lana Wachowski said in the documentary, side by side, If things are important to human beings, we find a way to preserve them. So I think we will always find a way to preserve the things we like. Film has been seeing a resurgence recently. Kodak is not going to shut down for a long time.
You should really watch your interviews, as great as they are, before posting them. Editor/Sound Editor didn't match up the sound files to the filmed recordings properly. It's brutally annoying.
also, even though I shoot on digital, there is something far more aesthetically pleasing about a lower quality image. Makes me want to shoot on film haha
"Ok people the hollywood reporter cinematographers roundtable is today. Lets start setting up." "Um... All we have are these three regular tables." "..............Fuck it we'll just shove em together"
I mean really , the cinematographers role is so important it's not funny. you can have an inexperienced director, and a great cinematographer and then you end up winning praise as a director! it's like the DP is the one who makes the directors look very good, and of course the make the actors look good literally.
Nice discussion but the whole FILM VS DIGITAL debate is tiresome and been said x100 times. Watch Side by Side if you want a thorough, multi-perspective outlook on that debate. It's fine to hear a bit of technical talk but wouldn't it be more interesting to delve into the creative ways these men lensed/lit their films? I'd rather hear about Delbonel's techniques to create lush images on Inside Llewyn Davis than his digital contempt/how much he stopped down. The interviewers are just using stock DP questions that we've all heard before/bland
Absolutely! This was an awesome opportunity to talk about how light scatters and interacts with surfaces, the emotional response associated with it, and the creative expression of cinematography. I enjoyed the conversation but have grown weary of the film vs digital debate.
Man, every time I see a clip of 12 Years a Slave it reminds me how utterly contrived the script sounds and how painfully actorish the performances are. If it was about any other subject it would be up for a Razzie. Painful stuff, start to finish.
