Cinematographers Roundtable Full Interview
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- 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.
Poor audio mixing and out of sync audio on a video about talented cinematographers is kind of funny.
Ironic, you mean.
+MDkid1 Ironic is funny
+Matthew Torres whaaaa.
Matthew Torres ha! I get it
cinematographers roundtable should be standard every year. so important to hear these guys (hopefully there will be women in the future).
You just got your wish!!
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.
They did. I just watched it, thanks! Hopefully more like those will start being done.
good discussion but you need to fire your audio dept
That awkward moment when the table is rectangular.
I learn a ridicilous amount from these videos. Thank you so much.
Maybe it;s just preference but Sean Bobbit >> his work with Steve Mcqueen is some of the most beautifully shot i've ever seen
Thank you for posting these conversations. They're fascinating and important.
Why the fuck is Roger Deakins not here?
These are sooo good!!! i'ts amazing to see how many people work behind a single picture.
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.
these guys are truly what distinguishes the medium of cinema from any other.
A director has a vision of a film, the DOP paints that vision to film.
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
brilliant and all. but, how on earth can a pro dealing in pro filmic matters upload unsynchronised audio!
Oh the irony of it!
+Hans Landa hahahahaha!
Barry Ackroyd being the only one out of sync drove me nuts.
Truly an exemplary interview...
Walter Mitty was the best film! Walter Mitty is the best film! I don't know if it was nominated but it is sooooooo wonderful. Soooooo Wonderful.
the lack of emmanuel lubezki disturbs me
Haha, I bet you know his name because he won an Oscar, ignorant sheep.
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.
Most underrated job in the cinema industry.
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 good panel
DPs 10 years ago: "Digital will never be as good as film!"
DPs today: "Digital shows too much!"
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
Really nice discussion of the importance of film as a medium -- in connection with other aspects of cinematography --Vic
Lovely seeing this.
It's funny, the "cons" that some of them mention about digital can easily be seen as "pros" as well :)
Excellent listening.
so finally there s some inspirational stuff out there .......kudos THR
Damn it where's Chivo!
+Austin Putnam Apparently Chivo doesn't like to appear in front of camera. He's too busy doing magic while staying behind it.
Maybe they should do a round table on sound editing, might teach THR a thing or two about syncing audio....
It took me a minute but I finally recognized their location. Thats the Hollywood American Legion post 43.
Fantastic! Thanks!
fascinating. well done.
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!
Good round table
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.
Inspiring and very helpful.
10 years after i wonder what they have to say today about this interview , when it comes to the DIGITAL era
Great conversation, though the discussion of Film vs Digital would have been much more interesting with Gravity's Chivo in the mix
um........................................where is Emmanuel Lubezki?
awesome interview, but unacceptable the audio mixing in a channel of this theme and level
I hate the overlapping of sound when they cut away to the film clips, but great conversation.
Great panel, would've loved to see el chivo Lubezki there but terrific nonetheless
OMG..... where the hell is Emmanuel Lubezki and Roger Deakin?!?! GAH!
I think the editor accidentally slid over that DOP's audio in the timeline. Easily done.
it seems like everyone hates each other on this table... lol
no, that's the directors roundtable
"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"
Please do and Agents roundtable
knoxtrodomus That could be pretty interesting. In the same vein, I'd love to see a roundtable of casting directors too.
The table was not even round. What a lie Hollywood Reporter.
Good video, but my god who sound mixed this? Coming from Hollywood reporter it should sound professional.
Dude! I was thinking the same thing! I honestly thought it was my computer playing it back poorly. There is one guy whose audio is always out of sync.
*****
HAHAHAHA I was reading this, thinking this guy is pretty smart he agrees with me. Then I saw your username, hahaha. That's awesome!
Jordan Service Haha! Yea, even though this is showing up on youtube, I'm actually commenting on Google+. That's where I saw your original comment too.
*****
And magic no longer exists in the world...
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.
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.
the audio kills this interview, not pleased
yes!
Awesome interview, but they need to either get new/better audio equipment or hire a new audio tech
And lubezki?
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.
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
you better do it quick before its "too late"!
Film is not a lower quality Format .
sufian saeed but its so vintage!
de-noise and de-grain and it wont be :P
its a plus though :P
And Chivo Lubezki?
who's the favourite director of delbonnel at 37: 28
Eric Claption is interviewing them,
omg the audio...
21:30 wow....
RIP Fuji and Kodak
I'm pretty sure theres only one roundTABLE...not tables. lol
really, you could not get chivo from gravity?
Funny how this discussion of digital vs film is already outdated. Digital technology has come a long way in a couple of years.
I can't wait for the day this field has more diversity on top.
wheres emmanuel lubensky!!! gravity was some of the best cinematography ever done he should be here..
I am a photographer. I love in what I do. This is a sleep fest for me. No wonder Christian Bale lost his cool with the DP...
why did the editors of this give no fucks about the audio?!
great video, awful sound recording ...
Gregg Killday > Stephen Galloway! More craft insight, less gossip and trivia.
Painful for me. It's impossible for me to watch this video. Awful sync... And the content is unique! Pity...
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.
lubezki is over rated
I am sorry, but these are not great cinematographers.