People are still sending emails daily on this, so while I’m glad the interest is high, I’d like to point out, once again, that it’s a bit of a task getting 10 cinematographers on the phone to discuss specific elements and get the piece going. So, in the way of an update, I’ve narrowed the list to roughly 13 shots, and have an idea of what the top 10 will look like. I’ve gotten a few folks on the record and am in the process of getting the last few on the horn.
It will come. Probably post-nominations at this point (though I will try my damnedest for Friday.) Patience, young ones.
Comments
9 responses to “On the shots column…one more time”
Unfair if you exclude animated films but find room for Avatar!
Wasn’t there a post about a month or so ago saying this exact same thing?
http://incontention.com/?p=19776
Read all the posts, people, that way Kris can actually get the list made instead of culling the e-mails wondering when the list is coming.
So what’s #1? Hints? Pretty please! I can’t wait another week!
There is a shot from Avatar that is being considered but it may just miss the list. It’s not a fully animated shot, though.
I wont ask you to name the shot but all the WOW shots in Avatar were on Pandora and that was completely computer generated without any actual photography. I recently read an article in ASC magazine online which said Mauro Fiore was called onto to the film AFTER 18 months of motion capture had been finished. He came for the 30% or so of the film which is live action. And even then his main job was to light all the green screens that were employed and which were used again to digitally add backgrounds later.
Actually, you’re wrong about your opening statement there, but that’s all I’ll say. In any case, it probably won’t make the list. And I’m having trouble getting him on the phone.
I think we’ve come to a point where we gotta take a more critical look at the cinematography category. There’s so many films nowadays that are digitally enhanced somehow, even in ways we don’t expect.
Are we talking purely about how the camera’s gaze moves and the composition of the image we see in front of us? What about virtual environments where the filmmakers need to choose where the camera goes? If we discount animation, where do we draw the line? Digital grading, additional green screen flourishes or even adding digital birds…?
I dunno, but I was stunned by WALL-E’s “cinematography” for example, which to me screamed Deakins.
Ugh… motion capture is NOT the same as animation! “Avatar” should in no way be excluded from the list.
Speaking English, cinematography is the art of capturing light reflected by objects in the frame on a film (Inglorious Bastards) or on a hard disc (Public Enemies). Motion capture does neither. It does not capture light at all. It only captures the movements of actors through the sensors located on their suits.
Motion capture worlds and performances are then digitally lit inside the computer, exactly the same way as animated films.