American Cinematographer - August 2008 - 10

Letters Forum Riposte Regarding the recent Filmmakers’ Forum penned by John Bailey, ASC (“The DI Dilemma, or Why I Still Love Celluloid,” June ’08), I’m glad someone’s carrying on the grand tradition of grumpy cinematographers. (I trained under Charles G. Clarke, ASC.) Bailey ends his piece, “I will shoot movies on film and finish on film because there is no video system that is as nuanced and no video system that is truly archival.” Well, okay, but along the way, he makes some pronouncements that need attention. He alleges, “Cinematographers complain that they are being forced out of the DI process as producers, directors, stars and studio executives pile on.” Maybe, but the cinematographer’s level of control depends on his or her contractual and personal relations within the production. So get control, already. Interference from stars and suits is as old as the industry, and the battle has to be continually refought. He excoriates corporate obsession with the bottom line. Do the names Jack Warner and Harry Cohn ring a bell? Stingy management is also as old as the movies. He criticizes the qualities of digital recordings. Granted, but look at the technical progress in the last decade; the development of digital recording is far from mature. He cites problems with digital projection, perhaps forgetting what a 35mm projector will do to a strip of film, or the scratches and image “ride” it adds in just a couple of weeks. He worries about the archival quality of digital vs. film elements. Has he forgotten the number of film-based movies lost to decay? Has he looked at a type 5254 or even 5247 negative recently? (You know, the kind that retains only magenta information?) The uncertainties of digital archiving are no greater. I respect Bailey’s experience and profit from studying his preferences (though 2.40:1, which I’ve shot in, drives me nuts), but I respectfully suggest he calm down. Reasonable people can agree that film and digital both have pros and cons (though different ones), and that professional cinematographers choose one or the other to fit each project. Oh, and by the way, since celluloid has 10 August 2008 not been used for film since about 1950, isn’t it time to retire it from our working vocabularies? — Jim Stinson John Bailey, ASC replies: The question of aesthetics in any art form is certain to be contentious. The two great critics of American Abstract Expressionism, Harold Rosenberg and Clement Greenberg, supported two very different artists as the embodiment of their theories. It was not my intention to “dis” video, as a careful read should show. Both film and video have had archival problems. The video problems are not historical but immediate. Suitable for Framing In my acceptance speech at the ASC Awards in January, I alluded to the ongoing problem of the lack of a standard frame within which we cinematographers can compose our images. It seems to me to be self-evident that the image the director or the cinematographer sees in the camera viewfinder ought to be the same as the image the spectator sees on the screen, but this is certainly not the case at present. In fact, the very opposite is true, as in every cinema, the exact format of the so-called ‘widescreen’ frame is often dictated by the architecture of the auditorium and the lenses available; this can lie anywhere in the range of 1.5:1 and 2:1 and is then further at the mercy of the whims of the projectionist (if he is watching) as far as the racking is concerned. Many people in the industry are in fact quite surprised to learn that this problem, which started with the invention of CinemaScope in 1953, is still very much with us. When I was Head of Camera at the National Film and Television School in England from 1988–1992, I made a determined effort to get a new standard frame accepted by the industry — to make use of the opportunity provided by the technical proposals for the forthcoming change to HDTV, where a frame of 16x9 (1.78:1) was one of the first things to be agreed [upon]. I got as far as getting this proposal accepted by the British Standards Association, but in the final stages, this body sends any new proposal out for comment, and because there was virtually no response from the industry, the proposal failed. Now, however, a new window of opportunity is opening up: in the near future, theaters will convert to video projection, where a 16x9 frame is standard. The same is true of all TV sets currently on the market. The essence of my proposal is this: Adopt 16x9 or 1.78:1 as a new standard for both production and exhibition for all productions not made in a ’Scope process (2.35:1). This change would be very easy to put into effect with minimal additional cost in production, where camera gates of 1.75:1 are already available, or in theaters, where a minor change in screen-masking positions is all that would be required. I would like to emphasize that CinemaScope would continue to exist unchanged as an alternative. These simple changes would make it possible once more to effectively compose one’s pictures, as one would know exactly where the top, bottom and sides of the frame are, as well as the corners. Furthermore, it would put a stop to the iniquitous practice of “shoot-and-protect,” as there would no longer be any need for an open gate, and the viewfinder image would accurately reflect the filmed frame without the need for any additional markings (such as those delineating a “safe-action-area,” which often clutter the viewfinder image at present). I urge all concerned to endorse and promote this proposal, which could bring composition back into its rightful place as a vital element of true cinema. Here’s hoping! — Walter Lassally, BSC Letters to the editor can be sent to: Letters, American Cinematographer, 1782 N. Orange Dr., Hollywood, CA, 90028. Letters must include your name, address and telephone number. AC reserves the right to edit submissions for length and clarity.

American Cinematographer - August 2008

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - August 2008