American Cinematographer - January 1993 - 12

fAtrteR riiAt'
M Jiis

£*nmy Awlarcj

Letters

Wiflflir\g 75-1 Time
GMe Slate

Not Stirred by Stalin Article
This is one of my few occasions
to write AC as a member and to provide
some criticism. In the October issue, the
article "Political Upheaval Stirs HBO's

Stalin," by Jean Oppenheimer, is not for AC.

be fine for another trade magazine,
[but] AC is read by those who want an aes¬
thetic, technical and more involved article
It may

on the photography of the picture byVilmos
Zsigmond, ASC.

Some material in the article
could provide some insight into
lems involved in making Stalin.

the prob¬

However,
AC is a magazine for professional and stu¬
dent cinematographers who want to know
how a particular film, whether theatrical,
television, corporate, commercial or docu¬
mentary, was photographed.
I also miss in ACthe

cover

page

showing camera production crews at work,
just as the magazine had from the Thirties
to the Sixties. The production stills now
used may be incorporated in the article, but
the

r/Ke
code
the
01D

should be

a camera crew

and di¬

photography.
-Sol Negrin, ASC

From the Clubhouse, we included the film
Uncommon 1/a/oramong new ASC member
Jack Green's credits. Mr. Green called in to
note, however, that while
unit material for one day,

The T5T Time G^e 5Jate

Indoor-/ Standard

he did shoot firsthe served prima¬

rily as second-unit cinematographer on the
picture. The bulk of the picture's first-unit
footage was photographed by Steve Burum,
ASC and Ric Waite, ASC.
Film

Since feefc

vs.

Video

Fisticuffs, Cont.

# I,

I

just read Tim Snyder's laugh¬
Mark Knobil's point of
view) in the ever-continuing war between
able letter (opposing
video and film.
Let's start with Tim's comment

Deoseke, hoc54l=f

M-

(&16)

£

that video has

o^huengci 5N4

Mo/lyvoetd, cA 9\foo\

(&g) w,-cnts>

faa

January 1993

no

limitations when

the market.
Also, you cannot compare video
lenses with film lenses, because the reso¬

cameras on

lution is not

comparable. Now, of course,
high-definition video, but if you can
afford to shoot that, you might as well shoot

there is
film.

You're wrong,

Mr. Snyder. Film
conceivable aspect but
one, and that's the ability to see results im¬
mediately. Video is a Polaroid of film. It is a
wonderful medium with many applications,
is better in every

even

Clarification
In November's installment of

WAV

approaches the grainless 500-speed
we have today, and some of those
can be pushed from one-half to a full
stop with fabulous results. Video cameras
with the new Hyperhad sensitivity would be
somewhere in the comparable range of 200
ASA. Sure, there is gain, but at the cost of
adding "noise" to the picture.
More importantly is the issue of
contrast ratio, which you think is so unim¬
portant. It's one of video's biggest weak¬
nesses, and I've used all of the best video
near

films
films

artistic

ones.

Where video shines is in

the

New York, NY

fASHlOMEP

The

cover

rector of

pared to film as far as speed is concerned.
Tim-are you nuts? Video speed no where

com¬

postproduction stages, especially now
as we approach a new era of non-linear
editing. But still, if you're going to blow it
up to the big screen (and that's really the
way it should be seen), then you have to go
back to the film.
Allen Williams
Kinetic Productions
Las Vegas, NV
-

Basque Country Blunders
some

I would like to comment about
misinformation in the article on the

360-degree film My Basque Countryi\l\eti
"Shooting the Werks at Expo '92" by Phil
Heller in your August '92 issue.
Regarding the film used for My
Basque Country, the article says we "opted
for the 5245 film for all exteriors" and that
"interiors were shot with 5296 stock." In
fact, we used 5245 and 5297 film for exte¬
riors. We used 5297 for about 25-30% of
American Cinematographer - January 1993

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - January 1993
