C300: Chemical Bonds - Amira w/Ultra Primes

Eric Coughlin

Eric Coughlin

Veteran
Movie I produced and DPed for the Atlanta 48 Hour film project this weekend (just finished tonight). I also have a brief cameo at the 2:00 mark. Shot on Arri Amira with Arri Ultra primes. Also used the Canon 17-120 for one shot, and the Canon CN-e primes for a few shots.

This is the edit we just turned in within the 48 hour period. As we usually do, we'll likely do a more polished director's cut at a later date.

 
Last edited:
This film won "Best Picture" in Atlanta competing against 45 other teams among other local awards, then went on to compete worldwide at Filmapalooza (the film festival that the local 48 Hour winning films go to compete at) last week against the 2500 film submissions around the world. It got nominated for "Best Picture" as one of the top five movies out of the 2500, as well as a nominations for "Best Director" and "Best Cinematography" out of three worldwide nominees for each of those categories, but did not win those nominations. It did win "Best Editing" and "Best Ensemble Cast" out of the 2500 films.

The top 10 "Best Picture" films go on to screen at Cannes, so this one is going to Cannes, which is my second year in a row getting a film into the top 10 at Filmapalooza (for 2019 I also won "Best Cinematography," so finishing in top three for 2020 clearly means I'm getting worse :P). Typically they have closer to 4000 films submitted, but the numbers were almost half as many in 2020 due to COVID. Atlanta typically has 90 submissions down to the 45 for 2020.
 
Last edited:
Brilliant, congratulations. But can't help thinking you should be at home pixel peeping and measuring dynamic range, etc. (Been reading too many of your posts!)
 
stewhem said:
Brilliant, congratulations. But can't help thinking you should be at home pixel peeping and measuring dynamic range, etc. (Been reading too many of your posts!)
Click to expand...
Always find short films to be better camera tests than actual camera tests!

Shortly after I bought the Ultra Primes I did do a lens test where I compared all of the lenses I own next to each other, then reviewed the results, but never edited it together to publish it. Maybe some day.



ahalpert said:
looks nice. did you use any filtration?
Click to expand...
Nope! Still don't own any filtration. I guess like Deakins I like the unfiltered image, but maybe I just ignorantly say that because I don't own any yet. Kind of like how I wasn't a fan of primes until I owned them.
 
Last edited:
That would be my only criticism is that sometimes it looked a little too clean to me and that perhaps a light filter or some softer lenses with more aberrations could have been nice
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Always find short films to be better camera tests than actual camera tests!

Shortly after I bought the Ultra Primes I did do a lens test where I compared all of the lenses I own next to each other, then reviewed the results, but never edited it together to publish it. Maybe some day.




Nope! Still don't own any filtration. I guess like Deakins I like the unfiltered image, but maybe I just ignorantly say that because I don't own any yet. Kind of like how I wasn't a fan of primes until I owned them.
Click to expand...

Other than ND filters, a few ND grads to save exposures optically and a Pola, which I rarely use, I don't either. I'm not a fan of bad 80s/90s softening/diffusing filters that muck up the image.
Most of the under 45 year olds who use them never used them back in the SD and film days, when many of us saw firsthand, even in SD, the ill effects to the image and the
bad optical artifacts they impart. But that seems to be what everyone is going for, nostalgia for what we used to call crappy artifacts. Lens flares, CA, hairs in the gate, gate weave, softness at the edges, etc.
Professionals used to be embarassed by creating images that contained less than desirable analog artifacts but now they're "cool".

You can do all of that diffusion/softening stuff in post, not sure why people seem so intent in 2021 to such a stylized look in camera
anymore? But they do, the cinematography world seems to be in love with buying the most costly, sharpest lenses science has made, shooting 8K, and then softening the crap out of
it in camera to emulate crappy old lenses. It's such a ridiculous concept, so counterintuitve. One step forward, at least two or three back.
In 2021, when we can manipulate the image effortlessly in post, why shoot it that way? In a way, it stifles experimentation because you
are committing to one look and it's pretty much impossible to negate that look once it's shot that way. At least with post, you can play with ten looks and
narrow down the stylized effect to exactly what you and often, what your clients like.
 
Last edited:
You're right. No big time DPs ever use diffusion filters anymore and modern filters are just as obvious in effect as the older ones. Nor do they ever mix together sharp and soft optics or seek out vintage lenses
 
Last edited:
If you're shooting a Tarentino/Rodriguez grind-house film, then sure, dirty up that image as is fitting to the project. I think the problem lies in a fad of dirtying up the image not because the project actually calls for it, but because it's a hip thing to do. It is likely more prevalent with young filmmakers who's mom bought them as Red as they like to follow the latest hip trends rather than understanding what is the best choice for a given project. As for top Hollywood films and DPs, they'll always all do things differently from one another and different movies will have different looks. Ones like Deakins tend to prefer the clean look, and the same for myself. That's not to say I won't ever try different looks some day, but for now I tend to be happy with the clean look. I don't see how a movie about a family cult of druggies warrants a dirty image. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, shot on film, but with a clean image, about some cult druggies. 1917 had a super clean image while Saving Private Ryan had lots of flares and was shot on film. Both styles work. I prefer Saving Private Ryan's cinematography, but for a lot of reasons and not just the less clean image. Then you have say the clean look of Blade Runner 2049, which I personally liked more than the look of the original Blade Runner. Another of the top DPs working now, Emmanuel Lubezki, his films tend to have a clean digital look as well. Birdman was clean and I thought looked great.

There are definitely advantages of doing it how you want the final product to look in camera. I tend to like to shoot that way, as it gives less margin of error for the editor to screw things up. It's interesting how Jostice League has a lot of the same shots as Zach Snyder's Justice League, but they're graded so differently that one looks dramatic and the other looks flat and colorful. I'd hate to have been the DP on Zach Snyder's Justice League, spending so much time making good looking images, then to see my work butchered into flat and boring cinematography in the color grade when Jostice League was released.

Directors often have a say in the final edit and color grading, but it's not that uncommon that the DPs do not have much say at that point of the pipeline. If a DP shoots things how they want the final result to look, particularly in a way that the post team cannot change or reverse that, then the DP stands a better chance of getting the vision of their cinematography in the final version. It also saves time and money in post, which as far as time goes, is very beneficial to say a 48 hour film where you often don't have time or much time to grade or do post effects such as filters.

It's also debatable just how well post filters can mimic in/on-camera filters.

The director's cut of this film has not been finished yet, so will remain to be seen if he wants to put a more stylized grade on the final film.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
If you're shooting a Tarentino/Rodriguez grind-house film, then sure, dirty up that image as is fitting to the project. I think the problem lies in a fad of dirtying up the image not because the project actually calls for it, but because it's a hip thing to do. It is likely more prevalent with young filmmakers who's mom bought them as Red as they like to follow the latest hip trends rather than understanding what is the best choice for a given project.
Click to expand...

Yep. Couldn't have said it much better myself.
 
I'm not trying to make a general rule. I thought the opening shot looked nice and gritty and a lot of the shots of that guy with the intense eyes seemed fine with that level of contrast and no halation. But a lot of the druggy shots and the searching shots looked too clean to me. Specifically. In this video. Feel free to disagree, but that was my reaction

And the "kids these days" energy in this sentiment is hilarious. Just a few examples from things mentioned on this forum recently - queens gambit using black satin 1 on everything, the great using black frost and maybe another type, papert using glimmerglass and also mixing a softer zoom with sharper primes for two different looks in the same video, mitch gross mentioning unique vintage lens sets being rehoused in modern housings. I mean, come on people. this is not a new or crazy concept.
 
Last edited:
No one is suggesting every use of filters are wrong. We're just making a generalization that it's often overused as a result of a fad, just as many tools are, whether that be super shallow depth of field, slow motion, drones, time-lapse, sliders, RGB lighting, anamorphic, etc. It's a tool. Use it wisely when called for. Simple as that.

Too often people use tools because they're cool, not because they're the best choice for a job. I get clients asking for anamorphic lenses but I feel like they often don't even know why they want them, while meanwhile most Hollywood movies are not shot anamorphic. Like, they act like anamorphic is better and objectively more high end, when that's not really the case. I may tell them, "I don't own a $27k three lens set of Atlas Anamorphics, but I do own a $100k set of Arri Ultra Primes which were the primary lenses used on infinitely more big budget movies including The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, The Great Gatsby, Pacific Rim, etc." Of course anamorphic like any of these tools is a great tool for the right project.

Back when the FS700 came out many of the FS700 owners who bought it were way overusing slow motion, and I could have rightly said, "Those FS700 owners are way over using slow motion," and countering by saying, "But The Matrix had some of the most awesome slow motion ever" would not change the fact that many FS700 owners were overusing slow motion. So saying Pappert, Queen's Gambit, etc., use filters in what are likely proper and justified uses of it, does not change the possibility that it could still be an overused fad as a whole.

It's funny you mentioned the opening shot because I dislike that shot because it's noisy. The opening shot was on the Canon 17-120 because the Ultra Primes could not focus as close as the 17-120 so couldn't get that tight, and at T/3.95 on the 17-120 fully zoomed in, the ISO had to be raised perhaps to 2680 (or whatever that intermediary Arri ISO number is) or 3200 (Arri gets rather noisy as those ISO levels, though the noise tends to look nicer than noise on other cameras) compared to the T/1.9 of the Ultra Primes, with the key light coming from the laptop reflecting in his eyes (which I think meant we couldn't use the LED light we had in front of the laptop for the other shots), resulting in limited light. We did other takes of that shot which were around 80% wider (so almost twice as wide) with the Ultra Primes and I preferred the cleaner look, but the editor chose the tighter 17-120 shot because it was tighter, and tighter was more what we wanted. I suggested using the cleaner shot in the director's cut and cropping in on it which could still be cleaner and sharper than the noisy shot in the current version, but I never saw a comparison to confirm if that would be the case.

The other shots from that scene, such as the shots at 1:30 and 1:36, were back on the Ultra Primes at T/1.9, probably 800 ISO, and were clean again, which I prefer.

Apparently I need to buy a diopter for closer focusing but haven't concluded what to buy there, so any PL-mount diopter recommendations are welcome.
 
Last edited:
Dan has gone a bit jcs on us, claiming that digital filtration can be recreated in post..

With some of the physical vs. digital filter comparisons, I cannot tell the difference. Others don't even come close - we're talking about the level where small details make a big difference.

From what I've seen most of the filters done in post fail when it comes to in-shot light sources. If all filters could be accurately copied in post (as well as do what physical filters can't), then it still comes down to whether you prefer to spend more time in production or post production and there may be solid arguments for either. Also, I'm sure they'd be needed for monitoring alone, for example a huge car commercial that lays out hundreds of titan tubes and the how the lights look play a major part in the overall project. I guess at that level they would've already done tests or could bring images into an NLE fairly quickly but it's probably not instantaneous just yet.

Eric, I think you're right in that some see certain filters as a non-negotiable part of a formula which they're copying. These are the same people who insist on skypanels because of an article they read when a luxli timpani would have done the exact same job, except been cheaper to hire and faster to set up. I know you're exaggerating with the term dirty but there's obviously a lot more to it than that.
 
“Put it in the can the way you want it.”

Ever heard that expression?

It goes to a DP committing the look to the work. Put your signature on it.

A mentor DP of mine, Steven Hunter, explained it to me this way: If you don’t commit them to “your” look and just give them the image that makes for the most flexibility in post, you’re just a guy. Little different from any of the others. Be bold. Commit them to your choices. Don’t just give them vanilla because vanilla allows for the most options later on.

So yeah, Steve used the hell outta filters. He’d also do things such as shooting in +12db gain, for the noise, as a creative statement. Could he have shot it “normal” and had the noise added in post, if all the folks sitting around a conference table came to the collective decision that they like the noise-look? Sure. But he wanted to commit to it and have it be irreversible.

It was / is a completely different mindset than the trend of sLog and leaving as many options in post as possible. The opposite of today’s trend of taking things away from DP’s and handing them to the post-process.

The mindset of committing is ballsy. And made for creative fun in the field, doing things like shooting with a light stand positioned 6 inches in front of the lens, bisecting the frame but so out of focus that the light bent around it creating this dreamy blurred effect in part of the image. Or lens-whacking. Or using split-diopters and tilt-shift lenses. Sure, flares can be added in post. But it is a lot more fun doing them organically, on the day.



No personal creative philosophy is right or wrong. Steve’s worked out for him. He went on to do ad campaigns for Disney Resorts, Coppertone, and other “bigtime” clients. So there’s that.


“You can do all of that diffusion/softening stuff in post, not sure why people seem so intent in 2021 to such a stylized look in camera.”

This assumes the DP will be part of post. On higher-end work DP’s usually are involved in grading / post. But for most shooting they are not. I’ve been a DP for over 30 years and I’ve never been part of post-production. Not once. And have no interest in being part of post.

And ahalpert, I think you’d be surprised how many “bigtime” DP’s are still using diffusion filters. Particularly on period-pieces. If memory serves, diff-filters were used on The Highwaymen and Antebellum. And I know for certain they were used on The Beguiled because I remember talking to the Director about the choice to soften in acquisition. And they were shooting on film, which is already more forgiving than video. Without a doubt, organic filtration is less used today. But far from “never”. I realize you were not being literal and were generalizing.

Edit: Wait, alph, were you being sarcastic? I’m uncertain. Because I see where you also said no bigtime DP’s seek out vintage lenses, which is also patently false. We had the lenses that shot Gone With the Wind on a recent film. I got to hold them in my hands. Cinema lens royalty. ( unbelievably, they’d been forgotten in some Panavision storeroom and were given a refresh servicing for this film. They did not do well mechanically. The torque of modern focus and iris motors too much for at least two of them, requiring Panavision to scramble with servicing them mid-filming. )
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I wasn't sure at first if Abe was being sarcastic but had concluded he likely was.

I've had times where I was shooting a film for an amateur director who had an amateur editor, and I would say something like, "Edit it how you want just be sure to include 2:35:1 black bars on the top and bottom because that's how I'm framing this whole movie and if you don't have those then my headroom will look like crap [like in the 4:3 Zack Snyder's Justice League]." And then sure enough on one or two movies I did, they screwed up the black bars in post by not putting them or not putting the right amount. "Sorry about that," they may have told me at the showing, being oblivious to what was wrong. So I would almost be tempted to put black tape on the top and bottom of the matte box or lens to ensure they would be forced to add the black bars, even though having the ability to adjust the frame up and down in post can be beneficial if the framing is a bit off. My framing is typically pretty spot on particularly when it's not say a more complex Steadicam move or something, but there are still definitely times I'm editing my own work and make small post adjustments to framing and having recorded 16:9 for 2:35:1 final image can certainly help with making post adjustments without losing any resolution.

Anyway, I never have resorted to putting black tape on the matte box. It may also be difficult when using different focal lengths as the black tape would vary in positioning depending on the focal length. I suppose you could put the tape in the appropriate place on each individual prime if using primes.

That said, one thing I do often do when shooting for 2:35:1 is let the boom mic regularly be in the top or bottom of the 16:9 recorded image. If the director says something like, "Let's keep the boom out to be safe," the reply may be more, "Let's keep it in, just to be safe [that you won't freaking screw up my 2:35:1 bars in post (or my framing)!!!!]," rather than, "Sure thing!"
 
Last edited:
in this hypothetical wouldn’t putting tape on the sensor be best?

It would be soft-edged anyplace else, no? Or would it also be soft-edged if on the sensor? Coughlin, put some gooey electrical tape on the sensor of one of your ARRI’s and report back your findings.
 
Sorry, I thought my sarcasm was more clear.

Honestly, I think you could probably accomplish what I was suggesting by using a little Glow or something in post to introduce a little halation and get those light sources to bleed a little around the edges. But even if it looked the same, it might actually save time in such a fast-turnaround situation to be using something in front of the lens.

I looked up what Deakins said about filtration - he said he prefers to use lighting to soften the image. I assume he means altering the texture of the light, the contrast, and perhaps using atmosphere/smoke. If you had a smoke machine, that would have done the trick. But again, even if you wanted to do that, it gets tricky under such tight time pressure.

And also, while I think Deakins is a genius, he's not the end all be all. I think his lighting designs are his greatest innovation. He's a master storyteller, but I think a lot of his shooting looks somewhat similar and he tends towards traditional Hollywood framings. The colors and production designs vary a lot between his movies, but I think he has a distinct style that is pretty clean. Personally, I like Chivo a bit more as a DP because he pulls off these amazing winding long takes. Very Kubrickian, although maybe not with the compositional exactness of Kubrick (who was in his own league in that regard).

And if you like at BR2049, for example, there's no question in my mind that Jordan Cronenworth's work in the original was more distinct and memorable. (Which could also be due to Ridley Scott's influence. I'm not trying to dunk on Deakins.) Watching the original Blade Runner makes me feel like I need a shower afterwards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top