Congratulations to the 2012 Oscar nominees for Best Achievement in Cinematography.

^ I'd say Hugo might have been the most 'real world' shot movie of the bunch. Life of Pi, had some real world stuff in the very beginning and any time we cut to the conversation at oldest Pi's house/world.

Other than that, you've pretty much described the basic conflictual argument of the matter. It's sad to see not only the debate of the role of the cinematographer, since it's not been permanently affixed as a supervision role through post work, but also sad with all the recent news of VFX issues on their end of the bargain.

Don't want to go off topic here, so do a search in recent DVXuser conversations and see what I mean.
 
lighting bluescreen and working on water isn't as easy as a lot of you think?
life of pi deserved the award, and who cares if 20%, or 80% of the film was shot on bluescreen,who cares if it was a tank, and not a real ocean? It was still a technical challenge to make, and the DP did a great job
the lighting on the actors was awesome, the camera work was amazing, and the bluescreen work was keyed perfectly, thanks to a skilled DP who know's how to light.
Almost every shot in life of pi had a real element that was photographed by the DP.
Heck I find it easier to shoot in real locations.
 
+1 a well deserved win for Claudio to my mind. I've been in awe of everything he's done since I first became of his work on David Fincher's commercials and then Benjamin Button. He's able to blend gorgeously photographed real-life elements with computer generated ones in such an incredibly seamless matter, that it really is something special.

Personally, I feel he achieved things visually in Life of Pi, that I've never seen before, in anything. All of the nominees were absolutely worthy, but Claudio's the one who really brought something new to the table.

Really rough for Roger though, the man's work is a wonder to behold each and every time, he's deserved an 'Academy Award Winner Roger...' title for a long time now.
 
Cheers Daniel. You wont get any argument from me on those points (person who has shot 130 scenes to chroma key on one project albeit corporate content). For my money, Seamus McGarvey, then again Im a huge fan and could be a little bias.
 
"But then who do they give it to? I say have the cinematographer be the a creative supervisor in post. Someone needs the follow a film from start to finish"


actually thats fairly common for the DP to supervise or at least sit in on some of the post work
Andrew lesnie did that on lord of the rings, and roger deakins has consulted on many pixar films.
I wouldn't be surprised if Claudio Miranda consulted the VFX team on any post lighting effects and camera movement?
I know if I was a vfx artist I would have the DP on speed dial if I was trying to replicate his lighting he used on the actors and other real elements
 
Life of PI, is not cinematography, it does not look right, you can tell in every shot, pretty much, espessially with animals, fish, underwater, not real, screams CGI, fantasy,
to me among these Lincoln was the best, pure cinematography, Bond film didn't look film, great cinematography, yet could tell it was shot digital, having this Alexa or Nikon look in many shots, with blown highlights.
Looper, Holy motors, Grey, among other great films could have won an award.. Anna Karenina looked ordinary period film, IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Grug said:
Personally, I feel he achieved things visually in Life of Pi, that I've never seen before, in anything. All of the nominees were absolutely worthy, but Claudio's the one who really brought something new to the table.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Daniel Carruthers said:
lighting bluescreen and working on water isn't as easy as a lot of you think?
life of pi deserved the award, and who cares if 20%, or 80% of the film was shot on bluescreen,who cares if it was a tank, and not a real ocean? It was still a technical challenge to make, and the DP did a great job
the lighting on the actors was awesome, the camera work was amazing, and the bluescreen work was keyed perfectly, thanks to a skilled DP who know's how to light.
Almost every shot in life of pi had a real element that was photographed by the DP.
Heck I find it easier to shoot in real locations.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is arguing that it is "easy" or that there is no skill or talent involved. Claudio and -- more substantially -- R&H did great things in Life of Pi. There is no certainly no denying the talent involved in their combined work.

The issue is that when 90% of your film is CGI, at what point do you make a distinction between what is captured and what is computer-generated when comparing live-action films for Best Cinematography? I think the line needs to be more clear when a film can win it as well as the award for Best VFX and ~90% of its images are digitally generated -- not enhanced, mind you, but practically created inside of a computer as opposed to a camera. At that point you nearly have an animated film, and you are marginalizing the role of the cinematographer in the process.

Which brings up another point: by your reasoning, we should start allowing animated films into the running for Best Cinematography. Hell, we're practically there already.
 
Except it wasn't entirely animated. Just the backgrounds...so should cinematography that utilizes mattes not be allowed? He's in a tank, the water is real, the boat is real, the actor is real, just the background. It's a glorified computer matte. The ship was a set, there was location shooting in India, the apartment, portions of the carnivorous island, the beach, ect.

From Entertainment Weekly:

“We had an amazing tank that we built and I helped design. We knew we were going to be inside there shooting for 2.5 months, so it was worth it to be able to do anything we want. On all these kind of scenes, we had an idea of what the weather would be like. In that tank, I can create storm clouds, nightfall. We had curtains that I can block out [light], doors to open and let in real sunlight,” Miranda says. “So lighting-wise, [the movie] had a big ebb and flow. There’s high noon, which is kind of harsh and crisp, and then it gives way to maybe like the beautiful golden light, like in the scene where the sun comes up and there’s that beautiful music that comes along with it.”
Click to expand...

Sounds like quite an accomplishment to me. And, on top of all that, some of the best 3D I've seen in a theater (which includes Avatar and Prometheus).
 
simonpwood said:
'Wall-E' & 'Rango' should have been nominated for a cinematography award in their year.

Hell, either of those two films could have won it too.

Talking about the input of VFX into the look of 'Life of Pi', has anyone been reading about this incident:

http://thebigsocialpicture.blogspot.ca/2013/02/the-oscar-protest-that-you-didnt-know.html?spref=fb
Click to expand...

Sorta being discussed here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...s-85-of-120-VFX-shots-created-with-free-labor

and here:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?303001-Oscars-VFX-protest
 
refocusedmedia said:
I don't think anyone is arguing that it is "easy" or that there is no skill or talent involved. Claudio and -- more substantially -- R&H did great things in Life of Pi. There is no certainly no denying the talent involved in their combined work.
The issue is that when 90% of your film is CGI, at what point do you make a distinction between what is captured and what is computer-generated when comparing live-action films for Best Cinematography? I think the line needs to be more clear when a film can win it as well as the award for Best VFX and ~90% of its images are digitally generated -- not enhanced, mind you, but practically created inside of a computer as opposed to a camera. At that point you nearly have an animated film, and you are marginalizing the role of the cinematographer in the process. End Quote]


Well you just played down miranda's work in your comment, so yeah I do think a lot of you guys think green screen shooting is easy, and should be ignored by the academy.
I also think you need to re watch life of pi, and you'll see almost 50% of the film doesn't have a single vfx shot, and there's hardly a moment that doesn't contain a real element that was photographed by the DP
so even the heavy vfx scenes, had real elements that the DP had to photograph.
90% was not CGI, even avatar wasnt 90% CGI


"by your reasoning, we should start allowing animated films into the running for Best Cinematography"

Hmmm Nope.
My reasoning is that most of you people who have probably never shot greenscreen don't know how hard it can be, and your taking away the hard work that miranda did on life of pi
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I think Miranda did a fine job. Obviously there were enormous technical challenges in filming Life of Pi and he deserves to be congratulated for what he achieved.

That being said, I am very disappointed Skyfall did not win, because for me it was clearly the most impressive looking film of the year.
 
jghenderson said:
That being said, I am very disappointed Skyfall did not win, because for me it was clearly the most impressive looking film of the year.
Click to expand...

I thought Skyfall was one of the best-looking James Bond films, but not really the best looking film I've ever seen.
 
jghenderson said:
I think Miranda did a fine job. Obviously there were enormous technical challenges in filming Life of Pi and he deserves to be congratulated for what he achieved.
That being said, I am very disappointed Skyfall did not win, because for me it was clearly the most impressive looking film of the year.
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree. skyfall was my favorite shot film to, with life of pi a close 2nd
Almost every film deakins shoot gets him nominated, it's just a matter of time :)
 
OlegKalyan said:
refocusedmedia,
exactly my thoughts, animated should be allowed by this line of logic to compete for cinematography Oscars which is absurd.
Click to expand...

of course it's absurd to think an animated film can compete for best Cinematography,and that's not going to happen.
what a lot of you don't seem to understand is that life of pi clearly demonstrates both great VFX and great cinematgraphy, a combination of both, not one or the other?
90% of life of pi is not VFX, it might seem that way on the trailers, but it's not.
there's more real location work, and yes greenscreen work then there are shots that are made up of 100% cgi with not a single real element.
And don't forget just because it's green screen the DP still has to light the actors and establish the mood, and every time the vfx artists will work off what the DP established on set.

A lot of times what contributes to great cinematography is having awesome sets and costumes made by a production designer and a costume designer, now in this day and age the VFX supervisor is just as important.
Life of pi demonstrated a real collaboration between the Cinematographer and the VFX Team, it doesn't mean toy story 4 is gonna be up for a best cinematography nomination next year?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top