|
May Commentary from George Spiro Dibie The Role of the Cinematographer in the Digital Suite Must Be Defined Since the earliest days of the motion picture industry, cinematographers have been the authors of the images. Vilmos Zsigmond, ASC, provided a poetic explanation of what that means in an article published by this magazine in 1986. He said that the magic of movies evolves from it being a two-dimensional form of story telling like paintings. The camera moves through time and space, coming in closer and moving further away, studying images from different angles in varying types of light and shadows and at various frames rates that compress or expand time. From the beginning, cinematographers have controlled the “looks” they create right through the postproduction process. W.K.L. Dickson was both the cinematographer and the lab technician at Thomas Edison’s Black Maria Studio during the 1890s. He shot the film, processed the negative, made the prints and projected the images for Edison. There have been countless milestones in the evolution of the relationship between cinematographers and “timers” at labs, and “colorists” at television postproduction facilities. More recently that collaboration has extended into digital intermediate suites where the finishing touches are being put on increasing numbers of films produced for the cinema. The advances made in digital postproduction technology can be a powerful creative tool, partially because it enables cinematographers to isolate elements of shots and add the final painterly touches to their magic. Maybe it’s something as basic as assuring seamless continuity when visual effects shots are intercut with live-action film. Perhaps the cinematographer decides to “flag” sunlight off a wall in the background to draw attention to faces in the foreground. Allen Daviau, ASC, eloquently discusses these issues in an interview about the making of Van Helsing on the pages of this issue. The new digital timing technology is potentially a wondrous tool, but it doesn’t come without risks. Unfortunately, some technology peddlers are selling the studios, producers and even some directors on the notion that THEY can “fix the images in post.” Some of them imply that there is no need to have the cinematographer present. Last year, a director visited a digital suite where his film was being timed. The “colorist” asked, “Doesn’t she look a little green to you? I can fix that.” The problem was that the cinematographer had intentionally added a subtle greenish tint to the light reflected off the character’s face in that scene as a visual clue for the audience about her health. It was a simpler and surer process when all movies were optically timed at labs, because there is a definitive numerical language, which enables cinematographers to give specific directions. “I want 40 points of green, etc.” Digital timing is currently much more subjective and open to interpretation. Another challenge is that more complex digital intermediate projects can take weeks, and sometimes months to complete. I believe that it is our responsibility to the future of our art form to do what it takes to safeguard the creative and economic rights of cinematographers as authors of the images. If we wrote a bill of rights for cinematographers, the ability to time their own films and television programs for continuity and final look would be at the top of our list. It isn’t a simple issue, because complex human factors and economic issues need to be resolved. How do you compensate cinematographers for the time they spend in digital mastering sessions? How do they schedule their time so they are available for timing sessions, which can stretch over weeks and months? Those aren’t simple questions, and the issues aren’t going to be easily resolved. But, I believe we need to commit ourselves as individuals and as a Guild to making this issue a top priority. Our future role is at stake. As always, I look forward to your comments and suggestions. Please e-mail them to me. George Spiro Dibie, ASC |