Six Arguments for Film

*previously posted as "The Film Re-Revolution"
By Phillip Matarrese

Now, there has been a lot of talk recently about the new digital wave and the replacement of film as a strong, viable medium.  Most of the people who know me or my brother know that we are both film snobs and proud of it... and though I will try to keep my emotions out of this debate, it is hard to when the idea of making movies on film with the intention of theatrical exhibition was the driving force behind the choosing of my career.  So, please indulge me and let me get the ranting and raving out of the way first...

I LOVE film, it is more flexible, better looking, longer lasting and simply easier then any digital format at this time.  Does this mean the digital formats have no place in creative artistic expression or the motion picture industry?  Absolutely not, digital formats and the advancing technology have a tremendously important role to play in our industry as well as other art forms and industries.  However, there are many myths that the general public or uniformed filmmaker have bought into which have the potential to cause serious harm to our industry. 

Almost every cinematographer I meet says the same thing, “If I could shoot on film then I would.”  I say to them, arm yourselves with the knowledge and the logical reason to educate your directors and producers on the benefits of film.  The power is in our hands and we must demand quality in our industry and in our art form.  However, this isn’t always just a decision of emotion but a decision of facts and numbers.  I have decided to write down a few of my arguments to help arm our pro-film cinematographers in order to help then spread the message of the new Film Re-Revolution. 

(1) Film is more flexible then digital.  Yes, you can do a lot in the digital post-production world these days, but the extent of what you are capable of doing is still limited by one thing… the initially captured information.  The limiting factor still comes down to what you captured on the day… on set.  True, you can do a lot in post to save an otherwise worthless shot, but you can’t completely fix a bad looking image.

You always try to make sure to keep most of the lighting in your frame within an acceptable range of under and over exposure to your t-stop, but there is a certain point within the film curve where you long have visible information in the shadows or highlights.  However, even if an image is so over exposed that parts of it are blown out, there are still ways to retain the information in the highlights through various printing techniques.  Now the problem with the digital curve is that at a certain point on the top end of the curve, the range plateaus and flat lines, meaning there is a point where no information can be pulled from the areas that are blown out.  This point of no return is much lower on the digital latitude curve then it is on the film latitude curve.  You have more flexibility to save a shot with a film negative then you do with digital acquisition.

On the flip side, though digital mediums were originally designed to handle low light situations, there is still the high risk of image noise in an under exposed image while capturing on a digital censor.  Film is much more tolerant to retaining a range of exposures so you can still get an acceptable and usable image even if you under or over expose your image.

(2) Film is still better quality then any digital on the market today.  Seriously… the idea of HD, 2K and 4K resolution is, exactly that- a measurement of resolution.  4K is about 4096×2304 pixels in resolution.  There are some digital camera that now capture in 4K and there are plans to go past that into 8K or beyond…  but, right now 4K still cannot compare to the image quality of 35mm film negative(4K does not equal 35mm film, look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_film#Resolution). 

And when there finally is a digital camera that can match the image quality of 35mm film negative, then we’ll just move on to 60mm.  And even when the resolution of digital technology reaches the quality of 60mm, we’ll just start shooting IMAX (70mm sideways=larger negative space).

Another thing to consider is the physical and technical make up of how each medium is captured and how that translates to the perception of our human eye.

The digital image is, obviously made up of a square matrix of square pixels.  This matrix takes the curved lines captured by the lens and organizes them into a pattern made up of squared parts, which, when expanded, creates the illusion of a curved shapes.  This idea, no matter how small the pixels get, still goes against the fundamental microscopic make up of our environment(very few straight lines exist in nature, of course).  This clearly posses a very distinct problem in creating a natural looking image.

I mean, have you even wondered why some movies, commercials or TV shows look just slightly different to your eyes?  You can’t seem to put your finger on it, but you know that there is something there…?  Well, this can be attributed to how our human eye works.  On the back surface of the eyeball sits the retina, covered in color and contrast receptors that allow us to see and interpret light, thus allowing us to see and recognize shapes.  Essentially all we are really seeing are the reflection of light on objects and surfaces of the world around us.  This light reflection travels trough the iris and pupil and hit the back of our eyeball.  The light receptors which capture this light is a random pattern of cone shaped receptors and rod shaped receptors.  The cones detect light color and the rods detect contrast(black, white or shade of grey).
• http://kidshealth.org/kid/htbw/eyes.html
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Rods_and_cones

Celluloid works in a very similar fashion.  There is a polyester film base with layers of light sensitive film emulsion on it.  The film emulsion faces the gate(the hole in which light passes from the lens and hits the film).  The emulsion is light sensitive plasma made up of a gelatin that holds tiny particles of silver halide crystals, which react when exposed to light.  This gelatin is a random mix of these silver halides, not a matrix of straight lines.  This process of expose makes the projected film image feel more natural, realistic and akin to our human eyes.

The digital image will always, subconsciously, look different then our eyes because of the squared matrix in which the image is captured and then displayed with.

(3) 100 years, and beyond!  Film has a 100 year known shelf life.  I say known because, well, to be quite honest, film has only been around for a little over 100 years.  We don’t actually know the maximum lifespan of a celluloid negative, but we have hit the hundred-year mark.  Obviously new advances in technology and preservation techniques will further that estimated time, but, for now, 100 years isn’t too bad.

Digital… well, it’s a bit shorter then that.  Right now, the longest estimated shelf life is 15 years.  Now, it’s not simply a numbers game… It gets a little more complicated then that.  You see, because technology is moving to quickly now, a concept known as technological obsolescence has come into play making it harder(economically and practically) to store the digital information.  This is because every few years, when a new system, file type, or program comes out- the entire catalog of information must be taken off the shelf and reformatted so it can be used and accessed in the future.  For more information on this, please download the 2007 Digital Dilemma Report put out by the Sci-Tech Council of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences: http://www.oscars.org/council/digital_dilemma/index.html

(4) “But with digital I never have to worry about flashing a roll of film accidentally  or those other problems ever again!”  …flashing a roll of film, for all you none filmmakers out there, is when a roll of film is accidentally exposed to light before it’s been processed.  Basically this means that you will end up with a white image unusable and unsalvageable.

Yes, with new technologies come faster processors, smaller file sizes and quicker data transfer, but there is anther side to this technology revolution that is not talked about.   Both film and digital have an even number of physical threats that can affect the capture or preservation of the information.  A film can might get flashed accidentally, the film can be put through an x-ray machine, the film lab could screw up and the developing bath could disintegrate the emulsion.  But a digital capture runs the same physical risks that film does.  A hard drive could be dropped on accident, a hard drive or laptop could get crushes by the camera truck, a magnet could accidentally pass over the hard drive or media card, or the DIT could accidentally delete the files as he transfers them to a film labs’ data storage system.  Digital filmmaking does not sidestep the physical risks we run(and always try to minimize) while making our film.

Now, there is the other category of harm that could befall digital data… this is what I call the “non-physical harm factors”… until I come up with a better name.  These are things like… well, honestly, the unexplained corruption of a hard drive with all your raw footage on it… or a patch not working on your edit program because you started editing with an older version of the software and it hasn’t been updated… or even something like a computer virus.  These are things that you have no physical control over, risk factors that happen without warning, without explanation and without solution.

You are susceptible to water, heat, moisture and humidity, power kick outs(when a cable is accidentally pulled) and having to work with kid gloves around a delicate and sometimes temperamental camera system.

Yes, freak accidents happen with celluloid, too, but because it is a tangible medium, there are always tangible explanation and most often tangible solutions to the problems we face.  My question for all directors and producers out there is this: why do you choose to put your film, your art and your money in the hands of an inconsistent and accident prone medium that has not been properly tested and stabilized?  You’ve worked had on your story, on your idea, with your actors and with your sets to get them just right… why not use a format that allows the minimum amount of risk, the maximum amount of quality and longest shelf life of any motion picture technology to date?

 
(5) Digital is not always worth the cost.  It takes a lot more money then people think to make a digital moving image to look as good as film… so much more money that its cheaper to just soot on film.  A lot of people think that they eliminate a lot the cost of production by shooting on digital when, in fact, this is not the case.  Yes, they don’t pay for processing or film stock purchasing, but these costs get made up and compounded in the digital post-production many times over.

You still need the same number of camera crew members(1st AC, 2nd AC, and loader) to keep the convoluted digital workflow going.  The loader’s responsibilies are pretty much the same as with film, only instead of downloading a magazine, they are downloading the cards and hard drives. (*a quick note about the RED camera.  A problem that came up was that the camera overheats so much that the flange between the censor and the lens moves with the expanding metal, changing the focal distance dramatically)

A lot of people also think that they need to rent fewer lights with digital acquisition.  I can tell you from many years of experience that this is simply not the case, in fact, you often need more lights to get the image to look anywhere near the clarity of film.  The size of lights and the theory behind lighting is based on a doubling and halving method(each f-stop is measured in half or double the amount of light of the preceding stop).  Lighting for film is an exact science with inexact creativity.  Digital censors at of the writing of this article do not react to light in the film does, rendering the exact science of our current lighting systems useless.  All of a sudden I find myself having to call for a light two or three times larger then that I would normally call for because I know that the Director of Photography will end up asking me for more light.  I have also found myself in situations that would normally require no lighting where I have had to pull out medium to large sized units just to “bring up the ambience” so the image would not read noisy.  More light needed means more lights, which means more stands and more cables, which means more crew, which means more power, which means a bigger generator.  The prices skyrocket very easily!

And that doesn’t include all the technical problems that often occur that take time to fix and special techs to fix them.  Time is money in our industry and we try to streamline things the best way possible.  All of a sudden you loose control over your medium(creative or otherwise) because now if there is a problem with a digital piece of equipment then you can’t fix it.  Now you have to send it back to the rental house and one of their certified techs has to fix it… there is no jury rigging in the digital work; you can’t just piece it together.  You are now at the mercy of this technology that is supposed to make things easier for you, but it can often make matter even more complicated then they need to be.

Now, forget all of this… lets just talk about a basic principal.  As much as you can, you try to treat any digital camera as if it were film.  However, no matter how any times the director promises to treat the digital tape or hard drive as if it was a 1000ft film magazine, they always end up shooting more volume of footage then if it were film.  now, this isn’t the director’s fault, this is merely an inherent flaw with the digital design… the idea of endless possibility and supply along with instant gratification.  You can try and try and try to only do a few takes but even the best of us slip up and “waste tape”.  Now, this causes a problem in post-production because you now have to spend that much more time logging footage, transferring footage, looking through the extra takes and choosing which of the 15 takes you actually like.  Post-Production is arguably the most expensive part of the process and you don’t want to be stuck in a $300 an hour online edit suit editing your 4K RED camera footage while trying to decide if it is take 4 or take 12 that you like the best.  I am not saying that I’ve never seen a take 12 on a film set, I am just suggesting that sometimes the forced limitations on a medium actually help to limit our choices so we can make quicker decisions and move our project forward to completion.

(6) Consistency, Consistency, Consistency.  Film is simplicity at its best.  It is merely light passing through a small hole and photochemically embedding itself onto light sensitive material.  It’s a simple process with superior effect and the best part… it’s consistent.  There are already so many things that can go wrong while making a movie, our jobs as creative artists and expert technicians is to minimize these dangers and attempt to create as much consistency as possible.  Film offers that consistency.
Now, I call on crewmembers, Cinematographers, Directors and Producers alike who want to join me in this Film Re-Revolution to ask these questions and consider these thoughts.  I ask you to do all that you can to present the facts and numbers and to look at all the possibilities before you discount using film due to budgetary restraints.  Let’s bring back the demand to shoot on film and take the creative control back to the hands of the creative artists.

I quote the Digital Dilemma Report in saying: “The place to start is here.  The time to start is now.”

American Homestead Montana Scout

A big thank you to Deny at the Montana Film Office for an amazing scout in Montana.  We met a lot of great people and sa so many gorgeous locations.

Check out some of the highlights here:

http://americanhomesteadfilm.tumblr.com/post/24067481329/notes-from-montana-location-scout-recap-part-i

A Film Rant

The argument that film is being beaten into extinction by an overtaking flood of digital capturing systems is reaching a climactic crescendo of sorts. More and more we are seeing the replacement of traditional film projection systems with new, state-of-the-art digital projectors and...

...I'm sorry, this was going to be an eloquent and well researched piece that presented solid facts and reasoned opinions in an even-keeled manor but, quite frankly, I'm fed up with it. I do not apologize for what I am about to say, nor am I shy in stating my opinion of an industry that has seen a power shift in the last five years from the hands of the creative to the hands of the inept, the irresponsible, the ignorant, and the scared.

Here we go.

My name is Phillip Matarrese and I have been lighting movies since 2006. I have seen a lot, tried a lot, failed more times than I have kept track of and worked all around the globe. I love lighting. I love making a beautiful image. I have weighed in on the film vs digital debate many times, always on the side of film, and have voiced opinion to anyone who will listen.

Sure there are a million technical reasons why film is superior to digital: the simplicity, the flexibility, the standardization, the ease of use, the image quality, etc. There are also many non-tangible factors that make film a superior medium such as the discipline it takes, the fast learning curve for the filmmaker to improve as an artist, and the one-to-one transference of information. You can see more about this here: http://phillm.blogspot.com/2008/11/film-re-revolution.html.

What I'm really mad about is how far from quality and integrity we've come with our filmmaking. It's fucking pathetic. In the past 6 years or so I've seen people go from shooting on film to shooting on digital; from drooling to shoot film because it was a raised bar to being replaced by a complacent, sheep-like blindness of taking whatever digital camera the manufacturers say is "hot" at the time. When did we become moron consumers who accepted whatever sales pitch some manufacturer gives us instead of leading industry professionals who tested the latest technology in comparison to the current industry standard? When did our standards get lowered?
When did the art of cinematography become so convoluted that now any piss-ant kid with a camera has the nerve to call themself a “Director of Photography”. I had a DP once look at me like I was an alien from another planet when I asked him what f-stop he wanted to shoot at. What f-stop he wanted to shoot at!?!?! I have lost faith in the art of the cinematographer because it seems that they are a dime-a-dozen now and nothing separates one from the other. What happened to being bold?

And, I'm sorry, but when did it become acceptable that when an inferior product breaks on set that we can explain it away with phrases like, "well, you know... it's the RED..." or, "what do you expect when you shoot a movie with a DSLR?" When did we loose our balls, crawl into a hole and give up rather then demand a quality product that has already gone through a complete R&D process?? We should never have to wait on set for a camera to boot up. We should never have to use ice packs to cool down a camera body when shooting a day exterior. We should never have to worry about an entire day of footage being lost when cards are swapped or hard drives are being transferred. So then why are all of these pitfalls so common place on an independent film set and worse, are now seen as normal, every-day occurrences.

Fuck that!

So this begs the question: how did we get to this point? How did this happen? There are a lot of contributing factors involved: the economy, the shift in the consumer markets for home box office sales, less people going to the theaters so films are less profitable and the cost of production has to be lowered… etc, etc, etc. At this point it doesn't really matter; what's happened has happened.
Now the real question is what are WE going to do about it... and yes, when I say we I also include you.

I, for one, am going to start demanding more... more from the manufactures who provide me the equipment I use, more from the decision makers in the industry who ultimately dictate where the money is spent, more from the creative artists in the tools they choose, and more from the technicians and workers who handle the tools and equipment on a day-to-day basis.

I’ll start at the top, since that is where a lot of the pressures and problems are coming from: the producers. First of all, grow your balls back and demand quality equipment for the price you are paying. You’re always looking at the bottom line and asking, “how much will it cost me?” and there is no changing that. So why are you now content with half-assed, half tested products coming into your market that solve one problem but cause 10 more? Why do you sit silently and complacent when a company shoves advertising of “the hottest” or the “newest” digital camera system down your throat and you swallow? There was a time once when producers factored in the "value" of what they were budgeting for along with the price and that idea of "value" has seemed to be forgotten. Don’t let yourself be pushed around or strung along by a company promoting a product until that product has been proven.

I challenge you, the producer, to change your way of thinking from the short term to the long term... consider the long term effects of the medium for which your project will live on and ask yourself "will this film be watchable in 20, 50 or 100 years?" instead of just looking at the bottom line. And when you think of the bottom line, ask yourself, “what am I really paying for? Is this worth it for the lifespan of this project?”

Ok directors… remember when you were in film school, or maybe when you saw that one movie in the theater, or saw that video or dvd at the video store and rented it and something clicked? Remember when you discovered that someone actually made a movie and they didn’t just appear out of thin air? Do you remember the feeling of amazement, the thrill of discovery and the beautiful excitement when you decided that you wanted to make movies? You wanted to tell stories to share with people; you wanted an audience to entertain. Well imagine that your audience can’t watch your movie because of a hard drive failure. Now imagine that you’ve shot all day at the Los Angeles port and the camera grazes the sand as the crane shot rests on its final mark and the slight bump causes all the footage on the card to disappear. Also imagine that you are shooting a day exterior on a normal street in normal town USA and your DSLR keeps overheating so you need to put icepacks on the camera to keep it from shutting off. I have personally seen each of these scenarios first hand.

I challenge every director to really think about their audience. Directors don’t think about their audience the way they used to. How will your audience see your art? Art is worthless if there is no audience to see it, so why are so many directors enamored by a medium that adds so many more hurtles between their art and the audience? Why not choose a medium that you can watch with literally a light bulb and a darkened room? Why not choose a medium that is harder to pirate illegally? Why not choose a medium that can last for over 100 years if properly maintained AND costs less to maintain for that 100+ years? And why not choose a medium that will separate you from the growing sea of mediocrity of digital filmmaking and embrace something that the movies you saw that got you into film were all captured on?

And as for you, the cinematographer… shame on you. Yes, the decisions start at the top but the greatest challenge and the greatest responsibility rests with you. I challenge you as a cinematographer to shoot film on your next project. I dare you to have the F-ing guts to stand up for your integrity as an artist in choosing a quality canvas and medium on which you work. You want to be a cinematographer that embodies the definition of the craft that you claim- then shoot film. If a producer says it's too expensive then crunch the numbers yourself. I've seen cinematographers do that and prove that it was the same price(or sometimes even cheaper) than getting the new top-of-the-line digital camera.

Telling an artist to shoot on digital is like telling Michelangelo to make his statues out of clay. "Hey, Mike, why are you still carving marble? Why don't you just make David out of clay, it's easier, cheaper, a lot faster and it's all the rage down in Rome I hear." Anyone who makes art simply because it's easy in no artist at all.
Stop whining and using the excuse, “if I COULD shoot film I WOULD.” That’s bullshit… you CAN shoot film, it just takes a few extra hours of research and something that seems to be lost these days in the industry professionals, building solid relationships with companies like Kodak, Panavision, Deluxe, Technicolor, Fotokem and others. Get out there and be the cinematographer you want to be, someone who is an artist who continually challenges him or herself to do better and someone who is proud of their work.

And as far as the quality of the work coming out of cinematographers these days, the greats like Freddie Young, Nestor Almendros and Laszlo Kovacs would turn off the TV or walk out of the theater. There is no excuse for black tones that look green, unintentional blooming highlights due to lack of dynamic range, or pixilated movement when an actor takes a step or you pan the camera. Demand more from yourself and from your peers AND from your tools and follow in the footsteps of some of the greatest contemporaries of today like Wally Pfister, Emmanual Lubezki and Robert Elswit.


I am disappointed in some of the leading cinematographers for pandering to hype rather then sticking to their integrity.

And finally the everyday workers who use the equipment: the camera assistants. In any other industry if a worker was provided the latest, state-of-the-art tool to work with and the tools had flaws that made it hard to work with then the people using those tools would stop using it and they would demand a better tool. It’s very simple logic- demand quality tools and don’t use a tool that’s hard to use and adds to your workload. So why aren’t camera assistants demanding for better tools? In the hierarchy of a film set, complaints travel up but the decisions travel down. I, for one, am perfectly fine with complaining to the people above me if a piece of equipment that was forced upon me doesn’t work. There is a reason that I ask for the lights, the cable, the boxes and the stands that I do- so I can do the best job that I can with tools that are reliable. Don’t be afraid to demand quality, especially in a time where quality seems to be an undervalued commodity in independent filmmaking.

One person once said that I can’t compare a RED camera or a Canon DSLR to an Arri or Panavision 35mm camera. Why the fuck not, since people seem to be equating them already and using them to try and make the same type of product? You’d use a different type of concrete to anchor the footing of your new backyard deck than if you were building a freeway interchange right? Different rope would be used to lace up your climbing shoes then would be used to tether you to the carabineer on the face of the mountain, correct? So then why are people trying to make theatrical motion pictures with cameras that are nowhere near the quality of the tried and true film camera? Once people stop using DSLRs to make a movie intended for theatrical release, I’ll stop preaching about how film will blow those cameras out of the water.

Do the words “research and development” not hold any value to the technicians of this industry anymore? Shame on you, the camera assistant, for not voicing your concern and for not demanding quality tools to do your job.

In closing… we can do better. We should hold these truths to be self-evident and hold ourselves, and in doing so we hold our peers, to a higher standard of quality filmmaking. From this point onward I am holding myself to the standard that I just laid out and promise to call out others on their lack of standards. It is the professional thing for me to do in an industry that is slipping closer and closer to verge of boringly low standards, idiot producers and web junkies. You will either meet these standards and prove me wrong or you will fail miserably and prove me right. I hope the former is the case.

Yours forever,
-Phillip Matarrese

Shoot Film

Viva la Re-Revolution!

Starting Over

Michel Hugo ASC passed away this morning. For anyone who isn't familiar with Mr. Hugo's work is, please take a look at the following IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0401066/. I had the privilege to know Mr. Hugo on account of his semi annual visits to Mole-Richardson in Hollywood. I'd like to share my thoughts on what Mr. Hugo meant to me.

Michel always laughed. He had a french accent and always seemed to have a little chuckle following each sentence. I always looked forward to Mr. Hugo's visits because he'd always bring 2 van load to kids to Hollywood from UNLV in las Vegas (a 4 hour drive) so the kids would 10 always be looking forward to the visit to Mole and 2) he was always on time. He was kind and patient and had nothing by pure love and passion for film making. "I suppose that when you've been through 60 years of the industry and are still in it like Larry and Richard Kline and Michel Hugo then all you have is passion for it," my brother Joe once said. it is completely true and I always told myself that if I had the 10th of the passion that someone like like Mr. Hugo has when i am his age then i have done much more than "alright". Mr. Hugo loved making movies and he loved teaching. he and Larry Parker, my mentor in lighting, have and will always have a common bond. They love to see that glimmer f understanding in a young film maker's eyes; that explosion of "woooow" and wonder that flashes when you see something amazing for the first time. It's the same sparkle that I get every time i step onto a back lot or see a production truck drive by.

There is an amazing transition that happens when an older profession passes on knowledge to our younger generation. I remember once realizing that the 100+ year history of film making was being transitioned to me at a singular moment, embodies in the telling of a story by Mr. Hugo. He once told me and the class that the most expensive light meter/director's view finder we would ever pay for was not only in the palm of our hand but what's, in fact, the palm of our hands. He held his fist up to his eye so he could look through a barely closed fist and see the scene. "And the contrast and aspect ratio are already built in" be snickered in his smooth french-American with a laugh.

What he taught us wads that you didn't have to spend a lot of money on the latest meters and gear but that the the creativity would come from within and that it was incredibly fun. All of a sudden I realized that as a young person in the industry it was my responsibility to take this information and collect it to be transferred to the next young generation of film makers when i am old enough to pass it on. What I learned from Michel was don't ever be afraid to teach, to share and to pass on knowledge. knowledge is the single most important tool that us film makers have and it is the our gift to have and our gift to share. I love what I do and i am honored to have known Mr, Hugo and learn from him. i will do my best to teach others and to pass on what he has passed on to me and to show anyone who wants to be in this industry the same kindness and understanding that he showed me and his other students.

Mr. Hugo, vous nous avez beaucoup manqué.

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
Use a Lighting Control Grid Egg-crate on your 6x6, 8x8, 121x12 etc rags. It's a cloth egg crate that strings up to the same frame as your rag and it eliminates a lot of the spill light and really directs your soft source. I will never use a butterfly set without it!

NY, SF, LA

Well folks, I am back in LA after being in New York City for three weeks and then up in San Francisco for a few days. New York was fun, the shoot was exhausting because we were doing all overnights but if there is any city in the world to shoot all overnights then New York City is the perfect city.

Here are some pictures of me from the shoot:
PhillM and Art Director Megan Lyons with their mustaches.

PhillM taking a meter reading at the jewelry store set.

PhillM taking a meter reading with lead actress Emily Young at Clinton Diner in Queens(where they shot a scene from Goodfellas).

PhillM during one of the many night exterior scenes on the twinkling streets of New York City.

After a long and fun three weeks I flew back home to LA, still recovering from my backwards schedule and jet lag and then set off for a quick road trip up to San Francisco with Pam. We stayed in Alameda for two nights with my parents and brother and I had a lot of fun showing here the city I grew up in. We went to the Alameda theater on a date to see GI Joe, I gave her the grand tour in my dad's electric car and she got to meet some of my grade school friends for drinks at McGee's.

Then we went over to San Francisco for the afternoon and night. I showed her SFSU first and then we made a giant loop around the city starting at Ocean Beach, heading through Golden gate Park, across the Haight and around Pacific Heights and the old neighborhood of our apartment on our way to Nob Hill. We got to the Fairmont Hotel to get checked in(we had booked a room online) but the hotel was overbooked for the night!! So they comped us a free night at their sister hotel across the street, the Stanford Court! We spent the evening on my favorite walk through the city down California and through China Town to North Beach where I showed her Coppola's and City Lights and then we ended with dinner at my favorite little Italian place called Franchino's(the gnocchi in tomato sauce is amazing!). Then we met Sam for drinks at Vesuvio down the street.

We decided to stay an extra night in SF so we booked another night and spent the day around Union Square and then the SF MOMA, then a movie at the Metreon. We met my friend Rich in the Mission for dinner and drinks at a great mexican restaurant called the Velvet Cantina. After dinner we walked over tot eh Elbo Room and met Rob and his girlfriend Stefanie for drinks before heading back to the hotel.

Then we left SF as early as we could get up and stopped by Alameda real quick before heading down to Monterey for the day. We sent the rest of the afternoon at the Monterey Bay Aquarium(the best aquarium in the world) and had a lot of fun seeing all the animals and exhibits. Then we started our long journey back down to LA.

And now I am back in LA finally. I did a day at Mole doing a new scene from that feature, Division 123, that I did just before New York. Larry showed me the ASC Member's newsletter(the internal newsletter for only members of the ASC) and pointed out an article about Isidore Mankofsky ASC where he mentioned me:) I think the quote said something about the 1st AC(a friend of mine) and his "young gaffer, Phill Matarrese" should be commended for their great work and good attitudes on the film we did together. I thought that was pretty cool and exciting; Larry said he's going to try and get me a copy of it.

It's been a crazy month of travel and work and I look forward to the next adventure.

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
A good and cheap way to build background depth for night exteriors is to shoot on a long lens and let the background lights go out of focus and become glowing orbs of light. A string of christmas lights placed behind the subject at a distance works well if there are no lights available in the background. But make sure they are not bunched up(maybe even tape over a few of them so there are less spots of light) so the lights look more organic and less like a string of christmas lights. A hand full of bare light bulbs dimmed down also does the trick.

New York Summers

It's summer and again I find myself in New York City for an NYU thesis film. Rob asked my to come out for this film a while ago, it's a short musical titled "Manhattan Melody" about a young girl who gets voluntarily kidnapped by a handsome bandit. The movie takes place over the course of just one night, so we'll be shooting almost primarily during night time, which will make the schedule a little grueling. To make things even more interesting, the budget is pretty small as in the case of most student or independent films AND we have a lot of night exteriors that require fairly large lights- but not to worry, Rob and I are embracing the idea of using available lighting and doing our best to work with what we have. It will be a fun challenge for us.

I am staying at my friends, Brett and Emily's, apartment up in Harlem. They have a really cool place with a great view(and have a very comfortable couch). We had a balcony BBQ last night, it was amazing. I've been prepping the film here and there... we went on a location scout the other night and yesterday Rob and I met to finalize the grip and electric list. Things are coming together, we'll see if we can pull it off.

Today I went on a little walk about through Manhattan. I started by taking the subway to Central park north and walking my way all the way through the park. I had never been through the north side of the park and it was amazing. There's a public swim center as you enter the park from Harlem and then softball fields further south. As I passed the fields where some guys were warming up one of them asked my if I wanted to play softball... I was very tempted to play but I had to get downtown to drop my film off from the night before by 2pm. After the fields I made my way down to Conservatory Pond and watched the RC sailboats float around the water. I continued on and attempted to re-visit the Metropolitan Museum of Art but it's closed on Mondays... maybe next time.


I finally made my way downtown, stopping at Grand Central for a picture and then made my way back down to the NYU area. I was aiming for the Lomography store on 8th street(where I got 120 film for my Holga) to drop my film off at their lab there. I stopped by the photo store right next to NYU to quickly compare prices and the prices were exactly the same but the guy at the photo store could develop them for me in two hours so I quickly finished my roll and dropped the film off.

I wasted some time around Strand book store looking for a James Elroy Fletcher poetry book(I'm finally finishing Round the Bend and each chapter starts with an excerpt from one of his poems) and then tried Barnes and Nobles... nothing. Then I got a bite to eat and wasted some more time before picking up my photos and then headed back uptown to Brett's place. It's a little weird being here with Pam back in California, but I am getting lots of ideas of places I want to explore more with her when she moves back out here in September.

And now we're off to go visit Brett at work, he bar tends at Bruckner bar just over the Harlem river in the Bronx. Tomorrow we do check out, hopefully it will go smoothly. Either way, it's an adventure.

PhillM Tip-of-the-Day:
Wet downs can help you with night exteriors because all of a sudden the amount of hot spots in your frame doubles due to all the reflections off the water. We plan on using this a lot(the forecast calls for rain) in the film to help us with our many night exteriors.

Downtown Holga Adventure

I recently went on a Holga adventure to Downtown LA and Chinatown with my friends Mike Di Ricco and Chris Babers. We headed out a few hours before sunset and walked around Chinatown(though we were distracted by the DWP fountains) until the sun went down and then I shot a roll of night shots. I was nervous because the only other night or long exposure stuff I shot did not come out very well. But this time I was more prepared and had a great location to capture. Here are some of my favorites:


Old Chinese Man





Zen Under South Grand





Dumpster Divers





Chris Babers Broken Frame




You can see all my Holga pics here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/15005161@N06/sets/72157621011302401/

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
There is an old saying, "Sometimes the best light on set is the one that you turn off." It's true. Sometimes the best lighting I've done is the result of turn lights off rather then turning on more.

Holga Roll

I recently went down to Venice Beach and shot a roll of 120 Color Reversal on my Holga Toy Camera. Here is what I got:

































More to come... You can see my Flickr set here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/15005161@N06/sets/72157620735867109/

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
Recently I have been using small fresnel units with all the full scrims in it right in frame to create little hot spots out of focus in the frame. These lights don't actually light anything but they create depth in an otherwise dark and flat background. If you take the barn doors off or fold them all the way back then they look like out of focus practical lights in the background... but try using long lenses so you can really through them out of focus.

Are You Prepared?

NYC Feb '09

I am in New York prepping for an NYU thesis short film shooting near Boston. I'm staying in Brooklyn and working on logistics and planning for the film with Rob and the Director, Sara Colangelo. Most of our actual prep will happen in Boston itself once we're up there with the equipment, so for now it's mainly been planning. I am excited because I get to bring Fred Young, my Best Boy, out from Boston and I always love working with Fred. He became my Best Boy for the first thing I ever gaffed(was also in Boston, an NYU Thesis named Aquarium and was the first time I worked with Rob- http://phillm.blogspot.com/2006/08/boston-saga-continues.html)


Rob and my friend Pam and I went out to Coney Island to take pictures with Pam's pin-hole film camera(a camera that uses a tiny hole the sine of a pin instead of using a lens to collect light and expose an image). Rob and I are really excited to see how the pictures come out; I'll post them once we get them developed. I've decided to shoot more film any chance I can get to help promote the Film Re-Revolution as well as hone my skills with the medium. We walked along the pier and then after we took our pictures we went to the Worlds Famous Nathan's Hotdogs of Coney Island while we were out there- yum! The line was long but worth it for my first time out there. We also celebrated Rob's 30th birthday on Valentine's day at this restaurant bar at the Tribeca Grand Hotel. It was fun, I got to meet a lot of Rob's old friends including his good friend Topaz who is a director he worked with a few times. Rob and I both dressed up a bit- got lots of compliments about how dapper we looked. The hotel actually reminded us of a hotel we saw in Shanghai that was open air in the middle and all the hallways of the floor above looked down at the ground floor and bar. I have noticed that every bar or restaurant in New York seems to have candles on the table, the lights dimmed down so they are orange and $4 cokes. it was expensive but I guess you are paying for the atmosphere, too.


Pam's birthday was the 16th so I went to the movies with her to see "He's Just Not That Into You"... which was surprising good. I convinced her to spend the rest of the day hanging out with me shooting film. So we went to Kodak and bought a few little daylight spools of black and white film, borrowed a Bolex 16mm camera and went out and exposed film! Then we went to a bar in her neighborhood called the Pencil Factory to get drinks with all her friends and fellow NYU classmates. I saw a lot of people that I worked with in Louisiana, which was exciting. Hopefully Joe and I can get some work from this, a lot of the directors seemed excited that Joe and I were twin Gaffer and Grip team.

Tomorrow we are heading up to Boston for a quick tech scout and then we prepare for equipment pick ups on the 23rd at NYU and then we get the gear from High Output in Boston on the 24th and start shooting!

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
Even though fire light is hard light, sometimes I'll take a few artistic liberties and use a few 1K zip softlites dimmed down on flicker boxes to create my fire effect. The softlites are still very directional but are soft enough to smooth the light out and wrap around the face a bit to create a prettier light. I also end up gelling the lights with overlapping colored gels(oranges, straws, ambers, reds, etc) and put the units close together to create multiple shadows.

Adam

I worked on a short USC thesis, title Adam last May as soon as I got back from China. I was nervous because I was so rusty after being away from LA and off set for three months. Luckily I was very excited about this film and the approach we took with it. Jon Miller, the Cinematographer, had told me that we didn't have a ton of money for lights and we couldn't do much lighting anyway, which I was very excited about because I wanted to use this opportunity to apply some of the things I had heard abut from Jim Plannete(one of my gaffing heros) about Domgma 95 and the "Cinema Minema" approach to lighting a scene.

Here are two clips from the film:
Clip 1:



Clip 2:



This film would not have been possible without the understanding and cooperation from the Director, Kyle Burns, the camera, grip, lighting and sound crews, all the actors and the entire production staff. We all collaborated to make sure that we created the images, sounds and performances that we were happy with to tell the story. I am very proud of this film and hope you all get a chance to see it sometime in the near future.

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
Good lighting should be invisible. If you can make it look like it wasn't lit then you're on the right track. Instead of working against the existing light, try to merely augment and add to the lighting that is already there in your location. It saves you time and headache to make the is already there wrk for you and not against you.

Through the Eyes of a Producer

I am a gaffer by trade. My opinion of "producers" up till this point was not a very complimentary one. My idea was that all producers did was look for the bottom line and ignore any of the artistic decisions made by the director or department heads. I thought of producers as people only interested in the dollar amount, constantly trying to find ways to cut corners and save money, even at the expense of the creative choices.

Now that I have done a lot of producerly work for this film I have come to realize that producers do a lot more then just worry about the budget(though that is a huge part). I have been doing things like arranging meal donations, calling cast and crew to maintain the flow of information, schedule the shoot days, balance the budget, arrange transportation and contact the equipment vendors and film labs. In this short time I have learned so much of what I thought I already knew about the entire production process that I wonder how I ever thought a production was possible without such knowledge.

My work station, which normally consists of some carts with lights on it and my tool belt with my light meters, is now a mobile command center complete with laptop, cellphone and lots and lots of paperwork. I get up early and spend most of my time checking and replying to emails and returning phone calls. I get up early(ish) and get coffee and go over to the dinning table that is now my desk and spread out all my papers and go through my to-do list for the day. I do constantly check the budget to make sure we aren't spending more money then we have, and I seem to have become a little bit of what I hate because I keep telling people, "we can't spend it, we have to cut things..." I now see WHY they are always looking at the bottom line and it frustrates me but I understand it at the same time.

I am constantly on the phone, constantly putting out fires and trying to accomplish as much as I can in the short amount of daylight hours there are in a business day. It's a lot of work but it is exciting and I like the feeling of accomplishing a lot of tasks in a short amount of time.

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
You will find that a lot of people want to participate and get involved with your project, all you have to do is be able to ask. This is a hard thing to learn how to do, I am still learning it. But if you can get past the fear of asking for things then it seems to come easier.

Star Wars: Retold (By Someone Who Hasn't Seen It)

Star Wars: Retold (by someone who hasn't seen it) from Joe Nicolosi on Vimeo.

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
Safe speed to shoot fluorescents(in a 60hz system) are: 24fps, 30fps, 40fps, 60fps, 120fps.

Fundraising

We have been doing fundraising for Gweilo and we'd like to thank everyone who has contributed, we would not be able to do this without you. We are just a few thousand dollars short($8,000 to be exact) of our goal and right on the cusp of production we are doing one final push to help us get to the number we need!

Here is a list of some ways you can donate to help the students:

•Building materials
(wood, paint, props, glue, etc...)

•Meals during production
(30+ people)

•Craft Services
(healthy snack food and drinks for the crew)

•Money
(tax deductible through SFSU)

•Basic materials
(pens, note pads, paper, etc...)

For more information and to see the progress we have already made, please visit our website at: http://www.distantthunderfilms.com/gweilo/

Film Test

We shot our film test today at Lee Utterbach Cameras here in San Francisco. We were testing three different 35mm film stocks: Kodak 5229 500T Expression, Fuji 8582 400T and Fuji 8573 500T Eterna stocks. We chose a lower contrast stock for the look of this film to help blend and smooth out all the vibrant colors and lights we plan on filling the market place with.

We did an "Over/Under" test where we over exposed the films and under exposed the films by a selected amount to see how it reacts to being over lit of under lit. We also tested out some colored gels that we plan on putting on some of our lights for the bulbs in the shop.

We sent the exposed negative to Deluxe Labs in Hollywood to process and print for us and they will send it back to be screened by us. The reasons for these film tests is to help the Cinematographer and Director choose the film stock(which effects the look) for the project.

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
It is important to see these film tests projected in print form to help you make an accurate decision based on color rendering, contrast and grain. If you have the option to print and see print dailies- always, always, ALWAYS take that option. You'll be glad you did.

Gweilo

We are in the middle of prep for a new short film we are doing in association with the Cinema Department at San Francisco State University. The art department is hard at work building the sets, designing and collecting props and constructing the flats. Everything in this film is being designed and constructed from scratch by the students. We are busy working with Kodak and Fuji to find a film stock that will work for us and we have also been working with Deluxe Labratories in Hollywood who will be doing our film processing. Here are a few pictures so far:


The interns hanging out at the art space during a production meeting.


All the hand crafted flats, constructed by Evan Wade.


Bottles collected by the art department for the liquor store shop.


The producers hard at work doing an amazing job stretching every one of our dollars. I have a new found respect for what they do.


Director Joseph Matarrese and Composer Victor Paredes work on some of the songs for the website, trailer and film's soundtrack.


Some of the amazing costumes created for the film by Valerie Galindo, Costume Designer.

For more pictures: please click here:http://flickr.com/photos/15005161@N06/sets/72157608661642321/

For more information on this wonderful project, please visit our website for more pictures, information and updates: http://www.distantthunderfilms.com/gweilo

PhillM tip-of-the-day:
A positive attitude is infectious. Moral must be kept high because it helps promote productivity. Don't forget to take the time to smile and give positive re-enforcement to your fellow crew members!

Congratulation, Brian Corral!

Congratulation to Brian Corral who just got swarn into IATSE Local 695, Hollywood Sound Union! We're proud of you!









PhillM tip-of-that day
Remember to always bring a compass when you are tech scouting. It helps to know which way the sun is moving.

Always Coca-Cola

We just finished 2 shorts sponsored by Coke for their student filmmaker competition. Both of them were a lot of fun, especially because we got to shoot in movie theaters and eat popcorn! Anyway, here are some pictures from the shoot.


Joe standing in for the camera while setting a point for me to put my light on.


The Vista Theater where we shot the first short.


Tie day on the first shoot.


Andrew Russo's girlfriend, Amber, and us taking a myspace photo.


Nick Kane, best boy electric, working the shutters on the 10K.


The set from the second Coke shoot.


Posing with the talent... er, cardboard cut-out.


The "Bad Guy's Lair" set


PhillM tip-of-the-day:
Lasers are hard to light. Use smoke or haze near the lasers to get them to appear but avoid filling the room of the foreground too much, otherwise it will lower the contrast and make the lasers harder to see.