http://www.cinematographydb.com/2014/08/first-cg-director-of-photography-joins-the-asc-qa-with-sharon-calahan-asc/
"CDB: There are a lot of new labels like virtual cinematographer, director of imaging, CG DP, etc. and I understand the “want” to separate DP’s that work in the real world and ones that work in a computer. How do you feel about these labels? Will we all eventually just be cinematographers/director of photography?SC: It is an understandably complex question and difficult to answer, especially succinctly. Even at Pixar, where everything is CG, there are differences on each show as to what the role encompasses. In live-action, a film can still be that; a picture captured on film and without VFX, although these movies are increasingly rare.
Many films now are a hybrid of film (while it lasts) or digitally captured plates with integrated VFX elements or “real” shots that intercut with “all CG” shots. The live-action DP sets the visual tone of the film with the live-action capture even if they are not involved with supervising the VFX work. But look at the breathtaking brilliance that can happen when they are involved, for example in a film like “Gravity”! The long production process on a film like that can seem like an eternity to a live-action DP, but the advancements in CG tools will soon start to expedite the process.
It is also evident to see the hand of the great Roger Deakins on “How to Train Your Dragon 2,” who acted as a consultant on that project. There was a great article about the collaboration in the ICG magazine: http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/?p=3803. Filmmaking in any medium is an intensely collaborative process with many people contributing talents and skills. The digital age has introduced new elements into the mix; but at the end of the day, the director and producer hire a DP to create and realize an artistic vision for the composition, lighting and look of the movie as a whole. Ideally to create the most consistent vision for the look of the film, the DP is involved from pre-production all the way through the DI."
This is what happens at Pixar, which is why we use the terms DP or cinematographer. Granted, this was a long preamble to answering your question. I think that the discussion about separate labels for live-action vs CG will probably be moot at some point because in the future it will become increasingly difficult to distinguish the differences. It is gratifying to see the interest that live-action cinematographers such as Deakins are developing for the animation art form. There is much that we can all learn from each other."
Many films now are a hybrid of film (while it lasts) or digitally captured plates with integrated VFX elements or “real” shots that intercut with “all CG” shots. The live-action DP sets the visual tone of the film with the live-action capture even if they are not involved with supervising the VFX work. But look at the breathtaking brilliance that can happen when they are involved, for example in a film like “Gravity”! The long production process on a film like that can seem like an eternity to a live-action DP, but the advancements in CG tools will soon start to expedite the process.
It is also evident to see the hand of the great Roger Deakins on “How to Train Your Dragon 2,” who acted as a consultant on that project. There was a great article about the collaboration in the ICG magazine: http://www.icgmagazine.com/web/?p=3803. Filmmaking in any medium is an intensely collaborative process with many people contributing talents and skills. The digital age has introduced new elements into the mix; but at the end of the day, the director and producer hire a DP to create and realize an artistic vision for the composition, lighting and look of the movie as a whole. Ideally to create the most consistent vision for the look of the film, the DP is involved from pre-production all the way through the DI."
This is what happens at Pixar, which is why we use the terms DP or cinematographer. Granted, this was a long preamble to answering your question. I think that the discussion about separate labels for live-action vs CG will probably be moot at some point because in the future it will become increasingly difficult to distinguish the differences. It is gratifying to see the interest that live-action cinematographers such as Deakins are developing for the animation art form. There is much that we can all learn from each other."
No comments:
Post a Comment