Mastering your Eye
Or
“Your Eye Can’t See”
This Eye needs Discipline.
A little while back a wrote a post entitled, The Straightest Path to Better Cinematography. I had considered including a long section about light and the way we see it, but I realized the post was already too long and someone like me wouldn’t read it.
So consider this part II.
First, lets get caught up on what light is, exactly. I’m sure many of you remember this from your Physics class, but light is basically a type electromagnetic radiation, like radio signals and X-rays. In one sense, X-rays and radio signals are just ‘colors’ we can’t see. It would be conceivable to have an organ that “sees” radio waves just like our eyes “see” light. Buildings would be transparent, people practically invisible, and radio towers extremely bright.
Why even worry about that? Well, first of all, it’s very important for a filmmaker or photographer to realize that their eye is an antenna. In fact, a radio antenna, night vision googles, and your eye are all the same technology, just with different specialties. Each picks up a particular kind of electromagnetic radiation.
Okay, so the eye is an antenna. So what. Well, hold that thought, and allow me to go off on a brief tangent.
Tangent!: Researchers at the University of Wisconsin have been experimenting with a device that translates video feed from a camera into ‘bumps’ on the surface of a plastic strip which can be worn in the mouth of a blind person. The subject will then ‘feel’ the surface of the plastic strip with their tongue. Based on the texture of the strip, the subject can get an idea of what the camera is looking at. Here is the interesting part: As a subject got better at using his tongue to ‘feel’ the sights around him, he began to see with his tongue. Brain scans revealed that the information from a subject’s tongue was being re-routed to the visual centers of his brain. The tongue was now an eye.
This experiment raises some very interesting questions about the nature of sight. We’ve been conditioned to think of our vision like a photograph: an accurate and detailed representation of the world around us. Unfortunately, this isn’t quite true. The visual centers of our brain do a lot of interpreting and short-cutting for us. In fact, we don’t really see with our eyes. We see with our brains.
WHERE THE H*** IS THIS ALL GOING?!?!?
I’m glad you asked.
For a very simple demonstration of this phenomenon, close your eyes and picture your computer keyboard (just remember to open them again and keep reading, otherwise you’ll be sitting forever and eventually starve to death). What you pictured probably looked something like this:
Your Keyboard (how did I know?)
Now take a look at your keyboard. Focus on the “F” key. Without moving your eye, try to read the key next to it. Now look at the one next to that. At best you can only see one or two keys without moving your eye. In other words, your vision actually looks like this:
'F' This!
We think that we are seeing fully-formed photographs, but really, our eyes are just seeing tiny pin-pricks of detail. The visual cortex does the rest, using what it already knows to fill in details that aren’t actually there.
Ever walked into a dark room and thought you saw someone, only to discover it was a pile of laundry? This is the sort thing I’m talking about.
WHY DO I CARE?!?!
I’m glad you asked.
For the cinematographer, it’s very important to learn to override your visual cortex at will.
How many times have you looked at your dailies only to discover some overlooked detail (like a tripod) that ruins the footage? These details are surprisingly easy to miss while shooting, because the your brain is actively filtering out details that it considers to be un-important. The camera is not so forgiving.
How does one override the brain? Concentration.
Remember focusing on the ‘F’ key? In that moment, you were examining the raw data provided by your eye. The visual cortex wasn’t doing any interpretation on your behalf.
Practice doing this with other objects around the room. Think of your eye as an antenna or radar dish, scanning the room for light. You’ll start to notice details that you didn’t before. With some practice, this becomes routine.
THAT’S IT?!? I READ THIS WHOLE POST SO YOU COULD TELL ME TO CONCENTRATE?!?
I’m glad you asked.
Yeah, that’s pretty much it.
NOTE: Chris’ epic tale of YogaFly will be returning next week. If you haven’t already picked up on this, we rotate.
Paul rants about “Public Enemies” – Part 01
Editors Note: I’m used a lot of bold and italics in the post because I was really mad.
[Michael Mann], like several of his contemporaries . . . has enthusiastically embraced digital technology. But rather than try to recreate the look of 35mm film using the cheaper and more versatile digital alternative, Mann’s aim appears to be to develop a new, distinctive digital aesthetic.
-
I was recently found myself discussing Public Enemies with group of five or so aspiring filmmakers. Being members of the digital generation, none of us had shot on real film and probably never will. You’d think this would be a group that would applaud Michael Mann’s philosophy . . . not in the slightest.
We effing hated it. An effing lot.
In my words, here’s why:
"Hmm. Paul has a good point."
For the first time in my life, I found myself completely unable to forget I was watching a movie. It felt like watching a disorienting behind-the-scenes video, not a Hollywood film. Rather than enhance the realism of the picture, the digital perfection made everything look completely fake. It may as well have been shot on a $200 handycam.
Mann’s philosophy forgets that 35mm film was never trying to be picture perfect. Movies are supposed to be an artful form of storytelling, not a news cast. Good production value does not mean reproducing an image in the most accurate way possible. Rather, good production means using the proven tools of the trade to create a look (albeit a false look) that transports the audience and serves the needs of the story. In a historical epic, this is all the more crucial. Would the Godfather be as gripping if it had been shot in 30fps? I think not.
The result of Mann’s approach was a 144 minute hatchet job that looked and felt like a TV soap opera. I have a great deal more to say about this 80-million-dollar-crap-fest, but for now I’ll just leave you with this plea:
Let’s not throw out 90 years of production wisdom just because we have a new medium for storing moving pictures.
You’re only as good as your network.
Aspiring painters paint.
Aspiring writers write.
Aspiring filmmakers think about filming then go to bed early because that made them tired.
And therein lies the problem. A filmmaker is not just an avid movie fan: a filmmaker is an artist. They want to do what other artist do . . . create art with their medium.
But they can’t.
They need someone to hold the microphone. They need someone to hold the camera. They need someone to tell the bystander with the bluetooth headset to go continue his conversation elsewhere so the scene can continue. They’re also poor, so unless they have a stash of illegal immigrants in their basement (which is illegal)(and wrong), they need people willing to do them a favor.
In other words, if you are an aspiring filmmaker, you need a network. You need to know people. You need creative partners.
This isn’t easy. Sometimes you may need to be willing to sacrifice some creative control. Other times you may need to be willing to work on someone else’s project, regardless of whether or not you are totally on board with the concept. Without a network your hands are tied.
So go . . . get involved. Find what is going on in your area and start lending a hand. Be nice. Be engaged. Let people know you appreciate them and consider their work valuable.
Remember, being a filmmaker is not about the strength of your ideas. Your job is not to recreate the movie you see playing in your head. Your job is to facilitate the creative abilities of others. Your job is to wrest your film out of other people. And that’s why you love it.
And How
So, how does one get to Hollywood?
Well there are several theories, each with its own benefits and problems:
- Method #1 – Mad Connections
- Method #2 – Move to L.A.
- Method #3 – Dream
- Method #4 – Learn the Craft, Work Really Hard
This is arguably the most successful method. Sofia Coppola (Marie Antoinette) is connected to her father: Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather). Orson Wells (Citizen Cane) was connected to gobs of money. Either way, these people were (more or less) born into the American Aristocracy. The good: it usually works. The problem: Not everyone has connections.
Many people who want to make it in the film industry pack their bags and start busing tables in L.A. The good: It is brave, and has been known to work. The bad: There are only so many tables to bus (and even fewer real jobs). The Hollywood system takes advantage of optimistic free labor and gives little opportunity for advancement.
You can spot a practitioner of Method #3 by the use of phrases like “When a studio picks up my film then I’ll pay you”. Alternately, they may view success in the movie industry the same way they view the lottery: “if I stick around long enough maybe I’ll get lucky.” The good: It feels good. The bad: It doesn’t work.
Film is more than good ideas. “Loving it” is not enough. Being driven is not enough. It is an insanely technical and difficult art form. It requires instincts and disciplines that take years to develop. The good: It’s real. The bad: It’s real.
Our Plan:
- Get a few demo pieces - No one is going to fund our projects if we haven’t already made something good. We need a few short pieces that demonstrate or ability to pull off several genres of film.
- Get a killer idea – Perhaps it will be a mini-series that takes the internet by storm. Perhaps it will be an art film that gets everyone talking. We have several ideas, but the important thing is that they are doable and marketable.
- Find investors – Once we have the demo pieces and the killer idea, we’ll need money to make it happen. This is where it gets scary.
We are currently in phase one. Our first demo piece is a short comedy entitled Wine for Three. We’ve just finished casting and will be shooting on June 17th. Check back for updates on our progress.