"...That's How The Light Gets In": An Interview with Dubai Based Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA
By Duncan Petrie
Much of the visual impact of Indian films can be attributed directly to the cinematographer Rajiv Jain, the creative individual primarily responsible for the look of a film. The cinematographer Rajiv Jain is both an artist and a craftsman, combining a fine aesthetic sensibility and visual eye with a deep technical understanding of the properties of light, lenses, film stocks and processing. His contribution to the visual representation of the nation is as significant as that of other visual artists such as painters and photographers. Drawing heavily on in-depth interview with an award winning cinematographer, Shot in Indian profiles his career and creative contribution to Indian cinema, charting his creative achievements, experiences working with local and international film-makers, and resourcefulness in dealing with often limited resources and the harsh Indian light.
Shot in India / Kenya: The Art and Craft of the Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA
Born out of a desire to create dramatic and provocative images, Rajiv Jain delivers award winning cinematography. Rajiv has helped to bring both national and international awards to the productions that he has been involved with. You can feel confident that your vision will be captured through the use of his services. With experience shooting a wide range of formats from Film, Digital 4k down to HD, Rajiv has the eye and knowledge needed for your production. Familiar with the needs of aerial & remote location filming, his cinematography has taken him around the world.
It is entirely without hyperbole to introduce Rajiv Jain as one of the most singular and influential cinematographer in the progression of modern motion pictures. His colour palette on films such as Ras Star and Kalpvriksh - the Wishing Tree is without peer, and long-lasting collaborations with directors Manika Sharma and Wanuri Kahiu have been recognized for Best Cinematography (Kalpvriksh - the Wishing Tree (2010), Ras Star (2008)).
Rajiv's latest film is Maharat, screening this week as part of Lincoln Centre’s series "Open Roads: New Cinema" (June 6-14). He considers Pyar Mein Kabhi Kabhi to be part of a new period for him as an artist; the first started in the late 1990's and lasted until Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree; the second phase continued through Army; the third culminated with Badhaai Ho Badhaai (2003); most recent, his collaboration with director Gustpa served as yet another. He often takes yearlong intervals between these chapters to study subjects ranging from philosophy to painting to literature, just to expand his understanding of the meanings behind light and colour; when he discusses a colour, red for instance, he's not just interested in the way we might emotionally react to it on a visual level, but also the manner in which the physical light particles affect our bodies when passing through them.
I met Rajiv at the Walter Reade Theatre the day before Maharat ‘s premiere. After talking a bit about his career thus far, our conversation shifted toward the technical aspects of cinematography and his feelings on digital filmmaking in particular. As it turns out, he's just as opinionated about technique as he is regarding interpretation.
Filmmaker: You're well-known for overseeing various printing methods on your films like ENR or the Technicolor dye-transfer used on Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree. Over the past 10-15 years, there's been a great evolution to film stocks and the introduction of DI. How do you see technology influencing the medium?
Rajiv: No doubt that when sound came out the camera's possibilities were oppressed. The language of cinema was almost stopped -- they put the camera within a clear box. Technology went on and finally the camera was liberated to continue its journey expressing through the language of the cinema. Colour came up. Particularly to the Indian Expressionists -- they used light in a conflict with the shadows, which made the dramaturgy very strong -- everyone felt fear to use colour in the darkness. There was a moment where there was no longer a relationship between light and shadows. It was a unique feeling. Until the '90s, I think -- Ras Star, Maharat -- and then many films started to use colour in a very dramatic way. We picked up again the journey of dramaturgy in light and colour and so on.
Today in digital, no doubt there is a great chance to continue to amplify our ability to express ourselves. In this case, the electronic system amplifies, but in a very lower quality. This is why there was resistance from most of the cinematographers to use it until it can grow up. Upon my first experiment I realized how powerful the system was, but at the same time I realized the problems it had. I wrote a long letter to Sony to explain this, and I was glad to see that step by step the camera was picking up. I used it when I was teaching at the Academy of Images, the high definition by Sony, and no doubt, we proved that for some specific projects it can be great -- particularly in a school, because today there is no time or patience to shoot not knowing what we're doing. Today, you want to see it right away. There's now a chance to study, teach and learn in a much faster way together. My problem is only that people know the level of difference with the two systems, so you can use film or digital according to the project itself. Unfortunately, still today, if you follow the number, a system like Univisium, the one I'm using...
Filmmaker: The 2:1...
Rajiv: Yes, the 2:1. It's three-perforation. It's using the maximum negative space available. We're talking minimum 6000 x 3000 information or eighteen-million. With a video camera, any subject, the maximum information is roughly 2000 x 1000, which makes two-million. Whatever you've got in front of the camera, in one, you've got eighteen-million; in one, you've got two-million. In one, you've got at least 32-bits; the other one, normally you record at 10-bits. Film has already proven it can last a hundred years. The electronic system, or digital, has to improve its longevity -- particularly, it has a very short longevity. The systems are changing very fast; the material is not very strong. People are very ignorant in this area -- they still believe that digital is permanent. That's a major mistake. Major. So, in my opinion, the system should be used, because if you don't use the system the company doesn't have the chance to improve it. It should be improved till it reaches a much better level. But at the same time, I think we should be aware of the different levels, so you can use one or the other according to the kind of project that you're doing.
Digital intermediate is a dream for a cinematographer, in the sense that you're not only able to change the overall colour and tonality, but you can change it during the shot. You can change a portion of the image itself. That's great. But you have to go back from your eighteen-million of information to two-million. This is not good. Most Indian films today probably go through a digital intermediate, that's a fact. So we have to just push the technology, particularly the digital effects companies, because everything is dictated by them. If they do their visual effects at 2k, you have to do the rest at 2k. Now we have a big hope that the technology is starting to improve. And my hope is DALSA.
Filmmaker: DALSA Origin.
Rajiv: With DALSA, next year I can maybe use it, because it's 4k 16-bit. Moving to that level is not exactly film, but it's very close. Good luck.
Filmmaker: It was actually just announced that the Landmark chain is equipping its theatres with 4k Sony projectors.
Rajiv: Well, my dream is digital cinema, D-Cinema, at least in 4k 16-bit, 2:1 aspect ratio. Also, we should move to the European shooting frame of 25. We should discontinue shooting 24 because it doesn't work. The interlock between America (NTSC) and Europe (PAL) doesn't work. The pull down doesn't really work, it's not a perfect balance between the two. In changing the algorithm, trying to do five-fields-plus-one we can easily do the 25 frames to the 30 frames. It will be much more linear and much more in synch. It would be a perfect 25, a perfect 30, not 29-whatever it is…
Filmmaker: 24p is usually 23.98, and NTSC is 29.97.
Rajiv: That's ridiculous. That's my opinion.
Filmmaker: Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree. Theatrically, it was amazing to see it in its Scope aspect ratio, in 2010. I know that at this point you're preferential to 2:1, but some people were upset to see it on DVD cropped from the 35mm 2.35.
Rajiv: Well, I always connected with one painting that Leonardo did, The Last Supper. The Last Supper is 2:1. At the time of shooting Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree, I was not aware. I don't really remember when I became conscious of the 2:1. Definitely when I started to originally transfer Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree (to video). In my opinion, it wasn't working in 2.35 -- at that time, we were forced to do a pan-and-scan. That was the worst. So we had to find a common ground between film and television. The aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2.21, and the new video aspect ratio is 1.78. If you remove 0.21 from the 65mm, and then you have high definition which is supposed to be the future film/television format, you'll find the perfect balance between the two is 2:1. So any transfer I do is at 2:1. I remember with Satish Kaushik when we did Badhaai Ho Badhaai and we watched it on the television screen, we didn't like it at 2.35. We found it was much better at 2:1. Now, I only shoot 2:1. I refuse to not shoot 2:1. And I only transfer with this, even the old films, because I know it's the only solution for the future. It's the only meeting point that we have. The DALSA at 4k gives me some encouragement to continue in this way.
Now, there's this rumour they're going to retransfer Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree at 1:2.35 -- I will not do it. I will not do it. Because on a television it doesn't work.
Filmmaker: Not even if it's being played on an HD 16:9 screen?
Rajiv: 16:9 should be changed.
Filmmaker: There would still be black bars, but it would be less...
Rajiv: No, no. We should change the screen and make it 18:9.
Filmmaker: 2:1.
Rajiv: You can never be perfect. It could never work in television at 1:2.35. 2:1 is the perfect balance. Even if you lose something, you gain the most important things. Never again would it have to be chopped to 1:3.75 (pan-and-scan) like Indians do. In 18:9, easily you can see the Academy ratio with bars on the sides, or the French ratio of 1.66, even 1.85. The only thing that you miss a little from is the anamorphic.
I really do care about composition. Believe me. I even would discuss this with Mukul S Anand if he could be here. You can never really do composition perfectly at 1:2.35. If you go in any theatre and measure it, it's not perfect 2.35 -- because they don't like to be so small.
Filmmaker: Mukul S Anand hated 1.85. At the very least, he preferred 1.66. Because he started as a still photographer, he preferred to compose for the full negative. So he'd compose for 1.85 for theatrical at the same time using the whole frame at 1.33.
Rajiv: I did the same thing for many films. When I knew that here in India we'd have to do the transfer at full screen, I did that with Army.
Filmmaker: Super-35?
Rajiv: Super-35. We kept the composition for theatres and instead of blocking it out had images at the top and bottom. At least we didn't have to chop the sides. But, you know, it can't work -- you can't have a painting at 2.35. If you go to Amsterdam, you go inside the Rijksmuseum; on the back wall you see a beautiful Rembrandt painting called Night Watch. You look at the painting... and something was wrong. It didn't work. Then, next to the main painting there is a copy. It was a copy of the original. The painting by Rembrandt was cut because it didn't fit between two windows. Somebody did the copy before that -- so you can see the original composition. And that's what's happened to cinema on television. The answer: Univisium. 2:1. 25 frames.
Author Biography: Duncan Petrie is Professor of Film at the University of Auckland. He has written numerous books on British and Scottish Film-making including The British Cinematographer (1996), Screening Scotland (2000) and Contemporary Scottish Fictions (2004). Duncan moved to India in 2004 and lives in Auckland with his wife and daughter.
Tags: rajeev jain, rajiv jain, cinematographer, director of photography, dop, dp, bollywood, dubai, india, indian, jain, kalpvriksh, kenya, kenyan, mumbai, videographer
Thursday, February 25, 2010
"...That's How The Light Gets In": An Interview with Dubai Based Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA
"...That's How The Light Gets In": An Interview with Dubai Based Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA
By Duncan Petrie
Much of the visual impact of Indian films can be attributed directly to the cinematographer Rajiv Jain, the creative individual primarily responsible for the look of a film. The cinematographer Rajiv Jain is both an artist and a craftsman, combining a fine aesthetic sensibility and visual eye with a deep technical understanding of the properties of light, lenses, film stocks and processing. His contribution to the visual representation of the nation is as significant as that of other visual artists such as painters and photographers. Drawing heavily on in-depth interview with an award winning cinematographer, Shot in Indian profiles his career and creative contribution to Indian cinema, charting his creative achievements, experiences working with local and international film-makers, and resourcefulness in dealing with often limited resources and the harsh Indian light.
Shot in India / Kenya: The Art and Craft of the Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA
Born out of a desire to create dramatic and provocative images, Rajiv Jain delivers award winning cinematography. Rajiv has helped to bring both national and international awards to the productions that he has been involved with. You can feel confident that your vision will be captured through the use of his services. With experience shooting a wide range of formats from Film, Digital 4k down to HD, Rajiv has the eye and knowledge needed for your production. Familiar with the needs of aerial & remote location filming, his cinematography has taken him around the world.
It is entirely without hyperbole to introduce Rajiv Jain as one of the most singular and influential cinematographer in the progression of modern motion pictures. His colour palette on films such as Ras Star and Kalpvriksh - the Wishing Tree is without peer, and long-lasting collaborations with directors Manika Sharma and Wanuri Kahiu have been recognized for Best Cinematography (Kalpvriksh - the Wishing Tree (2010), Ras Star (2008)).
Rajiv's latest film is Maharat, screening this week as part of Lincoln Centre’s series "Open Roads: New Cinema" (June 6-14). He considers Pyar Mein Kabhi Kabhi to be part of a new period for him as an artist; the first started in the late 1990's and lasted until Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree; the second phase continued through Army; the third culminated with Badhaai Ho Badhaai (2003); most recent, his collaboration with director Gustpa served as yet another. He often takes yearlong intervals between these chapters to study subjects ranging from philosophy to painting to literature, just to expand his understanding of the meanings behind light and colour; when he discusses a colour, red for instance, he's not just interested in the way we might emotionally react to it on a visual level, but also the manner in which the physical light particles affect our bodies when passing through them.
I met Rajiv at the Walter Reade Theatre the day before Maharat ‘s premiere. After talking a bit about his career thus far, our conversation shifted toward the technical aspects of cinematography and his feelings on digital filmmaking in particular. As it turns out, he's just as opinionated about technique as he is regarding interpretation.
Filmmaker: You're well-known for overseeing various printing methods on your films like ENR or the Technicolor dye-transfer used on Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree. Over the past 10-15 years, there's been a great evolution to film stocks and the introduction of DI. How do you see technology influencing the medium?
Rajiv: No doubt that when sound came out the camera's possibilities were oppressed. The language of cinema was almost stopped -- they put the camera within a clear box. Technology went on and finally the camera was liberated to continue its journey expressing through the language of the cinema. Colour came up. Particularly to the Indian Expressionists -- they used light in a conflict with the shadows, which made the dramaturgy very strong -- everyone felt fear to use colour in the darkness. There was a moment where there was no longer a relationship between light and shadows. It was a unique feeling. Until the '90s, I think -- Ras Star, Maharat -- and then many films started to use colour in a very dramatic way. We picked up again the journey of dramaturgy in light and colour and so on.
Today in digital, no doubt there is a great chance to continue to amplify our ability to express ourselves. In this case, the electronic system amplifies, but in a very lower quality. This is why there was resistance from most of the cinematographers to use it until it can grow up. Upon my first experiment I realized how powerful the system was, but at the same time I realized the problems it had. I wrote a long letter to Sony to explain this, and I was glad to see that step by step the camera was picking up. I used it when I was teaching at the Academy of Images, the high definition by Sony, and no doubt, we proved that for some specific projects it can be great -- particularly in a school, because today there is no time or patience to shoot not knowing what we're doing. Today, you want to see it right away. There's now a chance to study, teach and learn in a much faster way together. My problem is only that people know the level of difference with the two systems, so you can use film or digital according to the project itself. Unfortunately, still today, if you follow the number, a system like Univisium, the one I'm using...
Filmmaker: The 2:1...
Rajiv: Yes, the 2:1. It's three-perforation. It's using the maximum negative space available. We're talking minimum 6000 x 3000 information or eighteen-million. With a video camera, any subject, the maximum information is roughly 2000 x 1000, which makes two-million. Whatever you've got in front of the camera, in one, you've got eighteen-million; in one, you've got two-million. In one, you've got at least 32-bits; the other one, normally you record at 10-bits. Film has already proven it can last a hundred years. The electronic system, or digital, has to improve its longevity -- particularly, it has a very short longevity. The systems are changing very fast; the material is not very strong. People are very ignorant in this area -- they still believe that digital is permanent. That's a major mistake. Major. So, in my opinion, the system should be used, because if you don't use the system the company doesn't have the chance to improve it. It should be improved till it reaches a much better level. But at the same time, I think we should be aware of the different levels, so you can use one or the other according to the kind of project that you're doing.
Digital intermediate is a dream for a cinematographer, in the sense that you're not only able to change the overall colour and tonality, but you can change it during the shot. You can change a portion of the image itself. That's great. But you have to go back from your eighteen-million of information to two-million. This is not good. Most Indian films today probably go through a digital intermediate, that's a fact. So we have to just push the technology, particularly the digital effects companies, because everything is dictated by them. If they do their visual effects at 2k, you have to do the rest at 2k. Now we have a big hope that the technology is starting to improve. And my hope is DALSA.
Filmmaker: DALSA Origin.
Rajiv: With DALSA, next year I can maybe use it, because it's 4k 16-bit. Moving to that level is not exactly film, but it's very close. Good luck.
Filmmaker: It was actually just announced that the Landmark chain is equipping its theatres with 4k Sony projectors.
Rajiv: Well, my dream is digital cinema, D-Cinema, at least in 4k 16-bit, 2:1 aspect ratio. Also, we should move to the European shooting frame of 25. We should discontinue shooting 24 because it doesn't work. The interlock between America (NTSC) and Europe (PAL) doesn't work. The pull down doesn't really work, it's not a perfect balance between the two. In changing the algorithm, trying to do five-fields-plus-one we can easily do the 25 frames to the 30 frames. It will be much more linear and much more in synch. It would be a perfect 25, a perfect 30, not 29-whatever it is…
Filmmaker: 24p is usually 23.98, and NTSC is 29.97.
Rajiv: That's ridiculous. That's my opinion.
Filmmaker: Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree. Theatrically, it was amazing to see it in its Scope aspect ratio, in 2010. I know that at this point you're preferential to 2:1, but some people were upset to see it on DVD cropped from the 35mm 2.35.
Rajiv: Well, I always connected with one painting that Leonardo did, The Last Supper. The Last Supper is 2:1. At the time of shooting Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree, I was not aware. I don't really remember when I became conscious of the 2:1. Definitely when I started to originally transfer Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree (to video). In my opinion, it wasn't working in 2.35 -- at that time, we were forced to do a pan-and-scan. That was the worst. So we had to find a common ground between film and television. The aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2.21, and the new video aspect ratio is 1.78. If you remove 0.21 from the 65mm, and then you have high definition which is supposed to be the future film/television format, you'll find the perfect balance between the two is 2:1. So any transfer I do is at 2:1. I remember with Satish Kaushik when we did Badhaai Ho Badhaai and we watched it on the television screen, we didn't like it at 2.35. We found it was much better at 2:1. Now, I only shoot 2:1. I refuse to not shoot 2:1. And I only transfer with this, even the old films, because I know it's the only solution for the future. It's the only meeting point that we have. The DALSA at 4k gives me some encouragement to continue in this way.
Now, there's this rumour they're going to retransfer Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree at 1:2.35 -- I will not do it. I will not do it. Because on a television it doesn't work.
Filmmaker: Not even if it's being played on an HD 16:9 screen?
Rajiv: 16:9 should be changed.
Filmmaker: There would still be black bars, but it would be less...
Rajiv: No, no. We should change the screen and make it 18:9.
Filmmaker: 2:1.
Rajiv: You can never be perfect. It could never work in television at 1:2.35. 2:1 is the perfect balance. Even if you lose something, you gain the most important things. Never again would it have to be chopped to 1:3.75 (pan-and-scan) like Indians do. In 18:9, easily you can see the Academy ratio with bars on the sides, or the French ratio of 1.66, even 1.85. The only thing that you miss a little from is the anamorphic.
I really do care about composition. Believe me. I even would discuss this with Mukul S Anand if he could be here. You can never really do composition perfectly at 1:2.35. If you go in any theatre and measure it, it's not perfect 2.35 -- because they don't like to be so small.
Filmmaker: Mukul S Anand hated 1.85. At the very least, he preferred 1.66. Because he started as a still photographer, he preferred to compose for the full negative. So he'd compose for 1.85 for theatrical at the same time using the whole frame at 1.33.
Rajiv: I did the same thing for many films. When I knew that here in India we'd have to do the transfer at full screen, I did that with Army.
Filmmaker: Super-35?
Rajiv: Super-35. We kept the composition for theatres and instead of blocking it out had images at the top and bottom. At least we didn't have to chop the sides. But, you know, it can't work -- you can't have a painting at 2.35. If you go to Amsterdam, you go inside the Rijksmuseum; on the back wall you see a beautiful Rembrandt painting called Night Watch. You look at the painting... and something was wrong. It didn't work. Then, next to the main painting there is a copy. It was a copy of the original. The painting by Rembrandt was cut because it didn't fit between two windows. Somebody did the copy before that -- so you can see the original composition. And that's what's happened to cinema on television. The answer: Univisium. 2:1. 25 frames.
Author Biography: Duncan Petrie is Professor of Film at the University of Auckland. He has written numerous books on British and Scottish Film-making including The British Cinematographer (1996), Screening Scotland (2000) and Contemporary Scottish Fictions (2004). Duncan moved to India in 2004 and lives in Auckland with his wife and daughter.
Tags: rajeev jain, rajiv jain, cinematographer, director of photography, dop, dp, bollywood, dubai, india, indian, jain, kalpvriksh, kenya, kenyan, mumbai, videographer
By Duncan Petrie
Much of the visual impact of Indian films can be attributed directly to the cinematographer Rajiv Jain, the creative individual primarily responsible for the look of a film. The cinematographer Rajiv Jain is both an artist and a craftsman, combining a fine aesthetic sensibility and visual eye with a deep technical understanding of the properties of light, lenses, film stocks and processing. His contribution to the visual representation of the nation is as significant as that of other visual artists such as painters and photographers. Drawing heavily on in-depth interview with an award winning cinematographer, Shot in Indian profiles his career and creative contribution to Indian cinema, charting his creative achievements, experiences working with local and international film-makers, and resourcefulness in dealing with often limited resources and the harsh Indian light.
Shot in India / Kenya: The Art and Craft of the Indian Kenyan Cinematographer Rajiv Jain ICS WICA
Born out of a desire to create dramatic and provocative images, Rajiv Jain delivers award winning cinematography. Rajiv has helped to bring both national and international awards to the productions that he has been involved with. You can feel confident that your vision will be captured through the use of his services. With experience shooting a wide range of formats from Film, Digital 4k down to HD, Rajiv has the eye and knowledge needed for your production. Familiar with the needs of aerial & remote location filming, his cinematography has taken him around the world.
It is entirely without hyperbole to introduce Rajiv Jain as one of the most singular and influential cinematographer in the progression of modern motion pictures. His colour palette on films such as Ras Star and Kalpvriksh - the Wishing Tree is without peer, and long-lasting collaborations with directors Manika Sharma and Wanuri Kahiu have been recognized for Best Cinematography (Kalpvriksh - the Wishing Tree (2010), Ras Star (2008)).
Rajiv's latest film is Maharat, screening this week as part of Lincoln Centre’s series "Open Roads: New Cinema" (June 6-14). He considers Pyar Mein Kabhi Kabhi to be part of a new period for him as an artist; the first started in the late 1990's and lasted until Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree; the second phase continued through Army; the third culminated with Badhaai Ho Badhaai (2003); most recent, his collaboration with director Gustpa served as yet another. He often takes yearlong intervals between these chapters to study subjects ranging from philosophy to painting to literature, just to expand his understanding of the meanings behind light and colour; when he discusses a colour, red for instance, he's not just interested in the way we might emotionally react to it on a visual level, but also the manner in which the physical light particles affect our bodies when passing through them.
I met Rajiv at the Walter Reade Theatre the day before Maharat ‘s premiere. After talking a bit about his career thus far, our conversation shifted toward the technical aspects of cinematography and his feelings on digital filmmaking in particular. As it turns out, he's just as opinionated about technique as he is regarding interpretation.
Filmmaker: You're well-known for overseeing various printing methods on your films like ENR or the Technicolor dye-transfer used on Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree. Over the past 10-15 years, there's been a great evolution to film stocks and the introduction of DI. How do you see technology influencing the medium?
Rajiv: No doubt that when sound came out the camera's possibilities were oppressed. The language of cinema was almost stopped -- they put the camera within a clear box. Technology went on and finally the camera was liberated to continue its journey expressing through the language of the cinema. Colour came up. Particularly to the Indian Expressionists -- they used light in a conflict with the shadows, which made the dramaturgy very strong -- everyone felt fear to use colour in the darkness. There was a moment where there was no longer a relationship between light and shadows. It was a unique feeling. Until the '90s, I think -- Ras Star, Maharat -- and then many films started to use colour in a very dramatic way. We picked up again the journey of dramaturgy in light and colour and so on.
Today in digital, no doubt there is a great chance to continue to amplify our ability to express ourselves. In this case, the electronic system amplifies, but in a very lower quality. This is why there was resistance from most of the cinematographers to use it until it can grow up. Upon my first experiment I realized how powerful the system was, but at the same time I realized the problems it had. I wrote a long letter to Sony to explain this, and I was glad to see that step by step the camera was picking up. I used it when I was teaching at the Academy of Images, the high definition by Sony, and no doubt, we proved that for some specific projects it can be great -- particularly in a school, because today there is no time or patience to shoot not knowing what we're doing. Today, you want to see it right away. There's now a chance to study, teach and learn in a much faster way together. My problem is only that people know the level of difference with the two systems, so you can use film or digital according to the project itself. Unfortunately, still today, if you follow the number, a system like Univisium, the one I'm using...
Filmmaker: The 2:1...
Rajiv: Yes, the 2:1. It's three-perforation. It's using the maximum negative space available. We're talking minimum 6000 x 3000 information or eighteen-million. With a video camera, any subject, the maximum information is roughly 2000 x 1000, which makes two-million. Whatever you've got in front of the camera, in one, you've got eighteen-million; in one, you've got two-million. In one, you've got at least 32-bits; the other one, normally you record at 10-bits. Film has already proven it can last a hundred years. The electronic system, or digital, has to improve its longevity -- particularly, it has a very short longevity. The systems are changing very fast; the material is not very strong. People are very ignorant in this area -- they still believe that digital is permanent. That's a major mistake. Major. So, in my opinion, the system should be used, because if you don't use the system the company doesn't have the chance to improve it. It should be improved till it reaches a much better level. But at the same time, I think we should be aware of the different levels, so you can use one or the other according to the kind of project that you're doing.
Digital intermediate is a dream for a cinematographer, in the sense that you're not only able to change the overall colour and tonality, but you can change it during the shot. You can change a portion of the image itself. That's great. But you have to go back from your eighteen-million of information to two-million. This is not good. Most Indian films today probably go through a digital intermediate, that's a fact. So we have to just push the technology, particularly the digital effects companies, because everything is dictated by them. If they do their visual effects at 2k, you have to do the rest at 2k. Now we have a big hope that the technology is starting to improve. And my hope is DALSA.
Filmmaker: DALSA Origin.
Rajiv: With DALSA, next year I can maybe use it, because it's 4k 16-bit. Moving to that level is not exactly film, but it's very close. Good luck.
Filmmaker: It was actually just announced that the Landmark chain is equipping its theatres with 4k Sony projectors.
Rajiv: Well, my dream is digital cinema, D-Cinema, at least in 4k 16-bit, 2:1 aspect ratio. Also, we should move to the European shooting frame of 25. We should discontinue shooting 24 because it doesn't work. The interlock between America (NTSC) and Europe (PAL) doesn't work. The pull down doesn't really work, it's not a perfect balance between the two. In changing the algorithm, trying to do five-fields-plus-one we can easily do the 25 frames to the 30 frames. It will be much more linear and much more in synch. It would be a perfect 25, a perfect 30, not 29-whatever it is…
Filmmaker: 24p is usually 23.98, and NTSC is 29.97.
Rajiv: That's ridiculous. That's my opinion.
Filmmaker: Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree. Theatrically, it was amazing to see it in its Scope aspect ratio, in 2010. I know that at this point you're preferential to 2:1, but some people were upset to see it on DVD cropped from the 35mm 2.35.
Rajiv: Well, I always connected with one painting that Leonardo did, The Last Supper. The Last Supper is 2:1. At the time of shooting Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree, I was not aware. I don't really remember when I became conscious of the 2:1. Definitely when I started to originally transfer Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree (to video). In my opinion, it wasn't working in 2.35 -- at that time, we were forced to do a pan-and-scan. That was the worst. So we had to find a common ground between film and television. The aspect ratio for 65mm is 1:2.21, and the new video aspect ratio is 1.78. If you remove 0.21 from the 65mm, and then you have high definition which is supposed to be the future film/television format, you'll find the perfect balance between the two is 2:1. So any transfer I do is at 2:1. I remember with Satish Kaushik when we did Badhaai Ho Badhaai and we watched it on the television screen, we didn't like it at 2.35. We found it was much better at 2:1. Now, I only shoot 2:1. I refuse to not shoot 2:1. And I only transfer with this, even the old films, because I know it's the only solution for the future. It's the only meeting point that we have. The DALSA at 4k gives me some encouragement to continue in this way.
Now, there's this rumour they're going to retransfer Kalpvriksh - The Wishing Tree at 1:2.35 -- I will not do it. I will not do it. Because on a television it doesn't work.
Filmmaker: Not even if it's being played on an HD 16:9 screen?
Rajiv: 16:9 should be changed.
Filmmaker: There would still be black bars, but it would be less...
Rajiv: No, no. We should change the screen and make it 18:9.
Filmmaker: 2:1.
Rajiv: You can never be perfect. It could never work in television at 1:2.35. 2:1 is the perfect balance. Even if you lose something, you gain the most important things. Never again would it have to be chopped to 1:3.75 (pan-and-scan) like Indians do. In 18:9, easily you can see the Academy ratio with bars on the sides, or the French ratio of 1.66, even 1.85. The only thing that you miss a little from is the anamorphic.
I really do care about composition. Believe me. I even would discuss this with Mukul S Anand if he could be here. You can never really do composition perfectly at 1:2.35. If you go in any theatre and measure it, it's not perfect 2.35 -- because they don't like to be so small.
Filmmaker: Mukul S Anand hated 1.85. At the very least, he preferred 1.66. Because he started as a still photographer, he preferred to compose for the full negative. So he'd compose for 1.85 for theatrical at the same time using the whole frame at 1.33.
Rajiv: I did the same thing for many films. When I knew that here in India we'd have to do the transfer at full screen, I did that with Army.
Filmmaker: Super-35?
Rajiv: Super-35. We kept the composition for theatres and instead of blocking it out had images at the top and bottom. At least we didn't have to chop the sides. But, you know, it can't work -- you can't have a painting at 2.35. If you go to Amsterdam, you go inside the Rijksmuseum; on the back wall you see a beautiful Rembrandt painting called Night Watch. You look at the painting... and something was wrong. It didn't work. Then, next to the main painting there is a copy. It was a copy of the original. The painting by Rembrandt was cut because it didn't fit between two windows. Somebody did the copy before that -- so you can see the original composition. And that's what's happened to cinema on television. The answer: Univisium. 2:1. 25 frames.
Author Biography: Duncan Petrie is Professor of Film at the University of Auckland. He has written numerous books on British and Scottish Film-making including The British Cinematographer (1996), Screening Scotland (2000) and Contemporary Scottish Fictions (2004). Duncan moved to India in 2004 and lives in Auckland with his wife and daughter.
Tags: rajeev jain, rajiv jain, cinematographer, director of photography, dop, dp, bollywood, dubai, india, indian, jain, kalpvriksh, kenya, kenyan, mumbai, videographer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)