Russell Carpenter, ASC
TITANIC Q&A ArchivesFollowing are Russell Carpenter's responses to e-mail questions about his award-winning work as cinematographer of Titanic.
RESPONSES APRIL 13, 1998:
Dear Russell,Congratulations on your accomplishments on Titanic. I would like to know how working on a picture which involved so many computer-generated effects influenced your work as a cinematographer.Did you have a lot of collaboration with the digital teams and what was the nature of that collaboration?Yours,
Lorna Hutcheon
Dear Lorna,Computer-generated imagery will become the norm on most film productions in the near future as the technology becomes quicker and cheaper. Every working cinematographer is going to have to expand his or her knowledge of what is possible digitally — and how the cinematographer can interact with his partners at the digital house.Of course, most of the collaboration on Titanic dealt with shots where first unit lighting significantly impacted what Rob Legato's team was doing. First and foremost was the lighting of the miniature model ship. Rob and his team came down to Mexico and we discussed what I would be doing with the first unit lighting. Unfortunately, he had to get underway shooting some of the miniature shots before we even had the large ship at the studio in Mexico lit — so we were just guessing, in some instances, at what we were going to do.I do feel that digital manipulation of the what is shot each day may become a reality in the near future. As long as the visual intent of the director and cinematographer are held paramount, I think significant and startling visuals will be created.Thanks,
Russell Carpenter
Dear Mr. Carpenter,On the web page I noticed your Steadicam operator, Jimmy Murro (a former School of Visual Arts student), kneeling behind you. Can you elaborate about your collaboration with the Steadicam operator?— Salvatore Petrosino
Dear Salvatore,Jimmy Muro is a brilliant Steadicam operator with amazing instincts for what makes a shot work or fail. He can make midcourse corrections in a shot which turn a pretty decent take into an amazing one and he constantly offers up suggestions and possibilities for the execution of a shot.I've worked with Jimmy on several projects. When Jimmy works with Jim Cameron, the relationship is like the English system: Jim and Jimmy will talk about the development of the coverage and I will listen in — possibly offering some suggestions. But most of the dialogue about coverage and camera movement is between the two.On other projects, the relationship is more the American system: Jimmy and I will help the director develop the coverage, but most of the camera placement discussions will be between Jimmy and myself.Thank you,
Russell Carpenter
Hello Mr. Carpenter,My friend told me that there were scenes of Titanic that were made by computer graphics, is that true?And the last question that I want to ask: did the Titanic [set] ever sail in the sea or did it stay in docks all the time?Thanks a lot,
Alex
Dear Alex,There was extensive use of computer-generated imagery in the film Titanic. In fact, all of the wide shots of the ship underway on the sea were computer generated, using models and water rendering technology.In Titanic, the large ship never actually sailed on the sea. It was a set built on a cliff overlooking the ocean. Camera movement created the illusion that the ship was moving in some shots, and the wider shots were computer generated.Thank you,
Russell Carpenter
Dear Mr. Carpenter.Over the last couple of weeks, I've tried to come up with a convenient way of shooting a match dissolve including a match move. What I would really like to know is how exactly you managed to achieve the very first match dissolve in the film.
Another question I'd like to ask is what kind of film you used for the night scenes, and how did you expose the film to get such a crystal clear, undistorted picture?
Something I have noticed throughout the entire movie: Could it be that some of your shots were strongly influenced by paintings by Ken Marschall? With the shot of Titanic anchoring near Cherbourg, the shot of Titanic, all her lights on, peacefully heading towards the sunset on the far horizon, and with the shot of the lifeboats encountering the Carpathia, all surrounded by icebergs, at pre-dawn in the ice-cold Atlantic Ocean, you seem to have tried to make Ken Marschall's artwork come to life by the millimeter. If this is true, you have been unthinkably successful with it.
Finally, I heard that the camera developed for the deep-sea-shots could only take in about 150 meters of film. I figure you had to shoot very efficiently. How did you get sufficient lighting equipment down there? Thank you once more for not only presenting the audience with images, but with feelings you managed to transmit from the screenplay to the screen, and into our hearts and minds.In great anticipation of your reply,
Jan HermelP.S.: Why was the super-short scene of Molly asking for some ice as the infamous iceberg silently passes by the window behind her left out?
Dear Jan,It's best to check out Cinefex magazine for extensive coverage of the special match dissolves in Titanic. Both sides of that dissolve were done using miniatures — one of the wreck (on the TV monitor) and one at the dock in 1912.
I rated the 5279 Kodak Vision stock very conservatively — at ASA 320 — to create a thick negative that would not become murky or grainy when it was reformatted.
The 1912 documentary footage effect was done in postproduction utilizing footage we shot and then torturing it.
You are certainly correct in assuming that Ken Marschall's paintings were a visual touchstone for this film.
I did not participate in the deep sea dive, but, again, Cinefex covers this in great detail. As to Molly Brown's line; it seemed like a good idea, but when cut in it played against the emotional force of the third act — also, the film was running way long! Thanks,
Russell Carpenter
Mr. Carpenter,I am a student filmmaker and I'm trying to shoot a scene similar to the one where Jack and Kate are in the car making love. What would you recommend for lighting such a scene, both as an exterior and interior? In addition, how would I get the windows to fog other than by having two people sit in a cold car for an extended period of time? Sincerely,
Daniel Z.
Dear Daniel, I used Kinoflo tubes: 4 foot single tubes just outside the windows when they were in the back seat. It gave me a soft but controllable light with great modeling. You still have to use flags or black wrap to keep the light from going where you don't want it to go. We fogged the windows by spraying dulling spray on them! Thanks,
Russell Carpenter
Mr. Carpenter, The articles in AC were very helpful in dissecting your work on Titanic, but unfortunately none of them ever completely answered my question of how you and James Cameron achieved the quality of blue used in the last third of the movie, after the "lights" of the ship have gone down. Was the blue made in the lighting; in lens filtration; or timing? Or was it a combination of the three. The color might not be completely realistic, but as a stylistic choice it works wonderfully. I am curious to know the process for future reference if I ever come across an appropriate opportunity to use it. Thank you,
Jason Broccardo
Michele M. Broccardo
Dear Jason and Michele, That deep blue lighting, which is a trademark of Jim Cameron's films— see Terminator 2 for a great example of it — is achieved by shooting tungsten-balanced film under uncorrected HMI lights (that gets you most of the way there). The next step is in timing. The timer can dial in a little more cyan to bring the color around to an electric blue. That's it in a nutshell, pretty simple. The thing to watch out for is that if there is any pink in the makeup of the actors it tends to go very magenta. Thanks,
Russell Carpenter
Dear Russell: Let me start by sending many dittos to all the accolades of your work on Titanic — absolutely stunning cinematography. The film has truly inspired me to pursue a higher level of richness and tonality in my work. You have a great gift. I am a camera assistant and an aspiring cinematographer who works mainly on TV commercials. Recently, a particular application of the 5279 stock intrigued me. The other day, I saw a DP use the stock on interiors of a large glass atrium in a hospital. Because of the film speed, we shot with Zeiss superspeeds at f11 and f8 — uncorrected for the daylight. Then later in the day we shot scenes in the same atrium at a f2.0 — with the same outside levels and Zeiss lenses. My question(s): where will the underexposure latitude of this new stock breakdown? If a subject is properly exposed at f11, will the stock see into the shadows as well as when the key level is an f2? Secondly, when will the highlights start to lose detail, 1 stop? 2 stops? And, will the highlights then blow out quicker at larger apertures? I know that faster films have wider underexposure latitudes, but are their overexposure latitudes compromised? I need some help understanding the properties of the '79 stock. Thanks so much,
Jamie Warren
Dear Jamie, I love the 79 stock, but haven't tested in the way you're speaking about. However, some lenses react differently at wide open apertures, in regards to contrast, than they do stopped down to the middle of the lens. This will effect the amount of shadow detail you see and the apparent crispness of the image. However, most Primo and Zeiss lenses hold up pretty well even very close to wide open apertures. The overexposure latitude with the new Kodak stocks is pretty amazing: sometimes the problem is actually trying to get the stocks to blow out. You really need to get 41/2, 5 or even 6 stops over range to get things to blow out. This will also be affected by the lens you use! The best thing to do is get some 5279 loaded into a 35mm cartridge. You can get this through RGB Labs in Los Angeles. Shoot a grey card and, using a spot meter, over- and under-expose it up to seven stops. Take careful notes and write the information on a slate so you can see it when projected on a screen or analyzed under a light box. You'll learn tons.... Thanks,
Russell Carpenter [editor's note: check out the story Space Family Robinson in the April 1998 issue of American Cinematographer for more details on the latitude of 5279.]
Dear Mr. Carpenter, I would like to hear your opinion on a matter of schooling, as I am more than interested in making movies and being a cinematographer. I also need a steady career to pay bills. I am wondering if going to college and working on a degree in theater/teaching first, or whether going to a film school first, would be best? But don't get me wrong, I want to be a cinematographer more than anything and have since I saw my first movie, The Wizard of Oz. It's just that I don't know which way to turn and my family isn't helping either with their pressure for higher education. Thank you for taking the time to look this over and I would appreciate any comments. Sincerely,
lost and confused
Miranda Plagge
Dear Miranda, Wow, those are tough questions... Getting the college education should come first — but while you are there you can be doing all sorts of things that would further a career as a cinematographer: studying photography, getting involved in whatever film productions are going on in the area, shooting film yourself and researching the business over the Internet. Get the education though! Just an opinion, Russell Carpenter
[ 1/3/98 | 3/5/98 | 3/24/98 | 4/13/98 | 6/2/98 ]