From the Summer 1994 issue of the Operating Cameraman

The following was an impromptu interview with John Alonzo, ASC which took place on a soundstage at Sony Pictures. I had asked John to do an on-camera presentation dealing with his experiences and impressions of his first high definition drama shoot which was subsequently to be presented at a meeting of the BKSTS in England. John asked me what topics I thought he should cover; and as we were discussing this, he suddenly said, "Why don't we record this, just you and I talking?"

GALT: John, your credits include over 50 feature films such as Harold and Maude, Sounder, Lady Sings the Blues, Chinatown, Steel Magnolias and many others. Today I would like to talk to you about your first digital high definition drama shoot.

ALONZO: Forget about the credits, what's important is this "new toy," as I call it. The HDC-500 High Definition Camera is possibly the most exciting camera I've ever used. I know it sounds cliche, but to me it really is exciting. A lot of people on the crew will tell you how enthusiastic I was when I was using this new medium.

I love the format. It's not much different from shooting 2.35 or 1.85. I had fun applying motion picture style lighting to this system. You [John Galt] taught me a lot about the eccentricities of electronics and how it behaved with light and so on. It was like going back to school again. It certainly provides a broader canvas for the artist, and, of course, the instant gratification wherein you can see the crystal clear picture on a monitor as you line up the shot. It's like having a light meter and laboratory right there on screen. I found I had several new colleagues that I normally wouldn't have on film--namely, a systems engineer, a video technician and a tape operator.

I first worked with this camera over a year and a half ago in Orlando, Florida. Sony was kind enough to invite me to play with it. Not knowing anything about it and not knowing any better for that matter, I pushed the camera to its limits. I used it very much like a movie camera. I exposed it, underexposed it, pushed it to the limits and discovered that it could do some wonderful things that film can't do.

The current project is called World War II-When Lions Roared, an epic of four hours for NBC, dramatizing the actual words of Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt's aide Harry Hopkins. David Rintels, the writer/producer, uses the actual words that were spoken by these men during the war years. It's a very strong and very powerful piece. David tried to get it produced for a long time.

It was probably fate that somehow David Rintels couldn't mount this piece until high def came along. Not that he was waiting for it, but things finally fell into place. It was not to be done on film, because of the extensive special effects, nor did he really want to do it on standard television. He believed that high definition might give the piece a different look. He hard that I had some experience with HD and that I was enthusiastic about the medium, so he gave me a call.

GALT: You know, this camera is the third generation of High Definition cameras. I think a lot of the problems that cinematographers have had in the past and a lot of things that have dictated this sort of engineering approach to pictures has had to do with the fact that the early cameras used video tube technology. This new CCD chip technology I think gives you much greater freedom. Now for the first time, you have a tool which you can use creatively.

I'd like to ask you a little bit about how you prepared for this enormous project? As we look at the camera and the certain modifications that have been made, I'd like to know how did you deal with the new members of the crew and how did you integrate them into the creative process?

ALONZO: Well it's a big question. I think among a lot of my colleagues, there has always been some apprehension with video systems, that the tail starts to wag the dog so to speak. Electronic engineering is so foreign to us and complex that we're intimidated.

Here is a system that has the equivalent exposure index of 500 to 2000--a tremendous speed. So I said to myself "with this new tool, how or what should I prepare for?" You would expect me to say that I prepared by looking at a lot of photographs and research on World War II--that I tested lenses, but I didn't do that. Instead, I picked John Galt's brain--I picked Bill Connolly's brain--Jim Lucas' and one of your very artistic engineers, C.R. Caillouet. I picked everyone's brain in Sony's world of engineering. Not just to find out why certain thinks work in this camera, but why the electronics do what they do--mostly to find out where your men and their minds were in respect to the aesthetics and the kind of lighting that should be done.

Now to make me feel a little more comfortable, I did ask you and Sony to give us a follow focus at the lens which is more traditional with a movie camera--although I do like the idea that the assistant can also go back to the truck and follow focus from the truck.

GALT: You did both in this picture.

ALONZO: Yes. Sometimes in confined areas, it was awkward for our assistant--Allan Gitlan--to follow focus. So following focus from the truck camera was terrific. We gave the finder a position on the side as well as on top, which made a big difference to the camera operator. Another advantage over an optical viewfinder is that you don't have your head attached to an eyepiece. It gives you a lot more freedom to see beyond and around as you're operating the camera. We also have a finder to which you may attach yourself if you needed to. Another modification was the use of matte boxes for filtration--although I soon discovered I didn't need much filtration.

The profile of the camera is probably a little longer than we want it to be because the zoom lens is so big. However, I would request that someone design some lenses that are a little smaller, and a little more comfortable. We did have some small fixed focal length lenses which made it possible to hand hold this camera quite nicely.

But back to the question of preparation for a piece like this, I did research into the history of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. I read the script thoroughly. But my mind was more in preparing for this new format. The format, 1.78:1 or 16x9, is not available on film.

A new challenge came up in preparation for this project. I had to make sure that the lighting we implemented didn't suddenly show the audience something we didn't want them to see. High def is extremely sensitive. I remember particularly the close collaboration we had to have with makeup artist, Ms. Linda De Vetta.

GALT: Yes. There were a lot of prosthetics used.

ALONZO: Yes, a lot of prosthetics. I think in a picture where you have a leading lady for instance, we would really have to light her very carefully because this thing sees your pores.

GALT: But you elected not to use any filtration on this project. You tested some super frost filters.

ALONZO: I tested ultra-cons. We had some pro-mists, I think we used a warm pro-mist once or twice. A lot of thought went into this, and I kept saying to myself, "Wait a minute. If this is the sharpest most resolved image today, then why am I degrading it? Does the story call for it?" If the story called for us to diffuse it and muddy it up and make it sort of documentary or romantic, whatever the word is, then we probably shouldn't be using this system.

In conferences with David Rintels the producer and Joe Sargent the director, the more I talked to them, the more I found what they really wanted was not to distract the audience in any way but just to give them clarity. Total clarity of words and clarity of picture. The images were just so good, there was no reason to diffuse them. I have a theory. I don't really think that the world of film and high definition are going to conflict for a long time, if ever. I don't think one replaces the other. They each have their purpose for specific kind of stories.

GALT: One of the reasons I believe that they decided to use this technology was that there would be some fairly elaborate blue screen and motion control photography. Normally, that kind of process is handled by a specialist. The first unit sort of steps back; but in this case, you did all of the blue screen lighting and you--with the exception of the motion control specialist--and your normal crew did everything. Could you elaborate a little bit on that?

ALONZO: That's something that my colleagues should be aware of. That is the total control that the director of photography has over that aspect of a project when using high def.

When we had the plate to play back to, we were able to balance the picture so perfectly that the producer had no questions about it. It was exactly what it was going to look like. On film, when you do blue screen, it's more complicated. Usually, you have a visual effects supervisor there whose total concentration is strictly on the blue screen, and the cameraman loses a bit of control.

My first introduction to high definition engineering was also in Orlando with Mark Daigle, Sony's high definition product manager. I approached this camera and this technology with a totally open mind, and I got a good response from Mark to my questions about the so-called video aesthetic. I said, "Well why can't we open the lens more?" "Whey can't we shoot it with full gain?" He said the right thing to me. "We don't have a reason why you can't John. If you want to , here it is." And he showed it to me.

I found the same response from you, C.R. Caillouet, Jim Lucas and Dale Hunter. The same from the men that worked with us in Czechoslovakia. I guess because we were all sort of exploring new ground, we had to leave our minds open and allow for the discovery of new things. I think that anybody who wants to use this system has to approach it that way. Most of all of the visual effects that are begin done today on film are mostly translated to digital information, manipulated and put back on film. In this instance, with this project, World War II, a tremendous amount of time and money was saved by already being in digital format.

GALT: So for the sake of our readers, all of your composites had a high definition Ultimatte as part of your camera package. You had some test background plates and sometimes you were actually shooting the background plates.

ALONZO: That's right.

GALT: So you could do the composite live. You could determine if there were any technical problems. In fact, I believe you made quite an extensive use of smoke and atmosphere which is normally very dangerous.

ALONZO: Yes, remember when we did some smoke on one plate and didn't do smoke on the foreground, or was it the other way around? And you said, "Don't worry about it 'cause we can make it work."

GALT: Yes. We often had a problem when using smoke, for creating 3-D, a sense of atmospheric perspective. You often run into a problem particularly if you have a character very foreground in the picture. It doesn't matter how much smoke you put into the picture they'll never really show the smoke.

The other question that interested me was, for instance, you shot for 20 days in Prague in the Czech Republic. I remember one day we walked into a mausoleum. When I looked at it, I thought, "It'll take tow days to light this room." Within four or five hours, it was beautifully lit. I'd like you to address this because I think that you certainly made tremendous use of the sensitivity of this camera. Normal sensitivity is equivalent to an exposure index of over 500. With gain and an exposure index of over 1000, it still produces a very good picture.

ALONZO: When Mark and I were "diddling" around with the camera in Florida, we pushed it up to 2000 ASA. He said, "Well, you know that's not very good," I said, "Your engineering eyes tell you it's not very good; but if I'm shooting Internal Affairs or Scarface, for instance, if might look perfect.

GALT: So the sort of gritty look that you get from the noise is like film grain?

ALONZO: Yes, like the grain, the gritty look we had in a picture like Norma Rae. As a matter of fact, Norma Rae could have been shot with this system using that kind of gain.

The mausoleum you're talking about in Czechoslovakia was as large as a football field.

GALT: It's pretty big. And it had no windows.

ALONZO: Yes and very, very high ceilings. The reason it took the three or four hours to light was because it took the electricians for or five minutes just to walk up and down the stairs. The cable runs were really long. I came up with an idea that I'd used before in other pictures--using white, helium filled weather balloons. I had the grip (Bobby Griffith) send them up to the top, and we had the gaffer (Rod Yamanne) just aim some 2,500 HMI's at them. It gives a very beautiful sort of light.

Again, this camera is amazing. The sensitivity of it, I think we were already at about T3.2 stop. We augmented certain things and brought the level up a little bit. It was so simple to do that, but on film it would have been tough.

High def does one thing that film doesn't do. It seems to dig into shadow areas and give information. I must say Eastman and Fuji all are working very hard to develop an emulsion like that.

GALT: Of course; but ironically, one of the development efforts for this technology over the past eight or ten years has been to make it more film-like. So we now can also compress shadows and highlights just like a film emulsion.

ALONZO: Compressing highlights is good, but I prefer to see into the shadows. And please don't fool with the range of color control that the HDC-500 has. In some sequences with Michael Caine playing Stalin, I had this idea that I wanted to make them a little grayer. Not quite so cold--it was hard for me to explain. I remember Lucas "diddling" (my word for fooling with the controls). I said, "There, that's what I want." He was talking in minus this and plus that, gamma's, et cetera. He got the image that I wanted to see. On film, I'd have to wait until the film came back from the lab. We were able to manipulate it on the set, and that provided a big advantage.

GALT: So once he gave you that look, he could store it in the camera's computer memory and recall it any time that you wanted to use it again.

ALONZO: Yes, he stored it in the computer and made it possible to come back two or three days later in the same room, shoot in the same direction, and match the look. I remember we shot a lot of Churchill in a bunker filled with smoke. C.R. and I played with the black gamma. We played with white and black values. It's a huge advantage, I think to a cinematographer who really wants to explore a different way of lighting things. To me it's a more enjoyable way.

GALT: With the exception of the use of the live composite system, World War II was shot very traditionally. You and your camera assistants came up with modifications to the system to make it more compatible with single camera, film-style practice. We've talked quite a lot about how technology can change. What is (in video) often known as the technical director or systems engineer was very closely involved with you in the picture-making process.

ALONZO: When you're working in film, you have a director of photography and a gaffer who are organizing all of your lighting, establishing the way you want it and then rolling it on dollies, cranes, et cetera. The jobs are very defined.

We shot all the sound stage work for World War II at CBS in Television City, California. We used CBS people who are used to working on soap operas and game shows with several cameras shooting different lighting angles at the same time. I came to them as a total foreigner saying "I don't like the lights up there, I want to bring them down to the floor." They would smile and comply. The lighting gaffer (Rod Yamanne) at CBS is called the lighting director, and he found he wasn't directing lighting very much but seemed to like this concept. But as I said earlier, I made a few new allies. C.R. Caillouet who was the systems engineer--in terms of video, a technical director. He became a new ally for me. He was my other set of eyes looking at the monitor, constantly making sure the color was exactly the way we wanted it.

Jim Lucas, in the truck, was the third set of eyes making sure that we were getting what we wanted. Dale Hunter the recordist made sure that we were getting it on tape. That's a lot of help there. And that's a benefit. It's an added dimension you don't have with film.

I found it very supportive and warm to have these people around me to say, "You know, that light you had on yesterday, it's off today." Or "There's a cable in the shot." Or "Look at the camera. It just bumped a little bit." Somebody says to me, "It's out of focus in the truck." Or "Here is the shot you did last week so you can match the look." All of this information is on a clear, sharp monitor.

GALT: I've heard of cinematographers who have been afraid of this kind of involvement with engineers. They're afraid that the engineers are going to take over their picture. But obviously from what you're saying, that was not your concern at all.

ALONZO: No. On the contrary, we had a good understanding. As you well know, we were all sort of stepping on new ground. The best way to do it was to have somebody say, "This is the way we're going to go." But remember, there are eight horses pulling that wagon; and they all have to cooperate and collaborate.

It was a very pleasant working experience. There was never any question about what we were doing. You could see it on the monitor. The director, I think, loved the idea of seeing instantaneously what he wanted. His biggest problem was to compose for the high def and the NTSC format. That was very rough for him. My preference is that we show it all on the wide screen--but that's another battle.

All the apprehensions that some people have about the umbilical cord which this camera carries, well never got in the way. Whenever we shoot a film right now, we have an umbilical cord with a video assist and it goes wherever the camera goes. I never found the cable to be a problem.

GALT: You shot some pretty large dolly shots, tracking shots, crane shots.

ALONZO: Remember the long dolly shot we did in the mausoleum. Nobody ever had a problem with the cable. When I use a Chapman crane, sometimes I'll put in an HMI or an arc on the crane. It's got to carry that long electrical feed to it.

Another point to make about the facility of using high def is that no one would come to me and say, "Do you think the color of that jacket is okay?" They would see it. So it eliminated a lot of questions. "Is the depth of field enough?" Of course it is. You see it. Those questions add up to a lot of time-consuming question and answer periods during film making.

GALT: I also saw how closely you collaborated with the makeup specialist. Bob Hoskins as Churchill, and Michael Caine as Stalin had very extensive prosthetics. And you used no diffusion. There were lots of very tight close-ups, and yet I don't think I have ever seen such good prosthetic make-up on actors before. Is there any value to the makeup artist being able to see what your were doing?

ALONZO: Linda De Vetta did extraordinary makeup on those people. Her biggest fear when she saw the test was how much you did see. The camera is able to detect the netting, detect every single pore of the skin. It frightened her. I said to her with all confidence, "Don't worry. I think we'll be able to fix it with lighting. You and I will be able to sit there in front of the monitor and know that the audience will never see a defect."

However, the art department for instance, found that they couldn't cheat an emblem on a uniform, they couldn't fake anything because the system sees it all so very clearly. It's a closer collaboration with the various departments with high definition.

GALT: Won't a lot of producers, directors and cameramen consider that to be a great disadvantage of this technology?

ALONZO: I don't think so, but it depends on their attitude. I find some directors, including Joe Sargent, love the idea because they can actually see performance on the screen. You can go over to the monitor and see the close up of it, you can get a feel for the performance and can give the actor good direction for good notes. Joe found it very satisfying.

GALT: Although we did have a set of prime lenses, you elected to shoot almost everything with the zoom lens. Was there any particular reason?

ALONZO: We did look at the lens very closely and made sure that it was sharp. We didn't use it too much as a zoom lens, per se. We used it as a variable focal length prime lens. My favorite choice of focal length on this particular zoom was around 25 millimeters (N.B. equivalent to 35mm in 1.85:1 35mm).

GALT: You also sometimes shot with two cameras.

ALONZO: We used two cameras whenever possible. It saved the actors from having to repeat themselves. The times we couldn't use two cameras were when the director couldn't see two performances simultaneously. But most of the time when we used two cameras, especially in drama, we were conserving the performance of each actor, not having to repeat it again for one side and then over again for the other side.

GALT: An argument that I've heard against using multiple cameras on what's essentially single camera cinematography is that you are compromising the lighting for one angle.

ALONZO: I think it's relative to the piece that you're shooting. For instance, a picture like Scarface with stunts, weapons firing and a lot of mechanical effects, using three or four cameras, didn't compromise the lighting; because we were very careful in selecting the positions for those cameras.

The director, Brian De Palma, was very good about that. I never considered that two or three cameras were a problem. It would be a problem in a small room, or tight quarters; then, of course, you can't. But then again, if the director tells you this is a one-take situation, then you had better figure out where to put two or three cameras. I don't think that compromising the lighting is so critical; it's not as bas as compromising performance and story.

GALT: Thank you very much, indeed, Mr. Alonzo.