Continuing the ongoing series of interviews with creative artists working on various aspects of movie and TV productions, it is my pleasure to welcome Shane Valentino. In the last fifteen-odd years he’s been working on a variety of productions in music videos, commercials, TV shows and feature film world. In this interview Shane talks about the differences and similarities between these fields for the art department, treating every production that does not happen in the present day as a period one, the art of conveying emotions and feelings in the visual medium of film, and the changes in the world of cinematic story telling on our screens.
The interview centers on two striking movies that Shane has worked on as the production designer in the last few years. The first is “Straight Outta Compton” that captures the formation and evolution of the music group “N.W.A.” and the effect it had on both the music industry in the late ’80s, as well as the American society at large. The second is the impeccable “Nocturnal Animals” that weaves three stories, three worlds and three visual universes in one.
Kirill: Please tell us about yourself and your path so far.
Shane: I’ve been fascinated with cinema since I was a teenager. I started taking film criticism and film history courses in high school in Los Angeles. Our instructor, Jim Hosney, was teaching surveys of American and European cinema and that’s where I was exposed to the films of Jean-Luc Godard, Bernardo Bertolucci, Michelangelo Antonioni and others. Seeing those films, and being exposed to the themes that those filmmakers were exploring, made me even more interested in pursuing filmmaking as a career.
When I went to college, I wanted to study film as a fine art. I was looking for ways to express ideas and themes through non-commercial means. There’s a whole genre of avant-garde and experimental filmmaking and that’s where I got hooked. My mentor was a woman named Chick Strand who was pretty well-known in that world. Eventually, I went to the San Francisco Art Institute to get my MFA in experimental filmmaking. That program rounded out my education and exposed me to even more disciplines – photography, sculpture and painting.
I entered production design through a stroke of luck. I had a friend who was an artistic director on a TV show and she needed some help. I didn’t know much about what the art department did when I started working with her. But I was intrigued by the whole process and I’ve been working in the art department ever since.
Design boards for “Straight Outta Compton”. Courtesy of Shane Valentino.
Kirill: So your start was in the TV world.
Shane: Yes. It was with the Oxygen network started by Oprah Winfrey. They were doing a lot of TV shows and that’s how I got introduced to the role of the art department. My first extensive project was with Isaac Mizrahi’s show on that network.
Through TV, I started doing commercials. I was always interested in working on feature films too. Living in NYC after finishing my graduate degree in San Francisco, I was introduced to the independent New York film scene. I started on indie films with super small art departments and budgets under $1M. It was a fantastic learning experience to see the different parts of the art department coming together on a relatively tiny budget – props, set decoration, construction, etc. From there, I moved on to larger-budget film projects.
Design boards for “Straight Outta Compton”. Courtesy of Shane Valentino.
Kirill: You’ve been working on music videos, commercials, TV shows and feature films. How would you compare these fields as far as the size and pace of the art department?
Shane: It depends on the budget of the project. For example, the art department for a big commercial can match what happens on a feature film or a TV project in terms of size and pace. Between film and TV, it’s usually about the same in terms of the department heads and the general size. On commercials we don’t necessarily have a construction department because it’s often outsourced to a vendor who can build aspects of the sets. But you definitely have the set dressing department, the props department, and the art department on every commercial.
I find that the difference between film and TV is mostly about pace. The TV format requires that you finish an episode in 7-8 days. As a production designer, you have to think on your feet to make these tight deadlines. You have to make decisions about how something should look as expeditiously as possible. You also learn to find locations that can accommodate a team that needs to work very quickly.
Pace is one of the reasons why a lot of us like to work on films. It depends on the budget and the amount of prep time of course, but you often have more time to create a concept or a theme, and to work through how those ideas can be fully articulated. You’re given the time to think through all the different aspects.
Design boards for “Straight Outta Compton”. Courtesy of Shane Valentino.
Continue reading »
Back in the olden days of 1999 it was pretty much the only movie that I watched in the theaters. In pre-digital days it took a few months for a movie to complete its theatrical rollout across the globe, and once it got into theaters, it stayed for much longer than it does these days. Such was the story of “The Matrix” for me. It stayed in local theaters for at least six months, and I was a single guy with not much to do in the evening after work. So every week, at least twice a week, I would go to watch it again. And again. And again. It’s quite unlikely, in fact, that there’s ever going to be a movie that I’ll watch more times than I’ve watched “The Matrix”.
Back in those olden days, people didn’t wake up to write a new Javascript library. People woke up to write a Matrix rain screensaver. Those would be the mirrored half-width kanas, as well as Latin characters and arabic numerals.
A few years later, “Matrix: Reloaded” came out, taking the binary rain into the third dimension as the glyphs were sliding down multiple virtual sheets of glass. And I finally decided to dip my toes into the world of making my own Matrix rain screensaver, complete with many of the visual effects that were seen in that movie. There’s a bunch of old code that I’ve uploaded as an historical artifact right here. Fair warning – this was 13 years ago, and as many do when they first start out, I reimplemented a bunch of stuff that was already there in the JDK. If you dive into the code, you’ll see a home grown implementation of a linked list, as well as a rather gnarly monstrosity that exposed something that resembled a canvas / graphics API. Don’t judge me. Anyhoo, on to the topic of this post.
One of the things I’ve wanted to do in that screensaver was to take a string as input and render it in the style of Matrix titles:
In here, every glyph undergoes one or more transformations (cropping, displacement, segment duplication). In addition, there are connectors that link glyphs together. It is these connectors that I’m going to talk about. Or, more precisely, how can you come up with the “best” way to connect the glyphs of any input string, and what makes a particular connector chain the “best” chain for that string?
This image captures the “essence” of quantifying the quality of a connector. In the title sequence of the original movie, as well as the sequels, the connectors are only placed at three vertical positions – top, middle and bottom. That is the starting point of this diagram. In addition, there are the following factors at the level of an individual glyph:
- On the scale from 1 to 5, how far the connector would have to go “into” the glyph to connect to the closest pixel? So, the bottom part of A gets 5’s on both sides, and the top part gets 2’s on both sides. The middle part of J gets 0 on the left (as the connector would have to “travel” across the entire glyph) and 4 on the right (as the connector would need to go past the rightmost point of the top serif).
- Defining a “natural” connection point to be (in the diagram above green marks such a point while red signifies that the point is not natural):
- Anything on top and bottom – this is an escape valve that would make sure that any input string has at least one connector chain
- Serifs in the middle – such as the right side of G
- Crossbars in the middle, extending to both sides of the glyph – such as A, B or R.
Then, a valid connector chain would be defined as:
- No two consecutive connectors can be placed at the same vertical position. In the example of the original title, the connector chain is top-bottom-middle-bottom-top.
- A connector must have positive (non-zero) value on both sides. For example, you can’t connect A and J in the middle because the left side of J places value 0 on the middle position.
- A connector must have at least one natural connection point. For example, N and O can’t be connected in the middle, while N and P can (as P’s left side defines the middle position as a natural connection point)
Finally, the overall “quality” of the entire connector chain is computed as:
- The sum of connection point values along both sides of each connector
- Weighed by the chi-square value of the connector vertical positions along the entire chain
- Weighed by the mean probability of the connector vertical positions along the entire chain
The last two factors aim to “favor” chains that look “random”. For example, there is not much randomness in a top-bottom-top-bottom-top-bottom chain. You want to have a bit of variety and “noise” in a chain so that it doesn’t look explicitly constructed, so to speak. As can be seen in the diagram above, the middle vertical position is not a natural connection point for a lot of glyphs, and both of these factors aim to bring a well-distributed usage of all vertical position into the mix.
It is true that the basic underlying rules of defining how a glyph connector chain is constructed are based on the visuals of the Matrix movie titles. You might think of this as the basic rules of physics that apply to the particular universe. However, the evaluation of a specific constructed chain is a softer framework, so to speak. There is nothing explicit in these rules that would force the quality score of the particular connector chain that you see in the final graphics for these particular six letters to be the highest of all valid chains.
When I first ran the finished implementation, it was one of those rare moments of pure, unadulterated geek joy:
These are all possible valid connector chains for the word “MATRIX”, ordered by the quality score that is based on values of individual connector points, as well as statistical variation that accounts for predictability and randomization within a specific sequence. Yes, the top score goes to the sequence that was used in the movie title!
Let’s look at “RELOADED” next:
And these are the top 39 valid connector chains for that word:
While my algorithm found the perfect match for “MATRIX” connector chain, the connector chain that was used in the movie for “RELOADED” is scored at place #37. You can see where it falls flat – in the top connector between L and O. The score value for top connector on the right side of L is 1 out of 5, and while the score value for top connector on the left side of O is 5 out of 5, that drastically lowers the overall score. In addition, the last four connectors are bottom-middle-bottom-middle which lowers the median probability factor applied to the entire quality score of this chain.
The connector chain selected by the third movie for the word “REVOLUTIONS” is not considered a valid one based on the rules that I chose after “Reloaded” was out. Specifically, the middle connector between U and T is not valid, as there is neither a serif not a crossbar in these two glyphs. And the same applies to the middle connector between I and O.
Finally, the “ANIMATRIX” title deviates slightly in the “MATRIX” part, using middle connector placement between M and A. How did my algorithm fair on scoring this chain?
This was a close one. The connector chain used in the movie title scores at the second place, with the only difference being in the very first connector (top instead of middle).
It’s hard to quantify artistic choices, and I don’t presume to claim that the top-scored connector chain for “RELOADED” based on the rules of my algorithm is clearly superior to what ended up in the actual movie titles. Would it be worth to tweak the scoring system? I don’t think so. There are a couple of noticeable “weak” connectors in the connector chain in the movie title, and relaxing the scoring rules would only introduce more randomness into the process without necessarily bumping up that chain up the ranks.
Perhaps the artistic choice of choosing a long top L to O connector was based on introducing a bit of variance and randomness into the mix. Or perhaps I should check to see who was in charge of the title graphics and ask them :)
Continuing the ongoing series of interviews with creative artists working on various aspects of movie and TV productions, it is my delight to welcome Carmen Cabana. In this interview we talk about Carmen’s cinematography work on the second season of “Narcos”, being a part of the new digital generation, the art of telling stories with light, the ever evolving technological landscape of her field, the crazy pace of shooting for episodic television, collaborating with the other two cinematographers of the show, planning and executing elaborate action sequences, and working for the very first time in her home country of Colombia.
Kirill: Please tell us about yourself and how you started in the field.
Carmen: My name is Carmen Cabana, and what drew me into the industry was the passion for telling stories and not having a job behind a desk. I wanted to spend my life doing something that would change on a weekly basis, if possible. The film industry made sense for that.
Funny enough, I came to US to pursue writing, and the more I wrote, the more I realized how terrible I was at it. I have no talent for writing, but I have a natural talent for cinematography, lighting, camera, and composition. When I look back now, I find that in a sense I am telling stories by writing with light and images. I’m very happy with that. I’ve had an opportunity to work on several productions that involved different topics and countries, and people from different nationalities. That’s what I really wanted with my life – to be surrounded with people who would stimulate me, and who I would render service in return.
Kirill: Did you have a formal education to become a cinematographer?
Carmen: It was more of a transition into it. I went to the Art Institute of Los Angeles, but I only did a year and a half in associate’s program there. Most of the classes were oriented towards editing, screenwriting and directing. We had one cinematography class and it was very basic. We learned three point lighting, F stops, etc and with that I’d be lighting interviews for the rest of my life [laughs]. It was not enough of what I needed for cinematography.
In my second year at that school I did a documentary in Venezuela about a boy growing up in a neighborhood of gangs. I did everything on it – directed and shot the whole thing. People really appreciated it visually, and that’s what got me my first short films. After that I was blessed that somebody saw one of my shorts called “Miles”, and they liked it so much that they called me to work on a feature. That was “The Sinners”, and after that I did “Letters to Elena”, “The Border” and a bunch of others.
I did it backwards. I didn’t expect to be a cinematographer, but as people kept on hiring me and pushing me in that direction, I had to learn. I remember my first production “Miles”, reading “Masters of Light” book days before the shoot to figure things out. I also read “Reflections” which is a book of interviews with cinematographers, forcing my brain to understand how they think. How do you tell that story? How do they make the decisions that they make? Even now when I start on a project, I go back to written sources, like the American Cinematographer magazine or new books.
Carmen Cabana’s work on “Letters to Elena“
Kirill: Would you say that you’re a part of all-digital generation, or do you work with film as well?
Carmen: Unfortunately, I’m all digital. My school program was in motion picture and video production, but we never learned film. I’ve only shot Super 8. It’s harder to teach yourself to work with film. You’re talking about film stock and expensive chemical processes that are becoming less accessible. So it never happened.
I keep on hoping for a project where the client is going to demand film so that I will have to go that way. So far for me it’s been keeping up with the technology demands of the clients. I haven’t made the time to learn film, sadly.
Kirill: There are some advantages to digital camera. People can see what is captured on the attached monitors, and the equipment is lighter and more manageable, perhaps?
Carmen: I do work out quite a lot [laughs] so the camera weight is not a problem. It’s all about balance, even with the heavier cameras.
Sometimes I use a light meter, and sometimes I gauge light stops with my eye. I’m definitely spoiled by being used to the false color and histogram on digital cameras. You look at it and you know the range you’re in. It would be a learning curve. I’d have to at least understand the relationship between a particular film stock and how it is processed. Working with digital all the time, I know the sensors like the palm of my hand. I know different circumstances and how much I can push into post-production.
Carmen Cabana’s work on “Letters to Elena“
Continue reading »
Last month I’ve had the pleasure of talking with Joel Collins about the production design of the extraordinary “Black Mirror”. And today I am thrilled to have an opportunity to talk with Joel’s colleague at Painting Practice, the VFX art director Dan May. Dan’s portfolio is as wide and deep as the variety of positions he has explored over the years in the art department – from concept artist to matte painter to pre-vis artist to art director to, most recently, the crossover roles that bridge the worlds of physical and digital. In this interview we talk about the role of a VFX art director and where it fits in the ever-evolving world of art and technology of feature films and episodic TV productions, diving deeper into the intricate universe of “Black Mirror”.
Kirill: Please tell us about how you started in the field.
Dan: I’ve been quite lucky. My dad was an actor, and when I was at school I already knew I wanted to do something in set design. I used to go to theaters and see him play in musicals and other productions, and when I went backstage, set design was always magical for me. You could be in a mundane space on the outside, and then you go inside on a stage and there’s something amazing – a forest or a New York street. You walk behind it and there’s nothing, just plywood and people smoking. There was magic in that for me.
I pushed in that direction when I was at college. Originally I was going to do theater design, and I did my internship at the Royal Opera House making models. I had a really good tutor called Moira Tait who had lots of connections in the industry and a lot of her students become senior people in the industry that are often looking for new juniors and apprentices. I spent the first year of my career working on a list of people I’d like to work. Every Monday morning my job was to go down that list, find them and ask if I could come over to see what they were doing. Lots of people replied that they didn’t have time, but eventually you’d get lucky and they invite you to come over and show your work.
Eventually I got a few breaks and I started at the bottom of the art department, drawing things like windows and doors, going on set and doing the things that you do at the bottom of the ladder. You’re making tea, driving to get prints, helping to dress sets – there’s lots of things to do. And I enjoyed that.
I was always into the CG (computer graphics) side of things, and when I started out twenty years ago, it didn’t really exist. Some people in the art department were starting to use computers, but mainly it was in VFX (visual effects). I started using 3D modeling software early on, and a lot of people were freaked out by it. I did very early pre-vis on some set designs, helping the art department to calculate where the back windows go.
At that point I was getting quite a few jobs, and I was able to go around and see different designers. At that time Joel Collins was doing commercial and music video work. I went to show him my work, and he was really into it. He didn’t understand all of it, but he knew that the computer side of things was going to be good. We did a few smaller jobs together, and I continued to work on bigger feature films, doing 3D set design, drawing in the computer. As I was getting better at it, I worked with Joel quite a lot. We were doing much bigger productions at that point, working with people like David Slade, Hammer and Tongs and Traktor.
We started traveling around the world to places like South Africa and Prague, doing a lot of high-profile work. I’ve gained a lot of experience in set design, and at the same time I was quite keen to do VFX and post-production design. We were building our sets, but also designing matte paintings for post houses. That evolved and grew to the point about ten years ago when I said that it was what I needed to do. And if we wanted to do it well, we needed more equipment and more people to help us.
Back then we started getting into pre-vis which was in its early infancy. They’ve been doing a lot of it in US, but there was only one company doing it here in the UK somewhere in Soho. There was that gap in the market, so we started pre-vis. We kind of got lucky because nobody was doing it at that stage. I did pre-vis on “Quantum of Solace”, “Angels and Demons” and a couple of other big films. It was a fast learning curve because a lot of people didn’t understand what it was for. It frustrated people.
Concept design, matte painting and VFX work for a Nike commercial. Courtesy of Painting Practice.
Kirill: What kind of a frustration are we talking about?
Dan: It’s a tool that needs to be used right, and to be engaged with by all the department heads. Otherwise it costs a lot of money and doesn’t gain anything for anyone. Everyone needs to have time and energy to feed into it for it to be of any value. Otherwise you have people best-guessing what the director and the cinematographer and the production designer want to see.
But over time it has changed. People now understand what it’s for. It’s more productive and efficient, and that’s what I’m doing right now for my next production. Everyone is engaged, and it’s essential to the pipeline. We have people building sets and making shots, and it’s all working very fluidly.
That took us ten years of understanding what the company does, and understanding how the computer tools have evolved. The ethos of our company is about how the two worlds, that of the traditional art department and that of visual effects, are combined and how they work together in pre-production for the shoot to be better, as well as for post-production to be more efficient. If it works, the final product is more creative and better for it.
It’s still very much work in progress. People are changing the rules trying to figure out how it works. Who drives the pre-vis? When does the VFX start? There’s an enormous amount of VFX work on these big-budget productions these days. It might be something invisible that you don’t want the audience to be aware of – like set extensions for period films. You don’t want the audience to see that it’s CG. It’s part of the rollercoaster ride of going to see a film. You want to see beautiful shots and amazing things.
Matte painting for “Nosedive” episode from Season 3 of “Black Mirror”. Courtesy of Painting Practice.
“Black Mirror” fits in a different camp. VFX wants to be invisible and accepted as a part of that world. But at the same time, people are interested in us trying to predict what’s next. They want to see a less showy and a more realistic version of what the future might look like. I can’t talk for the creators or the producers of the show, but in general the opinion of VFX that Joel and I share is for the show to be pared down. It has to be believable and acceptable. I think that’s what people like about it. It feels like a very believable universe. It’s not too glitzy.
There have been moments in the third season which are more traditional VFX shots. They’ve been generated from scratch in CG, but they had to be completely photo-real. We didn’t want them to feel created in any shape or form.
That’s where we are at the moment. The company is a mixture of concept design, matte painting and motion graphics. We’re in this weird space between an art-based pre-production company and a VFX house. We do use fairly expensive bits of software and equipment to do what we do. It’s the same tools that a VFX house would use, but primarily for the design purposes. We have to create a place to house that, to have an office with the people that service that equipment. I suppose that by necessity we are a production company of art work and art creation that can service any point in the production process.
In the ideal world, like with “Black Mirror”, we service from the very beginning seed of the story all the way through to the very end. On most of the episodes of the third season it was myself, Justin Hutchinson-Chatburn or another freelancer Sean Mathiesen who VFX-supervised all the shots to the very end. I was also the VFX art director for Joel on most of the show, and Joel did the production design for all the episodes.
So we’ve started at the very beginning in terms of conceptualizing what the VFX would look like. And then it’s our responsibility, but not necessarily our job, to facilitate the look of those and get them signed off by Charlie, Annabel and the directors, so that everybody is happy with the final result. We wouldn’t necessarily do that through our company. It would be done with vendors like Framestore, Glassworks and Jellyfish.
Concept design, matte painting and VFX work for a Nike commercial. Courtesy of Painting Practice.
Continue reading »
