Roger Deakins ASC BSC interview on In Time, directed by Andrew Niccol and due for release later this year..

• What attracted you to In Time?

I like Andrew Niccol, the director’s, work. Gattaca was just so well put together and I thought the story for this was a really great idea.

• What were your initial conversations with Andrew?

With any director you need to get their take on it and the feel of what they want. Sometimes you might have a different idea than they do and feel you really don’t want to go there if you can’t contribute to what they feel. I was finishing True Grit at the time when Andrew first approached me. We were speaking on the phone and when I got back we started to meet and evolve our ideas.

• How did you prepare for the shoot?

The director, production designer and I gathered reference images from various places and we developed a wall of images which represented the ‘look’ of the film, nothing that was an exact image of what a scene should look like but a general direction in which we wanted to go.

• How long did you have to shoot In Time?

I think we shot for something like ten weeks more or less.

• Can you say a little on the way you worked with Alex McDowell the Production Designer.

It really wasn’t a big budget and the idea of the script was interesting; it was more of an alternate future so not much has changed. In that way we could shoot the film on the budget we had, but it’s not science fiction in the sense that there is big sweeping futuristic cities. LA looks like LA, even though it’s not necessarily meant to be LA – it could be anywhere.
There were some very specific things we had to create, like the idea of different time zones where people with different amounts of time/money in our society are cornered off by a social divide which the cost of moving between them is time, so it was really creating a look for a ghetto and an area of wealth and affluence.

• Did working with a cast all of whom are mid-late twenties affect the way you lit the film?

Andrew said the film was a studio’s dream as everyone was about 25. There are some characters like that played by Amanda who were rich, spoilt and perfect. I suppose I lit more subtly and more cosmetically to a degree but I was also trying at times to get across the idea that, although they might look young, in fact they might be very old. There was a balance to be made about making them too pretty or cosmetic.

• Did you need more time than you would with film to test how much makeup would be needed?

I had been testing the camera since it was first conceived so I had a good idea what it could actually achieve but I wouldn’t say I did more extensive tests then I would if it was film.

• How would you describe the visual language of the film?

You take your cue from the script, the actors and the actions in the frame and compose accordingly.  We kept it all character driven; for instance, when there’s action we didn’t cover it from every angle, we kept with the character’s perspective. It’s a film about character and relationships more so than an action movie. Everything that happens is motivated by character and the development of a character, which is what I think audiences relate to. Everyone’s seen so many damn action movies, they’ve seen every possible permutation of an action ‘moment’. If you don’t follow a character through the action, or are not in some way led through it by a character, I don’t think it has any value at all.

• Were there any particular challenges you had to overcome during the shoot

Nothing that doesn’t occur on any film. Just the day to day level of work and the rapid moves from location to location. The weather! We were flooded out a day or two before the Christmas break.
Were there any surprises while you were shooting?
I was surprised how quickly I became comfortable shooting with a digital camera, that surprised me.

• How early on was the decision to shoot digitally made? What led you to feeling that it was the right route to go?

The second time I met with Andrew I was testing the camera and I had it in mind but I wasn’t sure, I wanted to get a better sense of what the film was before I suggested going digital. There is the idea of these two looks of the ghetto and the wealthy part of town, one was raw one was artificial and I thought the camera was a perfect choice for that as you can stretch it that way. It’s funny because the first question Andrew asked when we met was ‘you still shoot on film don’t you?’ and I said yeah I’ve only ever shot film, though I was keeping an eye on what was developing on the digital side of things. After meeting with him a few times I asked him to come to Deluxe to view some stuff I had shot on the Alexa. After the screening I asked what he thought and he seemed to be sold straight away.

• Were there any moments where you thought film would be better?

Umm, no.

• Can you say a little on how you used the Alexa?

I mainly shoot at 800ASA, except on bright day exteriors which I shot at 400ASA. I like the harsher look as it’s crunching it a little bit but also, as I didn’t want to slap so much ND on the front of the lens, I tended to shoot 400ASA and one scene at 200ASA but never over 800ASA as I didn’t find a need to.
We also tested using an 85 filter instead of changing it on the camera but I couldn’t see much of a difference. I don’t like having glass on the front of the lens unless I have to.
An Alexa with an optical viewfinder wasn’t out at this point, which is a shame, as I really want to be looking through the lens when I’m on a stage or a location interior. If I’m on a street it’s not really so important, its just when I’m on a set judging light. With the Alexa I am using my eyes and a light meter as I have always done but I do reference the waveform and the colorstream calibrated monitor – if you have the technology why not use it?
The camera is a true 800ASA, but I think that even when you rate it at 1600ASA you still get an image that is comparable in terms of resolution to a high-speed stock.
Lighting isn’t only about getting an exposure, it’s about getting and achieving a look. If you’re balancing to a daylight situation you still need the same amount of light to balance the shot. If you’re shooting a night shot and you want a certain depth of field and a certain look you still need to light to get it even though you might use smaller units with an 800ASA camera. The range of the camera, more than it’s speed, makes lighting more about practical source for me. The fallacy is that people think you have a fast camera and a fast lens so you don’t need any light. That’s denying that you’re creating mood with light rather that just creating the exposure. I did often shoot with just practical fixtures that were in shot, but when you do that it’s even more important that you choose the right fixtures that will give you the ‘look’ you are after. I felt I had more freedom to push myself because I could see exactly what I was getting on the day. My wife said it was the first film I have worked on where I was sleeping at night, as I wasn’t thinking of the lab report in the morning! I always push myself and try to stretch the image, but that does mean a lot of sleepless nights waking up thinking if I went too far. I think there is a comfort level in seeing the recorded image on set, not only for me but also for the director and everyone else. Some people say it takes away the status of the DP on set, but that’s rubbish! The cinematographer is there for what they bring to the film and not because they do something that is mysterious and hidden away, something only they know about it. That’s denying that the cinematographer has a unique creative contribution to make which involves the framing, camera movement, the lighting, and every aspect of visual storytelling as well as running a crew.

• What did your lens package consist of? What quality were you after?

Arri Master primes; they’re quite light and at T1.4 they are the fastest and sharpest lens to my mind at the moment. They’re also very clean, they don’t tend to flare as much as some other lenses.

• How much were you influenced by the advice of the DIT?

Influences technically maybe, from the beginning of the shoot I said all I want you to do is tell me if I’m doing something stupid or if there’s an artifact. There were a couple of times where we were getting ghosting off fluorescent tubes and some LED’s that were giving us some issues. There were a few issues like that and Josh would adjust the shutter angle accordingly or whatever, but I don’t like to be a slave to technology and I’m not really into technology to be honest.  It is great if you’ve got another pair of eyes, especially when that person is in synch with what you’re trying achieve.

• Can you say a little about your workflow from production to post?

ARRI raw was unavailable so we just went HD uncompressed which is still a pretty amazing image quality. We shot with one lookup table on the whole film, but there were maybe half a dozen scenes where we adjusted the color temperature or contrast using the on set colorstream system. That information was recorded with the metadata and followed the uncompressed file all the way through dailies to the DI. We adjusted mainly day exteriors where I could not control the color of the daylight.
I also had every intention of adding grain when I got to the DI timing, but actually I like the look as it is. A lot of the day exteriors in the ghetto were shot in bright sunlight and they have a harsh quality, a rawness to them as they are without the need to add grain. Other than the bright daylight scenes, there were scenes in the ghetto at night which were lit with a sodium kind of lighting effect. They were lit to look harsh in this way so they need no adjusting in the camera or in post.

The orange sodium look you achieved – what gel/s did you use?
I use a combination of a half CTo and an 013 straw to create a sodium look. Sometimes a quarter CTO if the lights are dimmed down.

• Moving into postproduction how involved are you with the CGI? Are you present for any of the postproduction effect work?

We talked about all the effects up front. Its actually one big advantage now that you get the effect done in layers so you have more control over it in the DI rather than when it comes to you as one integrated image. This, to me, is a really great advance in the technology.

• Can you say a little on your approach to the grade.

I approach it more or less just as I would in lab, just RGB and making a few adjustments to get to look as I was hoping it would when I shot it or when I read the script. There are certain things, like light reflected onto a wall that creates a color that you’re not quiet happy with, or a costume being too blue under a particular lighting condition or something like that. There’s things like that you know you can adjust in the DI but I always try to get as close as I can to what I want the image to look like in camera. I think it’s sloppy not to, but also you never know if you’re going to get the time and opportunity to make any other adjustments later. It’s also an advantage that the Director and Producer see the image as close as can be to the way you intended it to be when you imagined it rather than find them growing attached to an unfinished image which you think is horrible.

• Will In Time be distributed as both Film and Digital prints?

I imagine it will be more in digital as there are so many digital screens now.

• Do you overview the transfer to DVD/Blu ray?

I usually do oversee the initial transfers of every film I work on, yes.

Click here for trailer

What attracted you to In Time?
I like Andrew Niccol, the director’s, work. Gattaca was just so well put together and I thought the story for this was a really great idea.

What were your initial conversations with Andrew?
With any director you need to get their take on it and the feel of what they want. Sometimes you might have a different idea than they do and feel you really don’t want to go there if you can’t contribute to what they feel. I was finishing True Grit at the time when Andrew first approached me. We were speaking on the phone and when I got back we started to meet and evolve our ideas.

How did you prepare for the shoot?
The director, production designer and I gathered reference images from various places and we developed a wall of images which represented the ‘look’ of the film, nothing that was an exact image of what a scene should look like but a general direction in which we wanted to go.

How long did you have to shoot In Time?
I think we shot for something like ten weeks more or less.

Can you say a little on the way you worked with Alex McDowell the Production Designer.
It really wasn’t a big budget and the idea of the script was interesting; it was more of an alternate future so not much has changed. In that way we could shoot the film on the budget we had, but it’s not science fiction in the sense that there is big sweeping futuristic cities. LA looks like LA, even though it’s not necessarily meant to be LA – it could be anywhere.
There were some very specific things we had to create, like the idea of different time zones where people with different amounts of time/money in our society are cornered off by a social divide which the cost of moving between them is time, so it was really creating a look for a ghetto and an area of wealth and affluence.

Did working with a cast all of whom are mid-late twenties affect the way you lit the film?
Andrew said the film was a studio’s dream as everyone was about 25. There are some characters like that played by Amanda who were rich, spoilt and perfect. I suppose I lit more subtly and more cosmetically to a degree but I was also trying at times to get across the idea that, although they might look young, in fact they might be very old. There was a balance to be made about making them too pretty or cosmetic.

Did you need more time than you would with film to test how much makeup would be needed?
I had been testing the camera since it was first conceived so I had a good idea what it could actually achieve but I wouldn’t say I did more extensive tests then I would if it was film.

How would you describe the visual language of the film?
You take your cue from the script, the actors and the actions in the frame and compose accordingly.  We kept it all character driven; for instance, when there’s action we didn’t cover it from every angle, we kept with the character’s perspective. It’s a film about character and relationships more so than an action movie. Everything that happens is motivated by character and the development of a character, which is what I think audiences relate to. Everyone’s seen so many damn action movies, they’ve seen every possible permutation of an action ‘moment’. If you don’t follow a character through the action, or are not in some way led through it by a character, I don’t think it has any value at all.

Were there any particular challenges you had to overcome during the shoot
Nothing that doesn’t occur on any film. Just the day to day level of work and the rapid moves from location to location. The weather! We were flooded out a day or two before the Christmas break.
Were there any surprises while you were shooting?
I was surprised how quickly I became comfortable shooting with a digital camera, that surprised me.

How early on was the decision to shoot digitally made? What led you to feeling that it was the right route to go?
The second time I met with Andrew I was testing the camera and I had it in mind but I wasn’t sure, I wanted to get a better sense of what the film was before I suggested going digital. There is the idea of these two looks of the ghetto and the wealthy part of town, one was raw one was artificial and I thought the camera was a perfect choice for that as you can stretch it that way. It’s funny because the first question Andrew asked when we met was ‘you still shoot on film don’t you?’ and I said yeah I’ve only ever shot film, though I was keeping an eye on what was developing on the digital side of things. After meeting with him a few times I asked him to come to Deluxe to view some stuff I had shot on the Alexa. After the screening I asked what he thought and he seemed to be sold straight away.

Were there any moments where you thought film would be better?
Umm, no.

Can you say a little on how you used the Alexa?
I mainly shoot at 800ASA, except on bright day exteriors which I shot at 400ASA. I like the harsher look as it’s crunching it a little bit but also, as I didn’t want to slap so much ND on the front of the lens, I tended to shoot 400ASA and one scene at 200ASA but never over 800ASA as I didn’t find a need to.
We also tested using an 85 filter instead of changing it on the camera but I couldn’t see much of a difference. I don’t like having glass on the front of the lens unless I have to.
An Alexa with an optical viewfinder wasn’t out at this point, which is a shame, as I really want to be looking through the lens when I’m on a stage or a location interior. If I’m on a street it’s not really so important, its just when I’m on a set judging light. With the Alexa I am using my eyes and a light meter as I have always done but I do reference the waveform and the colorstream calibrated monitor – if you have the technology why not use it?
The camera is a true 800ASA, but I think that even when you rate it at 1600ASA you still get an image that is comparable in terms of resolution to a high-speed stock.
Lighting isn’t only about getting an exposure, it’s about getting and achieving a look. If you’re balancing to a daylight situation you still need the same amount of light to balance the shot. If you’re shooting a night shot and you want a certain depth of field and a certain look you still need to light to get it even though you might use smaller units with an 800ASA camera. The range of the camera, more than it’s speed, makes lighting more about practical source for me. The fallacy is that people think you have a fast camera and a fast lens so you don’t need any light. That’s denying that you’re creating mood with light rather that just creating the exposure. I did often shoot with just practical fixtures that were in shot, but when you do that it’s even more important that you choose the right fixtures that will give you the ‘look’ you are after.
I felt I had more freedom to push myself because I could see exactly what I was getting on the day. My wife said it was the first film I have worked on where I was sleeping at night, as I wasn’t thinking of the lab report in the morning! I always push myself and try to stretch the image, but that does mean a lot of sleepless nights waking up thinking if I went too far. I think there is a comfort level in seeing the recorded image on set, not only for me but also for the director and everyone else. Some people say it takes away the status of the DP on set, but that’s rubbish! The cinematographer is there for what they bring to the film and not because they do something that is mysterious and hidden away, something only they know about it. That’s denying that the cinematographer has a unique creative contribution to make which involves the framing, camera movement, the lighting, and every aspect of visual storytelling as well as running a crew.

What did your lens package consist of? What quality were you after?
Arri Master primes; they’re quite light and at T1.4 they are the fastest and sharpest lens to my mind at the moment. They’re also very clean, they don’t tend to flare as much as some other lenses.

How much were you influenced by the advice of the DIT?
Influences technically maybe, from the beginning of the shoot I said all I want you to do is tell me if I’m doing something stupid or if there’s an artifact. There were a couple of times where we were getting ghosting off fluorescent tubes and some LED’s that were giving us some issues. There were a few issues like that and Josh would adjust the shutter angle accordingly or whatever, but I don’t like to be a slave to technology and I’m not really into technology to be honest.  It is great if you’ve got another pair of eyes, especially when that person is in synch with what you’re trying achieve.

Can you say a little about your workflow from production to post?
ARRI raw was unavailable so we just went HD uncompressed which is still a pretty amazing image quality. We shot with one lookup table on the whole film, but there were maybe half a dozen scenes where we adjusted the color temperature or contrast using the on set colorstream system. That information was recorded with the metadata and followed the uncompressed file all the way through dailies to the DI. We adjusted mainly day exteriors where I could not control the color of the daylight.
I also had every intention of adding grain when I got to the DI timing, but actually I like the look as it is. A lot of the day exteriors in the ghetto were shot in bright sunlight and they have a harsh quality, a rawness to them as they are without the need to add grain. Other than the bright daylight scenes, there were scenes in the ghetto at night which were lit with a sodium kind of lighting effect. They were lit to look harsh in this way so they need no adjusting in the camera or in post.

The orange sodium look you achieved – what gel/s did you use?
I use a combination of a half CTo and an 013 straw to create a sodium look. Sometimes a quarter CTO if the lights are dimmed down.

Moving into postproduction how involved are you with the CGI? Are you present for any of the postproduction effect work?
We talked about all the effects up front. Its actually one big advantage now that you get the effect done in layers so you have more control over it in the DI rather than when it comes to you as one integrated image. This, to me, is a really great advance in the technology.

Can you say a little on your approach to the grade.
I approach it more or less just as I would in lab, just RGB and making a few adjustments to get to look as I was hoping it would when I shot it or when I read the script. There are certain things, like light reflected onto a wall that creates a color that you’re not quiet happy with, or a costume being too blue under a particular lighting condition or something like that. There’s things like that you know you can adjust in the DI but I always try to get as close as I can to what I want the image to look like in camera. I think it’s sloppy not to, but also you never know if you’re going to get the time and opportunity to make any other adjustments later. It’s also an advantage that the Director and Producer see the image as close as can be to the way you intended it to be when you imagined it rather than find them growing attached to an unfinished image which you think is horrible.

Will In Time be distributed as both Film and Digital prints?
I imagine it will be more in digital as there are so many digital screens now.

Do you overview the transfer to DVD/Blu ray
I usually do oversee the initial transfers of every film I work on, yes.