How They Shot the New SNL Title Sequence

Alex Buono gives us a great break down of the techniques used to create a low-fi title sequence to the 40th season of “Saturday Night Live”

SNL Bokeh

…And we’re back! After a much-needed summer hiatus, it’s that time of the year again when my comrades in the SNL Film Unit all reconvene on the 17th floor of 30 Rockefeller Plaza for another season of filmmaking speed-drills.

While the usual shoot is a dead sprint from Thursday thru Saturday night, every few years we produce a new Title Sequence and that sprint becomes a 3-week non-stop marathon. Especially when it’s the 40th Anniversary season. The passing of Don Pardo — the legendary voice of SNL since 1975 — only amplified the feeling that this new sequence needed to be something extra special.

As always, the titles are a huge team effort. Our director, Rhys Thomas, spent the summer collaborating with our logo design team at Pentragram Design, led by Emily Oberman, and with our portrait photographer, Mary Ellen Mathews, on a new logo and font design along with a set of mood-boards to experiment with the overall tone of the sequence. The idea was to honor the 40-year history of the show with something classic and iconic, a little more dressed-up than previous seasons and with typography that was integrated into the cityscape.

Alex Buono | Read the Full Article

Gone Girl goes from raw 6K footage to Hollywood thriller with the power of Adobe Premiere Pro CC

Two-time Academy-winning editor Kirk Baxter, ACE, discusses how Premiere Pro and other Adobe apps like After Effects give him a powerful editing and post-production toolset. See how the tight integration of Adobe video apps helped Baxter and team turn the raw footage of David Fincher’s thriller Gone Girl into a polished motion picture.

Editing Gone Girl1

Breaking Into Hollywood: ‘No’ Is Just a Conversation Starter

Gary W. Goldstein has produced some of Hollywood biggest box-office hits (Pretty Woman, Under Siege, The Mothman Prophecies), generating well over One Billion Dollars in worldwide revenue, receiving multiple Academy Award nominations, a Golden Globe and numerous other accolades.


When I first drove into this sprawling metropolis – this City of Angels that seemed it could swallow whole the San Francisco I’d just left and still be hungry for more – I found it intoxicating and inspiring, imposing and impenetrable. I’d no idea how to literally or metaphorically navigate the beast of a dream that brought me to this land of endless freeways. I was exhilarated, afraid and mostly lost.

Do not pass “Go” until you get it in writing!After better than a decade spent discovering, nurturing and launching careers as a literary manager, primarily repping writers and directors, I switched hats but continued the search for brilliant new talent as a producer. Failure didn’t evaporate, it just simply had to accept sharing the limelight with bigger and more consistent successes.

Over the years, after countless scraped knees and flat-out failures – a seemingly endless parade of emotional, mental and financial defeats – all that trial and error paid off. The strategies, systems and mindset that consistently triggered successes stood out in bold relief, in contrast to all the attempts, ideas and approaches that, at best, wasted time and, at worst, failed miserably.

ScriptMag | Read the Full Article

The Art of Noise – Why Some People Think Film Looks Better than Digital

It just won’t go away, will it? However much you can prove with specifications that digital video is indisputably better than film, there’s a stubborn feeling that there’s more to it than the simple-to-prove facts. RedShark News indentifies one, subtle, process that helps film to store more visible information than digital.


Recently we asked for reader’s opinions on this, and we had a good response, although much of it was rather predictable. Some said that we shouldn’t be comparing the two at all. Some said that whatever anyone wants to believe, that film will always be better – even going on to say that something is “lost” when we digitise things.

All of which may be true. But I think we’ve at last stumbled on something that might be tangible. It’s to do with the fundamental difference between film and digital.

It’s fairly easy to explain, but not that easy. And remember – this is just our theory: we’re not going to be dogmatic about this and if anyone can prove us wrong, that’s fine with us.

Here goes.

Film doesn’t have pixelsBoth film and digital have a limit to their resolutions. With digital, the fundamental unit of resolution is the Pixel. You can count them easily as they’re arranged in a grid. There’s a slight (well actually rather a severe) complication here, which is that in order to get colour out of a modern, single, sensor, you have to have a Bayer-pattern filter, which does reduce the resolution by the time its output has been run through debayering software that kind of guesses what colour each pixel should be, based on the ones around it. This makes it difficult to state the exact resolution but as Bayer algorithms get better and resolutions get higher, it doesn’t change the fundamental dynamics of the film vs digital debate.

Film doesn’t have a grid of pixels. Far from it. What it has instead is essentially random shaped crystals of chemicals. And of course these vary completely from frame to frame, and between different parts of the same frame.

So, whereas with a digital system, the grid doesn’t move, there isn’t a grid at all with film, where, if you try to look for corresponding areas of light on successive frames, you won’t find them on a microscopic level.

So, you’d be perfectly entitled to ask at this point whether, how, or why this matters, when the film grain is too small to see.

RedShark News | Read the Full Article

Newer Posts
Older Posts