The SNL Title Sequence

Over thanksgiving break I had the glorious opportunity of joining some friends to a rehearsal screening of SNL (after sleeping overnight on the streets of New York waiting for tickets).

There's plenty I could say about the impressive studio performance, or how they managed to cram 5 separate stages in to a room just over half the size of a football field, but what I'm sharing today involves the one part of Saturday Night Live that is in fact not live – the title sequence.

My interest was sparked when I found a blog post by the creator of the title sequence, Alex Buono, just days after attending the rehearsal. Entitled "HOW WE DID IT – SNL TITLE SEQUENCE".

The full article has really useful information, including his stylistic techniques which were mostly (and most impressively) done in camera.

A few key points stuck out to me however:

1. Custom bokeh

Ah yes, that soft Japanese word we use to define the out of focus area of a photographic image. And to my latest discovery, how the out of focus light shines in to the camera can be manipulated into anything you want!

Bokeh is actually a reflection of the shape of the iris of the lens itself, which is usually why we see it as circular. In in its simplest terms, if you create a filter that's smaller than the diameter of the iris, the out-of-focus bokeh will magically take the shape of the filter in place of the iris. For Buono, the result came out something like this:

To have an effect like this coming strait into camera is just eff-ing cool.

2. A cool toy called "pixelstick"

Last year a company called Bitbanger Labs started a rather successful Kickstarter for their new product, "pixelstick". The page has so far brought in 571% of the initial goal...

...and for good reason, the capabilities of this device are incredible:



By slowly walking across screen several times, he accomplished this stop-motion clip that would be near impossible to accomplish with such accuracy just a few years ago.

In action:

Buono goes into great detail about how he accomplished the SNL title sequence, covering a range of equipment, lenses, and devices that gave the sequence its unique tone. I highly recommend it for any experimental or technical-oriented filmmaker.

Also, as this my last blog post for the class, I say adieu. It's not over yet, but this has already been an incredible experience. 

Composition & Bokeh

The part of these articles that I was drawn to was bokeh. I personally love the aesthetic of bokeh. Knight says “Obsession with bokeh is bad for your photography.” I somewhat agree with this statement. Too much can become repetitive and boring, however, I think if you use it in the right way and for the right photograph it can be amazing. Sometimes it’s better to see all the details and textures throughout the frame and other times those details don’t add anything. It really comes down to personal preference and judgement.

For example, in this photograph I think the bokeh works very well because it would be too busy with every detail in focus. You would get lost in all of the details and wouldn’t be drawn to the intended subject.

Chris Knight did a great job explaining some complicated concepts. Talking about composition rules such as the Baroque Diagonals, the Golden Ratio, the Rule of Thirds can become overwhelming. I like how he stated these are rules but are not rules at the same time. If you follow these rules it will not always lead to a provoking photograph. However, it is obviously important to read about and understand the rules for reference. I loved how well Knight explained what each rule was and how to apply most of them. After reading these articles I am more confident in what they are and how to integrate them. I’m looking forward to incorporating this new information into my future class, personal, and professional projects.

Bokeh and Shallow Depth of Field

Normally, I'd be the last person to talk about composition, f-stops, and even cameras in general - mostly because I know next to nothing about them and don't particularly have any interest in them -  and yet here I am, writing my first blog post of the year on blurry backgrounds and why they may or may not suck. Thanks Arturo.

So Chris Knight, the author of the two part article about composition, really seems to hate bokeh. Or Boke, however you want to spell it. He goes so far as to say that a focus on bokeh (pun entirely intended) can make for lazy composition and can ultimately make your photography flat-out bad. So what exactly is bokeh, and is it as bad as Knight says it is? Short answer: no.

Bokeh, in terms that even I can understand, is the "aesthetic quality of the blur produced in the out-of-focus parts of an image made by a lens." Here it is in this pretty picture of a bench. See all those lights in the background? Bokeh.

As far as I can tell, there are a few reasons why a photographer would choose to use such a shallow depth of field to create the softly blurred background images that result in bokeh. One such reason is that you may wish to isolate the subject of your photo - in this case, that lovely bench - by separating it from the background. Here, even though the lines of light are forming something that looks just like one of Knight's "golden triangles," the focus of the picture is clearly on the bench. If the lights in the background were sharper and more in focus, the bench would not seem as isolated.

Another reason for bokeh could be to give the illusion of motion in pictures. If I'm correct, by combining a shallow depth of field (in this second picture's case, only bits of the windowpane are in focus) with a longer exposure time, you will get a slightly elongated bokeh, which gives these cars the appearance that they're actually moving. I think it's pretty cool, and when you take a few of the things that Knight said about composition into effect, I think that they're actually both pretty good pictures, bokeh and all.

To be fair, I can see where Knight would have an issue with having an "obsession" with bokeh. Too much of a good thing is, well, never a good thing. Bokeh is pretty, and people like pretty things, so I can see how the technique could quickly and easily get out of hand. When used correctly though, and when also taking composition into consideration, I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with bokeh. It's also really fun to say. Try it. Bokeh.

Nifty Fifty

In the world of filming prime lenses are where its at. A lot of cinematographers say use a prime lens and use your feet to zoom. I am trying to expand my arsenal as I have said before however I am just a college student and usually am scraping the barrel every week. An awesome prime lens for someone on a budget is the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II standard AutoFocus Lens or otherwise known as the nifty fifty. This little guy goes for about 100 dollars on amazon including shipping. The last time I checked a good tripod isn't even that cheap.

Canon makes two more of these 50 primes as well, the f/1.4 and the f/1.2. The f/1.4 is about 300-400 dollars and the f/1.2 is a whopping 1000 dollars. The price changes with these three lenses are based on two main factors, the f-stop and the durability. The awesome thing about these f-stops is that with such a low f-stop low light shooting will be easier as well as getting that desirable BOKEH effect that makes your photos and video look awesome. The f/1.8 has been said to be almost like a toy in the way it feels, the whole lens is made out of plastic for the most part, while the other two have metal mounts and the f/1.2 is even weather proof. While these minor differences in stop and build are somewhat noticeable whats the picture quality difference.

This video is an awesome example of what each lens is really capable and surprisingly the f/1.8 really holds its ground. The host of this video is pretty damn annoying and tries to be funny so don't pay attention to him you may have to skim through the video to get the quality material.

An article on F Stoppers is what sparked my recent interest in these prime lenses and they have an awesome article that talks about the three lenses and again the best bang for your buck if your pinching pennies is the f/1.8. These two sources talk about the photography portion of these lenses a lot so I plan to do more research and learn a little more about the video aspect of these lenses before I go spending my hard earned cash. Its looking like relatively soon I will invest in a prime because these deals are something I just can't resist.

Can you tell the difference?

Here is the link to the article definitely check this out quickly if you don't have the time for the video. But if you do I definitely recommend you look at both.