American Cinematographer - July 2008 - 26

Right: WALL·E (an acronym for Waste Allocation Load-Lifter: Earth Class) shares a tender moment with his paramour, EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator). Below: Recalling his experience with the production, Deakins says, “I think what they wanted was to get a better understanding of what it was like on a live-action set — how I moved the camera, how I lit the set, how I considered the lighting from shot to shot and scene to scene.” interest, a capsule-shaped automaton named EVE (Extraterrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), and positioned them on a grid in the atrium of Pixar’s office building. Rosenberg shot the models at different relative positions and at different aspect ratios. He even photographed lens flares and Christmas lights, racking in and out of focus to create the subtle effect of a lens breathing. When the CG and film tests were played back, the results were definitive. “They didn’t match at all,” says Stanton. “We finally had proof.” He returned to the programmers with the footage. “That put a bee in their bonnet,” he says. “They’re the kind of guys who can’t let it go if you’ve proven they made a mistake.” The programmers made the necessary changes to their code, which, aside from upgrading their “lens package,” also allowed for more realistic camera movements. The Pixar camera was conceived as a nodal camera, meaning that when it pans and tilts, the lens is the point around which the layout artist makes his or her move. There’s no change in perspective, and the effect lends itself to a 2-D look, almost like classic cel animation. Real cameras pivot from positions behind the lens, so Lasky asked his programmers to move their axis point behind the lens and slightly below it. Now, when he pans or tilts the camera, he’s rewarded with a very subtle perspective shift in the image. “Most people will never notice it, but subconsciously, it makes you feel like there’s a camera in the CG space.” With that accomplished, Stanton was almost ready to bring his vision to life. He and his team had the proper tools; what they needed was someone to show them how to properly use them. Enter Roger Deakins, ASC, BSC. “I was talking to Andrew and Jim about bringing in a visual consultant, and Jim asked for a list of people I wanted,” recalls Lasky. “Roger Deakins was at the top of that list because his craft is so finely honed.” The filmmakers also wanted to consult with Savides, who was then at work on Zodiac (AC April ’07). “I think what they wanted was to get a better understanding of what it was like on a live-action set — how I moved the camera, how I lit the set, how I considered the lighting from shot to shot and scene to scene,” says Deakins. “Everybody’s got his own preconceptions about what cinematography is.” He began by conducting a lighting demonstration for Lasky and Feinberg. He recalls, “I did what people like to think I do as a cinematographer: I lit a set with a lot of lights and kept adding lights — backlights, kickers, specials and so on — until I had about 20 lights up. Then I said, ‘I bet that’s what you think I do, but it’s not what I do at all.’ Then I broke it all down and showed them how I really light a set.” He avoided the requisite keylight-backlight-fill light scheme and instead used a less formulaic, story-based approach. “It’s a balance between how you can imagine that scene and how you can actually do it in reality,” says Deakins. Before he made suggestions about WALL·E, Deakins spent some time familiarizing himself with Pixar’s work methods. He was surprised to learn that the camerawork is done first, without any knowledge of what the 26 July 2008

American Cinematographer - July 2008

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Cinematographer - July 2008