David Mullen ASC

Helps too if the soft frontal light is higher than the faces so that their shadows fall lower than their heads.

Cool!

A single source from one direction will feel directional -- unless it is super soft / large.

On time cards, I've never indicated where O.T. begins, that's the job of the payroll department. Some people want to figure it out for themselves based on their deal (such as "1.5X after 8 hrs / 2X after 12 hrs." etc.). But often I've heard that P.A.s don't have a deal for O.T. You should ask the payroll accountant. Either way, I've never heard of marking when O.T. begins on a time card, just meal breaks, in/out time, etc.

When Estar base first came out, Kodak claimed you could tow a car behind a truck with it...

Yes, it is very well-made and evocative. In a weird way, I think quality streaming shows like "The Queen's Gambit", "The Crown", "The Mandalorian", which often take their time, not being constricted by the 2-hour limit of a feature film, are reprogramming the viewer to accept "slowness" in storytelling again, where you can have scenes that are just about character or just create a mood.

The signal becomes RGB after debayering so playing with green channel changes green and playing with the blue and red channel together changes magenta. In theory, you'd have less noise if you filter in front of the lens rather than adjusting the levels in camera depending on how far you want to go, but you'd be better off using CC Green camera filters rather than lighting gel, which is not optically clear, it will soften the image somewhat.

The format disappeared after the mid-1970's and was resurrected just a decade ago or so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techniscope#:~:text=Techniscope or 2-perf is,in 35 mm film photography. It was originally developed by Technicolor Rome in 1960 and the company had a package deal where if you shot 2-perf and took the footage to Technicolor, they would do the blow-up to anamorphic and make dye transfer prints. And it was possible to go "direct to matrix" from the original negative through an optical squeeze in a optical printer (to make it into a 4-perf anamorphic image) and onto the three b&w matrices used to make dye transfer prints, thus maintaining whatever quality they could get out of the 2-perf negative. So when Technicolor discontinued the dye transfer printing process in the mid-1970s, the format disappeared -- no one wanted to pay the costs of making a blow-up in an optical printer through an IP and IN, to only to end up with grainier prints (compared to dye transfer) but also at a time when the number of release prints were declining and if you shot with anamorphic lenses, you could make several prints for theaters off of the negative. Or you could make an IP and IN using contact printing. 2-perf wasn't resurrected until digital intermediates became commonplace and the origination format didn't have to match the projection format (and even more so once digital projection became the norm.) The other problem was that in the 1970's when 2-perf disappeared, it was just the time when "modern" quiet reflex cameras like the Panaflex and Arri-BL came on the market, so the only 2-perf cameras that existed were from the 1960s -- Arri-2C, Mitchells, Eclair CM3's, etc. No modern quiet sync-sound cameras were made with 2-perf movements. So it wasn't until the 2000's that it seemed worth making some 2-perf movements for modern film cameras. The 2-perf frame sort of locks you into a 2.40 image unless you want to crop the sides. As with 4-perf anamorphic, the space between the images on each frame is very small, making hairs in the gate a bigger deal and making it hard to do any resizing and reframing in post. And there are some issues with gate flares.

Interesting look -- I don't mind the fogging but the pulsing on the 800T stock is distracting, maybe it would be OK for a nightmare / fever dream feeling. The old 200T looks nice!

DPX files are uncompressed, not compressed, as far as I understand. ProRes is a compressed format in various amounts of your choosing. What you ask for depends on what your final delivery format will likely be. 1080P HD, 2160 UHD, 2K cinema, 4K cinema, etc. Though you can certainly convert one format into another, though it's always better to downconvert than upconvert. For anything to be color-corrected later for a master, you'd usually ask for a log gamma scan, traditionally this been in 10-bit Cineon Log gamma. But then you'd have to apply a Rec.709 viewing LUT in editing in order to see normal contrast. But then you'd color-correct from the log files. Working with uncompressed DPX files might be too ambitious, you might be better off getting ProRes 4444 files, 10-bit log. I don't think they have to be in a standard video aspect ratio (i.e. 16x9 with a pillarbox for 1.66), I think they can be in whatever size you want but it might be easier to just get them in 1920 x 1080 HD or 3840 x 2160 UHD with a pillorbox (black side borders) to retain the 1.66 : 1 shape.

Thanks I was going to look up that book to check... so it looks like the other 20% of the movie was shot on 5296 500T.

Yes, there might be a market for a more turn-key D.I. solution for a film look though it would have to tie in with the D.I. facilities' Resolve or Baselight CC systems. It would also have to "turn off" some functions in the color-corrector though. I think one major issue is that the "film look" is half-science and half-perception. Look at the number of "Kodachrome" preset looks on the market, most people who try them feel that they don't think they "feel" like Kodachrome. Part of the issue is that grain wasn't really an aspect of Kodachrome and also that people's memories of it are not accurate, it wasn't as saturated as people remember. Plus it changed over the decades, it wasn't quite the same look in the 50's and it was in the 70's. Same issue with regards to 3-strip Technicolor.

After two decades of digital cameras, you feel that no one has yet to make the footage look like film... despite the millions of dollars spent on some of these productions, despite the involve of big companies with experts in color science. So the problem is no one is trying hard enough? I’ve seen many movies where digital and film are intercut seamlessly, or films shot digitally where I have a problem deciding whether it was shot on film or digital. You’ve got a fundamental problem to overcome, which is that the photochemical look of film comes from the negative-to-print process ending with film projection. So if you’re talking about adding a film look to digital material to be graded and projected digitally, you’ll still get the same quasi photochemical look that film scanned and digitally color-corrected and digitally projected already has. In other words, movies shot on film today often look almost like they were shot digitally. The second fundamental hurdle is that even if your end result will go back to film for print projection, you’d have to restrict the use of digital color-correction tools that are commonly used and only allow basic RGB density corrections as was only possible in a traditional photochemical finish. I don’t know many DPs, directors or producers who would accept those limitations. Today we already take film scans and monkey with their color science for creative reasons so it’s hard to say what the true “color” of film is unless you have experience with making film prints, which fewer and fewer people do. The train has left the station — film already has a semi-digital look due to digital post and distribution and digital sometimes has a semi-film look due to tools available in post, so getting them to meet in the middle is not that hard if desired (and consider CGI effects have had to match film color science for many decades already.) Certainly if you want to create and market another “film look” process, go ahead, I’m sure it will interest some people who want simple plug-in solutions.

Yes they mean the same thing. Some books might say that a kicker is a bit hotter.

I had the opposite reaction regarding the passage of time -- I lived and worked in NYC for two years for the TV show "Smash" in 2011-2012, and for three years (skipping 2020) for "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" starting with the pilot in the fall of 2016, then the series starting in late spring 2017. For some reason, I thought I saw both movies in that second period but it must have been in 2012.