David Mullen ASC

I wouldn't be surprised if some clay tablet in ancient Mesopotamia had the headline "stone cutters fear jobs are being taken away by x group"...

Daily Mail is a moral outrage machine: https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/what-daily-mail-and-fox-news-have-common/330148/

You are aware that the Daily Mail is a conservative news source, right?

RAW would be better for keying since you can't record 4:4:4.

Allen Daviau used to use a 1.66 camera matte for his 1.85 movies, until he shot "Van Helsing" and ILM wanted the whole negative to be exposed in case they could use it for visual effects. Today with processes like image stabilization, there is even more demand for recording a larger picture area than the composed area. If shooting in 35mm, if you do use a camera matte, at least make it larger than the projection matte. My early 35mm 1.85 films were shot with a 1.37 Academy matte, a bit wimpy, yes, but I got tired trying to get telecine operators to transfer dailies correctly with the image centered for sound, not silent.

Lovely!

Part of that is perhaps because ProRes bakes in some sharpening.

Most of that glow on a longer lens comes from the HD Classic Soft element of the HBM, not the 1/8 Black Frost element, the little dimples that soften the image create a blurred glow around bright areas and it gets exaggerated on longer lenses because the dimples get enlarged. It might be less strong on the 1/8 HBM. If you don’t want halation, try Black Diffusion/FX or Radiant Softs.

Why do you have to use diffusion then? There are plenty of shows that don't use filters.

I started this thread to discuss my cinematography of the show and I think Sandra has taken enough space up at this point to move on to her own thread rather than take over mine.

Depends on what you need to do with the footage in post. Probably 80% or 90% of the time, you won't need raw... until you do. I assume you mean you're still recording "film" log gamma though, not "video" (Rec.709) gamma?

I believe Black Satin is similar in idea to the Hollywood Black Magic -- it combines a mist filter (some mild form of GlimmerGlass I think) and Digital Diffusion/FX or Black Diffusion/FX for softening. Since Diffusion/FX is a more subtle form of softening (less pronounced dimples in the glass compared to the HD Classic Soft used in Hollywood Black Magic) the effect is not quite the same, with Hollywood Black Magic you see two distant types of halation mixed together, the misty glow and a blurry edge glow. With Black Satin, there is a misty glow and softening but not that secondary blurred edge around bright points. Closer to Black Diffusion/FX would be Radiant Softs.

Looks like classic Kodachrome to me, not that early attempt that had the same name.

If it's a day interior, then usually the outside is bright enough to hide any reflections of the interior in the glass, if it were a night scene, then internal reflections would be more natural but if there are blinds hanging down, even if cracked open, there wouldn't be much space to see reflections anyway so you might as well leave out the glass.

If you actually watched the series, you'd find that there is a very much a LACK of nudity in the show. In the pilot there is ONE shot with female nudity because that shocking act propels the entire story arc for the character and the whole series. If it had been hinted at discretely it would not have had the dramatic effect that pushed the character and story forward. (OK, there is a bit of nudity glimpsed in some scenes set at a burlesque striptease theater as well.) The show is not about using titillation to bring in viewers (however, the costumes do bring in a number of viewers, so wearing fabulous clothing is definitely the order of the day). But the humor (it IS a comedy after all) is for adults. If "The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel" is too racy for you, that's fine, but honestly it's a show that many grandmothers like to watch.