Shaan Aslam

Hey guys and gals, About two years ago, my friend and I decided to raise money and try our hands at co-writing, directing, and shooting a short film. This is the result. I am a burgeoning cinematographer, I would love to know what you fine folk think. We shot on a Sony F-3 to AJA Ki Pro Quad in 4:4:4. We had some basic LUTs on set, mostly contrast curves. I had budgeted for Ultra Primes, but as it always goes, some funding fell out and we ended up using CP.2's. Thank you for taking the time!

Though this is somewhat old news, Christopher Nolan has tapped into Hoyte Van Hoytema as the cinematographer behind his up coming sci-fi thriller Interstellar. What do you guys think? I love the muted, quiet worlds Hoytema paints. In a business now filled with people yelling through almost obtrusive lighting and framing, Hoytema is calm and collected, his work filled with a wondering desolation. I've grown to really admire Nolan and Pfister's asthetic, and in no way should or would Hoytema recreate what Pfister had been doing, but what will come of this partnership? http://collider.com/christopher-nolan-interstellar-hoyte-van-hoytema/

For the shot pictured, it was more likely than not a LARGE, soft source, at least as a key. Phil is right in that the lighter color of the set pieces definitely plays a big part. It helps in the making the scene bright (duh) and, in most viewers eyes, soft as well. He probably used a separate source for the shelf, something hard as the shadows camera right of the shelf are hard, but the shadow of the lamp camera right are soft and coming from a slightly different angle. Something to note are the differing shadows on both the two lamp shades in the scene.

Maybe most of you have already seen this, but nevertheless: Like for most of you, his work has always been incredibly inspirational for me. From sneaking from my bedroom to the living room to catch my father watching 'The Game' at age eleven, to watching 'Elephant', 'Birth', and his numerous commercials as a freshman in college. The amount I'll be able to take away from his work is unfathomable.

What the **(obscenity removed)**. Do they not sell a sense of humor at film tools any more? Christ alive. Regardless, I thought the cinematography overall was pretty swell, with casino INT.'s being mind blowing. The quality of the light was amazing, from the soft wash over the walk ways to the slight blow outs over each table. I also think the color was spot on. And the silhouettes were amazing. I thought the last shot of (was it Javier Bardem's character?) walking being silhouetted by the burning house was bold as hell. If anything, I think they propelled the iconic nature of Bond so much more. As far as the story, I thought the pacing was off. And I didn't like that right when they catch Bardem, the previous forty minutes of the film are more or less useless. No one has brought up why they thought the cinematography was horrible or "hideous". Could some, namely the poster, expound? And before I'm called a fan boy, eat a bag of dicks. I'm not, I just want to see why certain people thought so. A healthy conversation. I didn't go through 17 years of god awful schooling to all of a sudden not expound on my standing.

A "fat man" is a 4foot by 4tube Kino Flo. I don't know how local this term is, as I've ran into some people in LA who aren't familiar with it.

Here is a short series of interviews I shot. It is intercut with some B-Roll with the actors playing scenes, that was not done by me. Just the parts with the actors sitting down and talking about 9 circles and whatever it is that they do. In all honestly, they were a great group! Watch in 1080 if you can! What do you guys think?

Brilliant stuff. Not to be a bitch, but... why is it that an accomplished cinematographer gets the second most replied post in the "Critique my Work" section than up and comers? C'mon guys. Regardless, I really wasn't excited about this film until I saw the trailers. It looks gorgeous, and more importantly, stands up still. Really, brilliant stuff.

This may have been asked before, and I know that it depends on the scene/situation/budget, but: What do you find to be your favorite or even ideal close up light? What do you find yourself gravitating towards the most and why? Personally, if at all possible, I like to shoot two tweenies through a 6x6 of silk and then place a 4x4 of 216 right off camera, or as close as I can to the actress/actor. If I can't manage that setup, for obvious whatever reason, I go with a fat boy kino through a 4x4 of 216. I'm a student and have no idea what others do. Save for what I read in American Cinematographer, which is usually something rambunctious, ( 2x18K's through a 20x20. WUT)

Looks GREAT!! I'm a big fan of the singles and the silhouettes. What was your lighting package like?

To be honest, I did feel like I went a little crazy with the Fisher. Looking back, I feel like there definitely were times where I moved the camera just because I could. I've felt that framing is something I should focus on as of late. What were your thoughts about the dancing scene in the room? Thanks, Bill!!

13 views, 1 reply. Come on, guys! I have no one with knowledge in cinematography to go to. I honestly NEED your help!!

Thank you, BIll! Greatly appreciated!

Hey all. This is the most recent thing I shot, around December 21st of last year. The camera was a Canon 7D, with the 16-35 L II as the primary lens. Camera support was a Glidecam, Manfrotto Sticks, and (luckily enough) a JL Fisher 11. Lighting order was somewhat small, with a 5-Piece Arri Fresnel Kit, a 250w Rifa, two Kino-Flo Diva's with 3200K and 5500K tubes and ,for one day, a 800w Joker. Principal lasted 2 days. Please let me know what you guys think. And, as always, please view in HD if possible. I'll shut up now.

So David Devlin, Kaminski's gaffer since Jerry Maguire has been credited In War Horse, Lincoln, as well as some other productions as Lighting Director. Why is it Lighting Director rather than Chief Lighting Technician or Gaffer?