konstantinos stagikas

The film does indeed have very shallow depth of field but it's mostly overcast with no direct sunlight visible. The only exception i think is the exterior scene in Istanbul with Tom Hardy and the girl in the convertible. And that scene could be a T 4.0 Also what David says makes sense.

Thank you for this, i haven't been able to find it online so it is very helpfull. I really like the look of the film. Since then this style has been abused by digital cinematography and log-ish grades but it doesn't look remotely as beautiful. On the other hand i don't really care for the amount of grain that the film has. It is obviously part of the look but since nowadays we are mostly watching films on digital displays it seems dirty on many scenes. I felt the same thing about Anderson's phantom thread. It must have looked amazing on cinemas but i didn't get to see it there. On my tv the noise was almost distracting at times due to the added compression. I agree with your remark about film being a type of filter. But then again so is digital. Just a different kind. Obviously every medium is a filter. And from a purely scientific point view the same can be said about our own optical system. It's just a compromised representation of the physical world. But now i am getting off topic.

You are right of course. So much can be achieved just by basic photography and lighting. I don't always assume there is some trick involved. It's just that in this instance, that is my impression. Obviously i can be very wrong and besides you have way more experience than i do so your guess is probably more educated than mine. I am mostly trying to gather as much knowledge as possible (I have probably read every thread of the forum). Also I am trying to explore ways of degrading my images in a graceful way hence the study of tinker tailor.

Hello David, thank you for the quick response. Obviously you are right. One doesn't need to flash the film anymore. But then again if you are Hoytema (or anyone in his position really) i guess you can be as purist as you want in your approach. Now concerning the washed out look i agree that smoke played a big part. But there are scenes that made me think that something else is at play too. For example in the screenshots i have attached i don't think there is smoke in the scene. Yet the image has low contrast, possibly diffused highlights and a lack of resolution. I may be underestimating the latitude of film but i am not underestimating its clarity so that is why i guessed that there is some sort of lens filtration. Whatever it is it's subtle and that is why i like it.

Hello everyone, I decided to rewatch tinker tailor soldier spy the other day just to study its cinematography. It is a very well shot film with a muted, understated look that reminds me of Melville's Army of Shadows. Unfortunately i haven't been able to find much info online about its cinematography. What i would like to know in particular is how the low contrast look was achieved. Certainly there is a combination of factors at play from production design to lighting to maybe even flashing the film? For example It is obvious that In most interior scenes they used smoke which you can tell by looking at the light sources. But obviously they did more than that since they achieve the same look even on exterior wides. If i had to guess there is some sort of filtration used like ultra cons or low con filters but i am not sure. I am wondering if anyone knows more inside info or make an educated guess based on experience. Thanks

I saw this about two weeks ago and found it visually stunning.It really struck me as it is the closest i ve seen to a scene i would like to film.I am talking about the haze/smoke effect in the woods. https://vimeo.com/49619096 I saw the bts and found out that they used these lawn mower type smoke machines to achieve it.I dont know much about them besides a post from the David Mullen that concerned smoke machines. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhu-TUAlvHU Now i dont really like these kinds of posts as i dont see the point of doing what others have already done but everything has already been done before so i think i can live with that. Anyway i would still like to know even if i dont go through with my original plan. What are the options of hazing (safely obviously) large remote locations? By the way i found that keeping this extreme aspect ratio (a combination of the 16:9 sensor and anamorphics i suppose)was a bold and interesting move.At least i ve never thought of doing that because i'd be depressed. I hope this post belongs here but ofcourse feel free to move. Konstantinos

Thanks again for taking the time james.I emailed them through their website but they haven't answered so far.I'll have to wait and see i guess.I do not see it happening though.If it was to be projected in a dome i would have found it by now.

Well it doesnt have the info i need.Besides it keeps sending over at imdb.I only want to know whether it can be projected on a planetarium or not.

Does anyone know if Samsara can or will be screened in a dome theater?Furthermore is there any link with information on this?I am in communication with the only Imax theater in Greece and they seem to be interested but they do not know whether it can be done.