Giray Izcan

Style over substance. I love that era movies but here I mean wow... Sorry it's my opinion of it. I didn't realize smart phones etc existed in the 60s or the 70s... how about all the modern cars? It is 2020 where if you blow on someone's heart hard enough, it will shatter to pieces but I call it as is - or at least my opinion of it. Mr. Mullen's work was wonderful but the rest was I mean... it is sort of like defending the movie The Room - calling it all intentional and a masterpiece.

The only actor that was tolerable was the British real estate agent. The director, well, no offense but i hope they have some openings in a film school of any kind. I understand Mr. Mullen goes way back to film school days with the director but.... sorry. The costumes look cheap too. The costumes and production design made me feel like I'm watching a grade school play where the "set pieces" are glued or taped together on a stage.

In my humble opinion, this should have been a quirky short film at best. Sorry for my harsh criticism of the movie - not the photography.

Hello all, I watched this movie in its entirety for the first time unfortunately. My 2 cents for what its worth... Cinematography was great which was the ONLY reason I sat through this film. Plot does not exist really or so thin that you can see right through it. Acting was wow... are these real actors or just friends and such? Delivering lines one "actor" at a time. I mean it was horrendous to say the least. I am being nice here... Production design was cheap to say the least as in cardboard box cut outs. My eyes were quite literally searching for pieces of tape or something to be holding the cardboard box pieces together. Everything is done by the director.. ugh. Maybe next time she should consider actual department heads to do the job. It is supposed to be set in the 60s or the early 70s but with modern cars and smart phones everywhere, did not work. So I really don't get the intention here. To sum the "message" very briefly: all men are bad and deserve to die or to be killed. Or maybe I am just not sharp enough to see the message. This is the problem with current movies. Every movie - more or less but not all of course - relies heavily on shot on X camera/technology or homage to whatever era but really stories really do suck terribly. I mean, even when I watch some B detective thriller movie from the 90's - straight to video kind - I don't find myself looking at the time. Today's movies mostly I keep checking the time. Either trying to hard to be PC that it really gets annoying and in the way of the story or just plain pointless. I'm sorry to be harsh here but I had to say something about this self indulgent piece... To conclude, aside from the cinematography there really is no reason to watch this "movie." P.s. the editing was like wow... they should show this film in editing classes at film schools as what not to do. Regardless, photography was amazing, so many hats goes to Mr. Mullen. The rest was garbage, if I have to put it mildly and nicely...

Funny how people speak about music videos nowadays actually. When music videos was a thing, real music videos were massive, much like a regular movie set with serious budgets. I know so because I worked on them as an AC. Nowadays, it is usually some backyard production shot amongst friends etc. Times have changed indeed....

That is certainly an issue. I mean how do you even get matching stocks with recans? For music videos, it may not be an issue but for a feature - mismatched blacks and grain levels in particular, which it may occur from batch to batch, would not work. Maybe I am being harsh, but those are some considerations when it comes professional film production.

Oh ok... The reason I mentioned tis is because most people on this forum ever talks about is recans. Recans are great maybe for shorts or music videos, but for a feature? I don't think so. My numbers are based on 4 perf, which is what I shoot.

Short ends and recans are great but you can't rely on that on a feature film. 90min film - 8-9000ft film x 10 (the shooting ratio) = 90-100k ft film. Good luck finding 100k ft of lets say a matching 5219 recans - don't even bother with the short ends.

Sure. If one wants to shoot on film, it can be worked out. Except for rare occasions, most producers feel like the additional cost of film is absurd and unnecessary because you can achieve the same quality on an Alexa or some other high end digital camera. So why spend the extra 90k or try to shave off from other departments just to accommodate film? Once again, for the argument sake, I am a producer and am asking you what they ask on a daily basis. Unfortunately, this is the realistic picture of it - at least in LA. I miss movies looking like movies like they did in the 90's and before with great colors and blacks and contrast. I sort of achieve that look myself since I have a hybrid photochemical workflow where I get a one light low con print from select takes and get a 4k scan out of that, which at that point, the project lives in digital domain when it comes to editorial, finishing etc. This way, my color grading gets done in a traditional way but finish in digital.

I agree with you that it does. 99.9 percent of projects I have shot have been on film so, obviously, I believe the same way. I am pretending to be the producer here, because, I know for fact, most just wanna get it done as cheap as possible with a good quality. Trust me, unless you have some magical powers, producers etc will shut you down on the spot if you even dare to use the f word in their presence followed by laughs and statements like film is dead, who would shoot film nowadays?

How much would it be to rent an Alexa package for the duration of let's say a 3 week feature? As opposed to 90k on film expenses. Trust me, if it was up to me, I would always be shooting on film, no questions. I am trying to pretend to be a producer here for the sake of our argument.

I can see that you could achieve those numbers on 2 perf possibly, but if you're shooting 1:85 or 1:78, I don't know... That much cropping would make the grain pop like s16 almost, which is great. I love grainy photography myself but you can't expect every movie out there to be settling for that "look." So 3 or 4 perf would be the answer.

The problem here is that all these figures are s16. I love s16. I shot features on the format. One of them I saw on Amazon Prime, which is VERY surprising for me. Vision 3 stocks look amazing but it is still not 35mm. If we want a fair comparison between an Alexa and film, it would be 35mm not s16. In every way s16 is a lesser format. Unless s16 look is the look you want, a traditional "movie" look is with 35. Sorry. I am a hardcore film fan. I shoot and finish photochemically and scan the one light timed prints. Just to prove a point that film doesn't have to be that expensive is not through showing some numbers on 16mm. As great as super 16 is and as much as I love the format, 99 percent of films want 35mm look with a lot more sharpness and a lot less grain so it'd be a more realistic comparison price wise to see what those numbers would be on 35mm. 35mm is the standard when it comes to film film production not s16 or 65.

It depends... Sure, there are more tools to make sure the focus is on with focus assist etc but also HD seems to be either in focus or out. I think there should be a different circle of confusion for video. The acceptable focus range doesn't translate well to HD.

You have to be able to pretty accurately judge distances by eye for sure.

When I pull focus, I pull without monitors. I usually have 2 sometimes 3 marks for reference but honestly, pulling focus is about feeling the move and pulling at the same speed. When you work with different set of lenses, each has its own feel to them in terms of travel etc. It is always good to get a good feel of the lenses you work with during prep so your hands sort of get accustomed to its feel. 3 fingers on the focus wheel is good too for shots like getting wild random stuff - pov shots for example. I space my fingers accordingly so when I turn the wheel and if I landed my middle finger at 12 o"clock position for example, it would be at my x mark vs index finger at 12 o'clock position at my y mark etc. This way you can snap back and forth between different targets easier. Also, you get used to estimating distances. I use my arms too. If open my arms, that's 6ft. From the middle of my chest to my finger tip is 3ft. Arms is good for really quick, on the spot estimation. Of course, these are some of my preferences. Some may find it absurd or great. I hope I made some sense.

They did. Fotokem processes it in their soup for the effect - assuming ECN is involved along with printing a tad lighter. It works wonderfully to be honest. One light prints to gray chart is what I need 99 percent of the time as I achieve everything that I can in camera without any digital tricks.

Justin, my bad haha. It is more of a math problem and a science project - cinematography is. It is a shame. Being a cinematographer was a respectable position where a lot testing etc was involved. To achieve a look, people resort to LUTS and other digital tricks to turn, otherwise flat and uninteresting photography, into a "masterpiece." It just doesn't sit right with me. For example, my workflow is to get a low con print and scan the print because I do not want any flexibility in post and also to preserve a traditional film look that was normal in the 90's and early 2000's.

Justin, are you surprised that those young DPs get crappy images when shooting on film? Most young DPs don't really know proper lighting and ratios etc. Why should they? They can just shoot a safe and bland image and make it look like anything but their photography during post. The lighting for most nowadays seems to be only for exposure not for shaping. Just my 2 cents

It is good that people have choices nowadays - in terms of format choices. Also it is good that democratization came in for people with little or no money to be able to express themselves for cheap or for virtually no money. As the days go by though, the format choices are disappearing and everyone is pigeonheld to digital. It is very hard to find people who want to shoot on film - either RED or Alexa Mini or nothing... So in a way, there is no more choices left... The taste has changed and seems like people LOVE textureless and characterless images... People complain about some "noise" you get from digital cameras even... ugh... I love texture and I do believe it is a part of the picture that, if removed, the picture would be incomplete. There is a reason, movies nowadays do not feel or look like proper movies with rich colors and strong blacks. Take a look at some movies from the 90's and even early 2000's, movies like Leon the Professional, True Lies etc. All of them have a look and feel to them but still looked like a movie with rich colors and strong blacks. Also, lets look at the craftsmanship and artistry too. As a cinematographer, you achieved the look through exposure( under or over for a look), filtration, LIGHTING and printing techniques that were crude next to DI. Nowadays that craftsmanship is gone for the most part except for established DPs of course. It feels like the art and the craftsmanship turned into computer engineering. People "fix" everything during color grading that makes me want to ask, where is your photography that YOU achieved in camera? I am sorry but I find this very disturbing. It used to be more punk rock where the look was achieved in camera mostly through wild and risky practices that usually turned out really well and interesting. It just seems too clinical, too corporate and risk-free nowadays when it comes to baking a look in camera. Not to mention lighting... People shoot under little or no lighting but where is the cinematographer's intentions and expression in that? People brag about how they can shoot under moonlight with their cameras, which is great but where is your expression as an artist in that? Where is YOUR skills as an artist and a craftsman with shaping with lighting? Anyone with a camera of some sort is a "DP" nowadays. It is a joke... really a joke. Just to be clear, despite my bias to film, I am not anti-digital. I appreciate the good work that other fellow cinematographers put out there with digital cameras.

I shot it on BM Micro 1080p. I shot it at 1600 but rated it as 3200. I wanted to see how digital looks when underexposed and "printed up." I just timed it to gray card. As a lens, I used an Angenieux 15-150 wide open.

Hello everyone, I shot this little music video with a friend of mine last night because we were bored. I hope you enjoy.

There is a reason everyone left the chat... Go ahead and hit the dislike button. Anyhow this is it for me with this, no offense, nonsense. Good luck with your moral policing....

Uli, great work.. Reminds me of my kiddo when he was a baby too. He is almost 8 now. The lenses seem to be matching very well from what i can tell through compression. Next time though, in addition to Phil's input, you should have a lot more hand held shakes too. If I don't feel nauseous 30 secs into it, it could not be considered as a home movie haha.

David, I just re-watched your work on The Love Witch. I have to say those colors... They jump out of the screen almost. Lovely work.