Karim D. Ghantous

It's getting a bit ridiculous. I've seen some frame grabs of recent projects which are underexposed to the point of absurdity. Now, I get it - you're not in the business of shooting stock images or news footage. You don't have to obtain correct exposure for every shot. Sometimes it makes sense to have the scene a bit darker. But in some cases I'm thinking, nah, this is just an affectation, just like weird colours (very prevalent in commercial photography for some reason), skin retouching (not a new thing but still annoying), cross processing, the 'log look', and that stupid blur smear you used to see in commercials maybe 15, 20 years ago. I'm not going to post examples, because I don't want anyone thinking that I'm going after them, or that I'm calling them out, or anything like that. I don't think it's fair to pick on new or independent DPs or directors colorists. I'm an arsehole, for sure, but only up to a point. But, things are always flexing and going back and forth. There's your middle third of acceptable exposure, then there's your extreme third on each side of that. You can't appreciate the middle third until you've experienced the extremes. It's just how we are. So I think we're going to see more of this underexposure trend for quite a while. After all, it is used in Hollywood right now, so it is given legitimacy right from the top.

It's not manipulation, it's clarification. Nobody changed the order of the elements in the scene. Nobody added or took away anything. Frame averaging clarifies details in shadow areas - I would not say, personally, that this is manipulation. In fact, I suspect that every single scientist and forensic photographer would agree with me on both points.

I wouldn't call it cheating - I would appeal to the notion that cinema has a language. Editing is a huge, huge part of that. Camera movements are, IMHO, secondary. FWIW. This applies to documentaries, too, of course.

Personally, I'd rather the subject do the expressing. I don't think it's tasteful to impose expression on a subject. But, as I said, there's nothing wrong with distinguishing different states of a character, such as using CA for memories or dreams. It's not compulsory but it's useful.

AFAIK, truth and fact are different things. Cameras, to the best of their ability, deliver facts as their output. It's up to us to determine truth. For example, an autopsy photo is a fact, but what is the truth as to what happened to the victim, and by whom? Altering the frame rate is no more manipulation than capturing a single moment at 1/8000 sec. But I'm happy to listen to debates about this. At the worst, people must be allowed their views. I only insist that people be straightforward with what they're doing. If you manipulated a photo, you have to declare it. By definition, manipulation cannot increase authenticity. So to me, frame averaging is not manipulation, it is quite the opposite. I'm looking at this from the other direction: What does frame averaging do? I think about the answers, then I decide whether it's manipulation. I know, I'm being very semantic here. You know it when you see it. When I say underexposed, I mean when the photographer **(obscenity removed)**ed up. That's not 'character'. Neither is an unfocused subject - that's just annoying. When I say rubbish lighting, I mean, that crappy, anaemic lighting you get from cheap LEDs. Horrible. You make a good point there. Another point, along similar lines, is that we don't need new movies at all. There are 100 years of cinema that most people haven't seen or heard of. Personally I'm slowly making my way through a collection of film noir.

I'm not sure about point 2. I'll take your word for it. Got any examples? The camera neither lies nor bears truth. It's a recording medium that gathers data. If you record something, then it's authentic. If you alter it, like adding a bird or a dinosaur, it's now not a recording, but a work of art based on a recording. One of the oldest audio recordings I know of is supposedly of Queen Victoria. It's authentic if it's actually her. Is it realistic? I guess, apart from S:N, it is, although this isn't a candid recording we're talking about. On image character: I reject poorly exposed images, or images with rubbish colour or lighting. That is not character. I suggest that CA and distortion are not character either. They are aberrations, and distracting ones. But, some people think that grain is an aberration, too. In which case, there are affordable digital cameras that exhibit next to zero noise. Correcting distortion or vignetting is simply correcting the obvious imperfections on a mechanical device. Frame averaging, a technique used rarely in motion pictures, is also a way to correct the flaws of the recording medium. In fact it results in more authenticity and realism, not less. The only grey area I can think of is frame interpolation. You aren't altering anything, you aren't taking or adding anything in the scene, yet at the same time you are creating a new frame ex nihilo. It's a technique that has innate contradictions. Interpolated frames are technically not authentic - it's actually the opposite of frame averaging. Frame averaging is both authentic and realistic, whereas frame interpolation is technically realistic but not authentic. Photography is a capture medium, and is therefore inductive. It is not creative, and therefore it is not art. But, good photography requires good craftsmanship which you could say is 'artistic'. History and medicine are not branches of science, but you can be 'scientific' about them.

IIRC this was done in Blade Runner in the scene where Leon Kowalski confronts Deckard. Specifically, when Kowalski smacks the gun out of Deckard's hand.

That does not look like DOF to me, that looks like a combination of contrast and slightly receding detail. A very effective technique, to be sure. But not quite the same thing as defocusing.

Photography by definition cannot be anything but authentic - once you alter an image it becomes something else. Which is fine for narrative work, like dinosaur movies, as narratives are not documentaries. You can also mess with documentary imagery as long as the audience knows what they're looking at, and you are obviously not trying to deceive anyone. However, you asked about realism, not authenticity. I don't know about that. You can film something in Super 8 and get the exposure right and the colours right and the lens could be consistent and well corrected. But is Super 8 'realistic'? I'd say, no. It has character, which adds an innate aesthetic to the scene you captured on it. If you don't like this aesthetic, then that's cool. We can do 35mm or 65mm if you prefer! Even they have character, although subtle. Vignetting is dumb. Distortion is lazy. That's how I see it. You could argue that there can be and should be exceptions. You sometimes need to delineate between states, such as past vs present, or dream vs reality. There are different ways you can do that. The first time I watched Fire Walk With Me was on a 10 year-old pan-and-scan VHS tape on a 48cm National Quintrix TV. It was so worn that I had to turn down the contrast - quite easy to do on analogue TVs, as most of you may recall. It wasn't desirable but I just put up with it. I do miss video stores but you really did not want to rent old tapes if you could help it. Some of them are poop, some of them give you 80% image quality with 80% character. That balance is hard to find. Now that anyone can afford a decent digital camera with good video, you have to separate yourself from the crowd, and anamorphic lenses are one way to do that. Oh, man. You had me at "sin" but you lost me at "desirable"! Anyway, I think you're right about the 14.5mm. I'm sure that detail is buried in the production notes somewhere. Speaking of DOF, I really cannot believe some people when they go on about how selective focus is "cinematic". For goodness sakes. Do people actually watch movies or nah?

1. With respect, I disagree completely. Vignetting and distortion have no place in photography IMO. 2. Ah, that does make sense. The shot of the corridor could have been done with the 14.5mm.

We'll see about that! That's one step away from being a full frame fisheye. But, I would never correct it now, because that would change the film. Kubrick could have fixed it, but he chose not to. And besides, if you correct it, you're going to change the framing. I'd be tempted to correct shots like this, which have very little distortion, and therefore the frame would only be altered trivially: IMDB says that Cooke and Zeiss lenses were used so I have no idea which lens this was. If I'm using fSpy correctly - and I don't think I am - the focal length for 4-perf S35 is indicated as 12mm.

1. With all the time spent in post, you'd think they would fix the distortion. But NOOOOOOOO. 2. No thank you! Straight lines should be straight, and the image must be consistent. I don't see it that way at all. In fact, as Robin pointed out, it actually shows how the IT department saved the company. In fact, it showed how basically one person saved the company. The only thing I would do is change HP for Apple. Heh, heh.

I watched this all the way through. That's not something I would usually say about commercials, especially those which are over 5 minutes long. This is an excellent commercial not just because it made me watch it to the end, but because it was very well lit. I really love the style here - I'd describe it as a whole bunch of small lights in the scene as opposed to just one large light. I love the mix of sources - probably because mixed lighting vaguely resembles Christmas lights. And I love the amount of (apparent) practicals, which IMHO are the most interesting and important part of lighting. I think you could almost light entirely with practicals these days. (Don't send me hate mail!). It's obviously digital, but the image manages to remain rich nonetheless. And it's so close that some people will call it a win for digital. The post processing was very well done, and it doesn't draw attention to itself. I do not like low contrast, washed out images, which seems to be in vogue these days for some reason. Anyway, from what I'm seeing, digital hasn't caught up yet. Maybe that will change, but right now, film is still king. The lenses that they used for interiors could have been anamorphics, but I don't know. Selective focus was used responsibly and allows the viewer to appreciate the background, instead of obscuring it in a defocused fog. There's noticeable pincushion in some shots which I would have corrected, but at least the image is pleasant and the bokeh has character which isn't too obvious. I wonder though why people spend time in the colouring suite and not actually, you know, correct stuff. At the end of the day, the image isn't clinical, which is the main thing. I don't think that ads can make you buy something you don't already want to buy, but that doesn't matter. This ad is terrific.

Obviously, people have this idea in their heads. They assume but they don't compare, they don't check, they don't confirm. If you have a larger sensor, VV or bigger, you just know, for sure, that your images are going to have more 'compression' and less 'distortion'. You just know it and when you see the images you are going to imagine it, whether it's there or not. However, Einstein was wrong about quite a few things, including things that we don't realise. It happens to the best of us. I didn't know how far you could push film until a few years ago, when I read a magazine from 1985. 35 years ago someone demonstrated a useful technique and I didn't know about it until maybe 2015, give or take. And that was with older emulsions! What other assumptions am I making about photography that are just flat out wrong? Maybe not that many, but I do want to find out anyway. (Almost all of the assumptions I made, as a teenager, about human needs and behaviour, were mostly wrong. So I know how it feels to be out of whack with reality!)

Why not, though? I mean, if you like that camera, why wouldn't you use it as much as possible? Sometimes it's obvious that you cannot use it (too big), or that you don't need to. But let me give you another example: there is not a single sitcom that would look worse if it were shot on 35mm instead of video. Do you need 35mm? No. But would it be suitable for every sitcom? Absolutely. I don't know why but many photographers and DPs seem to have the wrong impression about what focal length does. Not that it matters to the craft but if the truth means saving people time and money, I think the truth should be pushed more. BTW I have written a few songs over the past few years. I am not a musician and I don't really know what I'm doing. But at least I admit to the known unknowns, and even to the unknown unknowns.

I honestly don't think that you need to upsample a 9K sensor for IMAX. Even on a screen 100' high, each pixel would be 1/8" high or something around there.

It's a fact that it's 9Kx7K, which is itself very impressive. But they do make a rather questionable claim that the image is so good that you can upsample it to 2x. Sorry but if the data isn't there, it isn't there. Of course there are smart ways and dumb ways to upsample, but it's still upsampling. I did check out the DNG sample frames and they look great.

I really think that all-digital projection is the way to go, in the light of all those problems. From what is reported, image fidelity of the Monstro sensor is off the charts. The IMAX look is simply resolution and fidelity, and plenty of each. Fair enough. I do know of one b&w film stock which has insane resolving power, but the problem is that it's not very sensitive.

I've been thinking this for quite some time now. What would you rather spend as a producer: $5M on an IMAX feature, or $100M on a conventional feature? However, you might be wondering if it's appropriate to compare one against the other. And, further, whether it's appropriate to replace conventional features with IMAX features. I'm going to explain why I think it is appropriate to do so. The cool think about IMAX is that you don't need VFX to make the image maximally impressive, even to audiences with high thresholds for being impressed. All you have to do to amaze the audience is to take the camera to the top of a tall building and point it down. Maybe have some objects fall away towards the ground. Maybe make the camera itself glide downwards. Sure, it's a cheap trick, but so is everything in drama. But more seriously, using IMAX's advantages melded with terrific scripts could be box office dynamite. Sure, you could make Jurassic Park for IMAX, but that is something far above what I'm proposing. I'm talking about keeping budgets low, production quality high, and audience expectations at maximum. I'd love to see Jurassic Park made for IMAX, but I'd be equally happy to see dramas like Eyes Wide Shut or Rear Window or even Sleepless in Seattle. Further, it's fair to say that 99% of people cannot replicate the IMAX experience at home. Many people have decent home theatres, some of which with very large screens, but IMAX is too epic to replicate in the typical home. The sticking point is theatres. You need more IMAX theatres and that won't be cheap. However, smart investors might consider building IMAX theatres outside of large cities, where land is cheaper. In that case, people who live in smaller cities and towns will have more advanced public entertainment than the richest people in most capitals. And IMAX doesn't have to worry about distribution - they are their own distributors, AFAIK. And so it could be that if this idea takes off, more production companies, including the big studios, will follow. If you make revenue of $10M off a $5M production, you've made a 100% profit. If you make a revenue of $150M off a $100M production, you've made a 50% profit. Heaven help you if you do no better than break-even. And the outlay of $5M is easier to obtain. We now have terrific cameras to do all of this, and they are comparatively affordable. The Red Monstro 8K is one; the Achtel 9x7, just released a few days ago, is another. IMAX now certified several cameras that meet their standard, although I wonder if that is real IMAX or half IMAX. I agree that film is still superior, but I don't think that 15-perf IMAX cameras are going to be around for too long. They are much too limiting. However, if you can make 4-perf 35mm work for those massive screens, with special films that have insane resolving power, then you might have something. Can 5203 work? I don't know, but someone might. I wonder if 8-perf 65mm, fed vertically, might be a better compromise for those who want to shoot film. As far as projection is concerned, I'm going to assume that it's going to be all digital, no matter how the images were acquired. It makes more sense to remove as many variables as you can. You just can't have everything. So, for a variety of reasons, including financial outlay, audience satisfaction, and so on, I think the future of cinema is IMAX, and it's going to be amazing.

I was being sarcastic.

Social engineering is for chumps. Like communism, it's unnatural and destined to fail. The mainstream comic book industry is pretty much dead because of progressive ideas. The replacement industry, made up of smaller publishers and independents, is naturally diverse, if that is worth anything. It's made up of both sexes, and of multiple races, worldviews and nationalities. Crucially, these emerging players exist at the mercy of the customer, and so they must create stories and characters that resonate. Do you want to be hired because you are either female or a cultural minority? Or would you find that demeaning? And as an audience member, do you respect talents regardless of identity, or must the talents have sexual and racial profiles before you respect them? Anyway. I refuse to believe that Hollywood has any discrimination problems, seeing as most people in the industry are either liberal or progressive. ?

FWIW I have used incandescents with a dimmer. Sometimes, even 5W is too much light for photography!

Sounds like a fun challenge to me! I have not much to suggest, but here's an idea: where possible, put sound foam or a rug on the opposite wall during mid-shots or close-ups. It might help. Also, if the rooms aren't carpeted, put down a large rug. You could even permanently hang Persian rugs on the walls. If you can afford it, put sound foam on the ceiling, unless it's going to interfere with lighting. I personally would use low wattage incandescent bulbs for the practicals. I'm talking 5W, like oven pilot bulbs. You could even have a large screen TV turned on, showing some generic graphics sequence, such as a test pattern or disc loading screen or perhaps something more interesting. That can create some problems with the camera if you're not careful though. Another way to introduce light into a scene could be a fish tank.

Okaaaaayyyyy.... soooooo.... Well I suppose I agree with all of what Phil said. I think I will like the film, despite the fact that I am not impressed by the trailer. The novel is a must-read, regardless of whether you like sci-fi or not. It's properly epic and should be a high school text. It wouldn't be a great story were it not for the details, and novels are superior for conveying details. Also, by reading the book, you will see where George Lucas got some of his inspiration. It's beautifully lit, and I say that despite not liking the style. The fashion these days, in commercials or in features, is to underexpose to the point where it still looks 'not underexposed'. It's not easy to do, BTW. But I can't say I love it. I mean, I believe in freedom for the DP, but I want to be able to see what I'm looking at. (Quick confession: for one job a few years ago I delivered slightly underexposed photographs to the client, which was my fault, but he really really liked them. I didn't like my mistake, and I still don't.) A few things bothered me besides the photography. Firstly, I don't think that any movie or trailer should open with whispered or low volume dialogue. Secondly, I think we can dispense with the visuals of armies a-la Triumph of the Will. That film is brilliantly shot but we've seen enough of that particular image. Thirdly, the music is not quite appropriate. I didn't like the music in Lynch's version, either. But to be fair we have not heard the rest of the soundtrack. Fourthly, changing 'Jihad' to 'Crusade' is kind of disingenuous. In the novel, it is explained that long ago there was the Butlerian Jihad, which was waged against computers, and so from then on computers were never used again. I see no reason why the word 'Jihad' is such a problem in the context of the story. I would agree that Lynch's version had brilliant moments. The sandworms were amazing, for one. The Guild Navigators were perfectly designed, too. The opening monologue was memorable, too. The opening music sounds like it was composed in the 1960s and brought out of storage just for this film. Still, it's often an awkward movie and has some moments of cringe. Finally, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, digital cameras did not do this project any favours. But at least it was shot in 4K, unlike BR2049, which was shot on the older Alexa, as wonderfully lit as that film was. I personally believe that 15-perf 65mm is stupid, but so too is shooting sub-4K digital for big budget projects. Finally, a reminder to read the novel. You're welcome. ?

In medium format, though. The channel owner tests other emulsions, not necessarily relevant to a DP, but definitely interesting. Keep in mind that scanners also matter. (14:47)