Karim D. Ghantous

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)

Amen. If Johnny Overgrade worked for me, he'd be fired.

I don't really have any suggestions. But someone I know recorded Teen Wolf, probably in the '90s, and apparently the TV cut was slightly different to the home video cut.

This is a question for anyone, really, but especially those who act or direct for both stage plays and movies. The screen formatting standard for scripts is very well known. I find it easy to read and I think that if I was an actor, particularly on stage, I'd have a much easier time reading a script in the screen format. The key feature of the screen format is that the character names are centered, above the dialogue. Some formatting standards for stage plays have the character names on the left, next to indented dialogue. It looks elegant but I don't like reading it, as my eye has to go from left to right, left to right. But when I'm reading a screenplay, in the 'Hollywood' standard format, my eye follows a more linear path down the page. I'm just asking out of curiosity. I'm not a director or an actor, but I do aim to write for both stage and screen.

It's like pornography: you know it when you see it. But more to the point, I think it's better to talk of light's qualities, plural, rather than its quality. Not that I disagree with any of the above. Sometimes your camera can't properly capture what you see, but that's a different discussion.

I was wondering, what about a zoom compact like a recent model Sony RX100? This would be as a replacement for a director's viewfinder, as well as useful for location scouting and planning focal lengths. You could even use it as a light meter. The 8x zoom includes pretty much every focal length you're going to use.

Okay, the chart makes a lot of sense, as you are neutralising primaries and secondaries very specifically (I assume that a WB card can't do all that?). And of course charts let you set black and white points. But I'm not sure if a piece of paper is wise as paper stocks usually have some kind of cast to them, although I've only tested this with light going through them, not light bouncing off them.

This sounds interesting. What's the brand? Just curious: do you consider a white balance card as useful as a grey card? Would you say they're different enough to warrant having both? Not sure how much of that I can fit in a man bag. ?

You know, I tell photographers who have no history on photo forums to go straight to cinematography forums. Why? Because forums like this one are full of people who are helpful and not unduly critical. I'm not the only photographer who has noticed this. In addition to that, you get to learn cinematography techniques and maybe different ways of thinking about light. There's everything to gain. It's rare that you get bitter DPs on cinematography forums. Yeah, it can happen, but mostly, DPs are professional and yet also relaxed. They'll give your ideas and questions, no matter how naive they might be, a fair hearing. My point here is that I hope that people lay off the snarkiness. It's not necessary. Be passionate, by all means, but I don't think that personal attacks are useful.

Further observations: 1. Cameras are disposable. It's the image that counts. It's great that some cameras have gone up in price, though. I mean, try finding a discounted A-Minima. Good luck! 2. Sometimes the format, or shooting style, is appropriate to advertise. E.g. The Wizard of Oz (Technicolor), Citizen Kane (deep focus), Schindler's List (b&w as a minority format), Too Late (four long takes on 35mm), Russian Ark (one take), Tangerine (iPhone + anamorphic), Timecode (parallel single takes), The Dark Knight (IMAX). N'est-ce pas? 3. You only shoot a project once. Maybe the hassle of film is worth it in the long run. That's up to the producers. 4. You don't get to say lenses matter but at the same time say that media doesn't. Get the **(obscenity removed)** outta here, as they say on the East Coast. What you can argue, very fairly, is that cameras and lenses should be as cheap as possible, but no cheaper. So, Cine Alta primes with a Red EPIC are a very smart choice compared to Summilux C's and 35mm. Pro-film guys aren't going to say that you are wrong. 5. The word 'show' is half as long as the word 'business'.

That's pretty cheap! I'm going to respectfully disagree, on the grounds that the two media capture light differently. I'm amazed, though. You know why? Because, as I've written elsewhere, it's so bizarre that film is taking off again just when digital is getting really good. I'm talking about cameras as diverse as the Red Dragon, the Panasonic GH5s, the Nikon D3 (it's old, I know), the Sony A7S, and one day, the Apple iPhone... On paper, all of these cameras are superior to film in most areas, and yet here we are. Wow. Really? Your'e right about valve amps, anyway. Even if it's just about how they look. I used to have an old b&w TV when I was a teenager. It was probably from the 1960s, and I should have kept it. It was powered by valves, although they were in the back, so you couldn't usually see them. It won't be long until DSLRs are dead. That's the kind of progress that people deny until it happens. Because there's no way that DSLMs could ever be as fast or accurate as DSLRs, right? Even post processing with be deprecated, and those who love sitting in front of their computer all day will lament the 'traditional way' of applying a look to an image. But that's progress within digital, and not necessarily applicable to film. Time will tell, the market is always right, and there isn't much we can do about that.

Film-outs still cost a lot, AFAIK. I wonder how much of that is the film and how much is the printing. And I'm very jealous of your treasure hunting escapades! Moonlight? No, you certainly can't do that with film. That's for sure.