Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Change of subject. Here is what I was going to ask. Now I'm even more intrigued after Satsuki's expert analysis of the Place Pigalle scene. I was wondering how were these scenes lit. That chandelier turned off in that scene in the hotel lobby intrigues me. The glow in these Midnight in Paris scenes is magical. The scene at the apartment and the shadows on Alec Baldwin's face reminded me of something. This might sound silly, but could that chair he's sitting on act as negative fill? I thought the same about the Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and Owen Wilson scene, where I thought her hair caused the light to be a bit suffused on his face. Perhaps David – if I'm not nudging – could share his experience on Akeelah and the Bee, a film whose poster scene reminds me of the scene in the theatre in Rome Darius Khondji lit. As for the scenes with the lighting at the Roman ruins, I was wondering if somebody could tell me what are some typical ways of simulating lighting and fire in films? I know nothing about flicker lights. How likely is it that the scene at the ruins uses the tried and tested method of HMI lights and tungsten white balance to make it all blue? As for this, I must say that this colour-corrected lighting reminds me a lot of that scene David talked about where Vittorio Storaro faked low afternoon Sun with powerful lights. I didn't like that look more than I did, but I think that that had to do a lot more with that background of trees, but I love this scene, and I must say Storaro came so close. It is almost identical. Yet this is real afternoon Sun falling onto a terrace of a flat and people on it above the Piazza di Spagna. P. S. Those Dinos – were probably a prop:

If only we knew what you were referring to. :)

There you go again. “Paranoid”. No, I'm not paranoid. I'm just irked that Satsuki, David, and now you, keep saying things – that I'm demanding, that I'm yelling at you to solve my problem, and so forth – which I'm not, and I don't know how to defend myself from it, yet keep the discussion moving in the direction I planned (but which somehow keeps getting derailed). All I ever wanted were educated guesses. How people thought that I was asking them for the exact recipes is beyond me. Then there's another thing that irks me, which I wasn't going to mention, but here I go, and that's that people were thinking how it's impossible to get any closer a recipe about how that whole warming went, and that it was all production values, yet Juan Melara proved that wrong. Satsuki even opened Photoshop and edited photos in it. Satsuki, why haven't you mention that before?! We lost so much precious time and bickered about insignificant matters because of it. David and Satsuki are invaluable for this community. David's tirelessness has no limits. And I think I made them aware of the fact that I appreciate it. I don't want to go any further for now. I feel like I derailed the thread about David's influences into a thread about me. Which is not what I wanted to do.

So now explain to me why did you go to such efforts – completely wrong, by the way – to paint me as villainous, trolling, and annoying? I'm intrigued. Wanting is demanding. Wanting is wishing. Hoping. You are looking at the wrong synonym. “He talked about it elsewhere so he now owes it to you to reply here about this.” Come again? I didn't understand this. :blink: But it is interesting that you should mention this. We came a long way from blaming production design to me posting to you all the recipe by Juan Melara. Imagine if I hadn't insisted this much. We'd be far, far away from bringing this to a close. The thread would have been hanging from a cliff unfinished. “Sounds demanding.” Does it? You are imagining things. Asking may be interpreted as asking for help. Is that demanding? “Great job but not good enough for you?” How on Earth did you get this idea?! :lol: Funnily enough, no one's paying attention to the fact that I was honestly thankful to Satsuki. I just asked how come he didn't mention his prowess in PhotoShop back when we were talking about those production values there up there. Just a curiosity. Anyway, Freya, let's not get into this anymore, because, simply, trying to make me look bad when I had no such intentions at all is offensive and wrong. It's rude. It's persecutory. I'm going to ask questions. People will reply if they wish. And they did. Just look how detailed and inspired Satsuki was when talking about the lighting of that scene in Place Pigalle. He answered in even more detail than I was hoping for. And I truly appreciate it.

And when I said "newer", I meant newer in the same class, a camera of the same sensor size, which would replace it.

Then I'd say I'm right. :) If it's the best in its own class, from the same manufacturer, if the manufacturer doesn't have a replacement, then I'd say it's the best. It might not be if you bring in Arri or Red. But it's still up there in the top 5, even with them included, if I understand correctly. I know when it will be over. But I think here we agree that it's not completely over, even though you might have implied that in the first place, and we ended up here. I just don't see it as 'constantly incremental new models'. For example, how long did it take Arri to release the Alexa 65 after the model that preceded it? How long did it take Sony to release the F65 after the model that came before it? Are those superfast new releases, so much so that it's difficult to keep track? I don't think so.

So perhaps it is the latest tech, at least from Sony, if there is nothing newer? :) I'm surprised that you say that the world of digital cameras is fast-moving. Is it? I guess I look too much to the world of digital still cameras, where not a small amount of time passes from one Phase One camera to the next. But then again not too huge an amount either.

That's because my premise was wrong, not my attitude. I thought cinematographers are schooled in colour correction. Which, now obviously, they're not. I thought they gave very precise instructions to the colourist. But they don't. I already said that the software part of questioning is over. I just don't get this constant onslaught of posts trying to paint me as a villain for asking something in detail. Especially since I was polite, I tried carefully not to be annoying (though that, it seems, didn't go as well as I thought, for unknown reasons), and I said that we settled about 90 % of the software stuff. Who knows, maybe a colourist pops up and resolves the remaining 10 % with his best knowledgeable guess. Knowledgeable guesses were all that was asked for. Not fireproof exactness. :)

You, too. :) Though I do wonder why you felt called out and needed to issue a rebuttal of a simple thesis that stated the film was no good.

I thank them for using a comma to denote the vocative case.

Mine is to ask, and it is for people to reply. Or – not. I think I ask politely. Actually, I'm sure I do. How it gets translated wrongly, I don't know. So I will continue to ask, and people may ignore me.

Request is not the same as a wish. Satsuki, I would also appreciate it if you dialed back a bit your misinterpretations of what I post. What you now said simply is not true, and is disrespectful.

I will! I just had a thought that I'd like him to cover foreign films and cinematographers he found influenced him. I hope that's coming, too. I'm trying to find another similar post of yours. It was in a thread about a cinematographer, where you say how he broke away from the harsher, studio-era lighting or something like that. Can't remember who it was about. Perhaps Gordon Willis or someone like that.

"The Revenant is an amazing experience" – not according to The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/revenant-leonardo-dicaprio-violent-meaningless-glorification-pain

The Guardian called The Revenant "violent meaningless glorification of pain" (URL) and "meaningless pain porn" (title). http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/17/revenant-leonardo-dicaprio-violent-meaningless-glorification-pain

Do they have a better one? :)

Yep. :) I said it was reductive. I saw that there were two Dragons, but thought that maybe the size of the sensor listed for this one would be enough to know which one I am talking about.

:lol: LOL, John. That was funny. :)

This must be a nightmare career. In my view, probably one of the most beautiful jobs on earth, but certain things are eye-openers. For example, the other day I was checking Stephen Goldenblatt's credits. I saw The Help some time ago and wanted to see what else he did. He isn't a young guy any more, if I'm not mistaken, he does belong to the top-notch club of cinematographers, yet that credits list wasn't overly long. Lucky are those who have at least one job a year. And there are tons of young Master of Arts graduates every year. Every year. What do those people do, I'd like to know.

Oh, I don't know how we came to this, and it kind of makes me both sad, and wary, and frustrated. I feel like it's all my fault in trying to explain what I want, and it somehow ends up in a totally different world of its own, and I don't know how. OK, I think we sorted out the whole reverse engineering process of how Midnight in Paris was done. I think Juan Melara explained it as best he can and in the best manner possible with what we know. So that part is over. Rome is a bit undecided yet. No one is stating their best educated guesses regarding the pink highlights. In due course, I'm sure that one will be sorted out, too. You told me my approach was wrong. It probably was when I poured a thousand questions at once, but at that time, I thought that that was the best way possible to do it. I didn't want to keep nagging all the time. Which is what I feel I'm doing right now. I hope you all aren't too annoyed. Because I have a thing or two to sort out regarding lighting in this film that I feel weren't clarified in any interview or anything such. So may I ask? I feel like I should. Look at what happened with Carla Bruni and Owen Wilson scene. After my second try, a lot was clarified. We still haven't determined what that light is pointing towards, but I'm sure we will. Something I asked about with some other minor matters in one of the previous posts after yours. Now that I think about it, I feel like I've already said this before. This whole 'We're past colour correction: now we're at lighting'. I'll try to find that post. Well, yes. I never stopped anyone from stating his or her opinion on why this film looks the way it does. I would like to know, but no one offered to reply, to try to decipher 'why that choice was made in the first place'. I'd love to know.

So, David, what do you think about this aspect ratio he likes, the 2 : 1? Did he speak or write somewhere about how Leonardo da Vinci inspired him to create his Univisium system? What would be some reasons for it not being adopted more in the mainstream cinema? Or anywhere else, for that matter.

I do. :) But the Villa of the Quintilii scenes don't appear yellow. Pink. Perhaps magenta. Oh, well. One day Mark Kenfield and I will find out. :) By the way, for all the fans of the dolly grip on the phone: here he is again! :lol: http://roma.repubblica.it/cronaca/2011/08/31/foto/il_set_di_woody_allen_a_villa_dei_quintili-21095807/1/ With the phone! You can also see Darius Khondji and the chief camera operator Daniele Massaccesi in the same photo. Every once in a while when it comes to these two films you think you got the main gist covered, and then there comes a gallery like that, and you wonder what on earth did that diffusion mattress serve for in those scenes, when in the film you just can't see it, and why is the light directed towards the interiors of the villa yellow just after sunset yet white in the night. :blink:

Oh, dear, I really don't like that brown western look. Something similar popped up in Google image search when I typed "antique suede" a few minutes ago. I didn't like that look at all. I keep watching that scene above shot on location at the Villa of the Quintilii, and I'm torn: at times it seems as if there was some sort of pinkish (I presume coral) filter involved, but then I look at the sky in that frontal-sunlight wide shot, and it might have been keyed out in colour correction. But then I look at the first and second picture above, where Ellen Page and Lino Guanciale are checking a photo on their Canon, where the first image is a movie still, and there the sky is quite pink, and the filter question comes up again. If it were coral, what coral might that have been specifically?

So given your extensive knowledge and wide experience, what would be some other situations when a filter would be indispensable? My reasoning is that Darius would've said he used filters in the interviews he gave, but he didn't. Would there be reason to hide it? Do cinematographers hide it, considering it to be some sort of secret of the trade?

Given everything that Tyler Purcell said, and some of the things he said I thought about, too (like, for example, what will happen to films shot digitally in 2K when the broadcasting standard gets to be 32K or something of that sort), I'm kind of becoming a little bit wary of not using film. :ph34r: So since the WEAPON DRAGON sensor is 40.96 mm × 21.6 mm, ALEXA 65 is 54.12 mm × 25.58 mm, and Sony's is 24.7 mm × 13.1 mm, perhaps it's 1. ALEXA 65 2. RED WEAPON DRAGON 3. Sony F65 CineAlta if one can be reductive like that? It seems akin to comparing full-frame DSLRs and medium-format cameras, although here, it seems like sensor sizes vary quite a bit.