Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Yes, that shot. :) Even in the shadow, cinematographers prefer backlighting. :) (I'm referring to the Sun shining from the west in that scene.) The behind-the-scenes photo is playing tricks on my mind. I thought that the HMI in a lighting balloon was pointed through the diffusion frame towards the bounce panel and that such light is the key light. But now I'm thinking 'Is it pointing towards their legs somewhere?' Where is it pointing to? In any case, I found it interesting to see such a huge light and such a big bounce panel for a scene which I thought was already lit pretty much as they would like it to be lit, and that such huge equipment wouldn't add much. But it did, didn't it? I still can't understand what and why such a huge source and bounce panel were needed. Which one? So you're thinking tobacco or antique-suede filter. How about straw? What do you mean 'would allow such a substantial change to the look of the picture to the DI'? Wouldn't he make sure he got everything right on film in terms of contrast and time of day and stuff like that and then direct the colourist as to how to manipulate the colours? This wasn't a whim of the colourist. Surely Woody talked to Darius all the way back when they filmed Anything Else together, which I heard was warm, but I haven't seen it, so I don't know what the colour palette is, and Darius knew what kind of warmth Woody would like. Woody said in an interview I quoted somewhere how he likes to make everything "red" in postproduction. Surely, this isn't red, though To Rome with Love is a little bit red, so that tells you what kind of thing he mandated. Perhaps to him "red" means "make it warmer". Though I'm surprised he didn't mention yellow, gold, butterscotch (thank you, David), or anything like that. And then wouldn't using filters be much more limiting, especially since something like that is easy to do in post, by the look of things, and the usage of filters can't be corrected, and you have to get it right. It's very fidgety, isn't it? At least, that's the impression I have. So, in the end, you mentioned tobacco and antique suede, and perhaps you will say something about straw, but what about this? Look at the clouds.

(I'm going from the end upwards.) Yes, I know; this is something David and you mentioned in the very beginning. But here the trick wasn't so much, actually – at all, to reproduce the exact shot, but to give different situations and different shots the same colour treatment. So the locations wouldn't be that much of a problem. The quality of natural light? I don't know. The scene on the bench seems to be from 28 July 2010. On any 28 July in the afternoon, and I think this is afternoon because of the way the sunlight falls onto those two guys in the background, the Sun will be at the same position in the sky. One only has to assure for it to be sunny. And you can't control that. Same would happen with all other locations. The trick is only knowing the date when they shot, or the elevation of the Sun from a shot to be able to calculate when it happened from that data. Wardrobe? Not that much of a problem. Props I could do without or with; they aren't my main thing here. Greens? You mean everything green in the frame or plants? Extras? Fluid. Framing can be approximate, but the point is to apply it to a wide variety of frames, remember. Lensing can be reproduced in film, but less so in still photography. Additional lighting? This one is quite a task. Colour grading is a big key. Unfrtunately, no one's interviewed Joe Gawler to tell us how he did it. And I'm even thinking about if he would say or if it is some sort of secret. Great job, Satsuki, in Photoshop! :) Now I like the shot both ways, even when it's cooler. Why didn't you do it in the first place, but the other way around and on a different, random scene?

It's really funny to see a simple, unassuming comedy being a sort of a pioneer in this, using almost the latest technology available in the field of digital filmmaking. But then again, it's not the first time Woody Allen broke new ground in cinematography, or, perhaps better, jumped onto a bandwagon earlier than some others, and I presume that the same is true for Vittorio Storaro. By the way, this latest RED camera, the WEAPON DRAGON (I hate their use of capitals), is even better than either Sony or ALEXA (another capitals freak)? Again a completely unexpected film, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, will be the first to use it, it seems.

Macbeth wasn't eligible?

This is a big thread, and I think that there is another one about the film, so I was wondering has anyone talked about what is it in this film that warranted for it to be shot on 65 mm film or that the choice to shoot a film set in a stagecoach lodge was a farce?

Could you elaborate?

Thank you. :)

I want to know that, too.

Is there anywhere that it is explained pictorially, or otherwise, how you get a 2.76 : 1 aspect ratio from a 2.20 : 1 film frame?

Have you changed your mind now?

Right. :D

How about shooting these in a more favourable and interesting light, such as the early-morning or late-afternoon Sun?

Has The Hateful Eight been covered in American Cinematographer?

Thank you, David, for the link. I certainly did understand something, but not a lot. Perhaps someone will pop up and enlighten us. In the meantime, let me try the Satsuki approach. I was watching this scene and was wondering if any of you could tell me what's going on with this scene when it comes to lighting? Looking at the shadows, why are some of them missing? For example, if I look at Owen Wilson and Marion Cottilard, I think light is hitting them from above and from behind. But if you look at the street lamp at the extreme left of the frame, it seems to be lit by a slightly different light. Then there's the prostitute in black (how weird, I only now notice that one is dressed in red, the other in black, and the third one in white, perhaps a coincidence), who seems to be lit from her right side. But then there's the prostitute in white and the street lamp next to her, yet that light is creating no shadows from Owen and Marion. By the way, Satsuki, have you thought about that scene with Carla and Owen in the Square Jean XXIII?

What is this award for, you would say? Is it awarded for breaking new ground, for the most stunning film visually, or something else? Is there a film, let's say a spy thriller or a gangster movie or a heist film, in which two people talk in an office, and the late afternoon sun's rays fall on them through the office's windows? Perhaps it might not work, given the overall gritty atmosphere of such a movie, but still be beautiful? But then again, so to say, it's unmotivated story-wise (dark conversation in glorious light) but it works?

I apologize. Could a moderator split the posts into a separate thread? That's depressing. I presume that the Japanese preparing to broadcast the Tokyo Olympics in 8K has nothing to do with this kind of digital technology coming to film sooner rather than later?

I was afraid you were going to say The Revenant, which, I suspect, will win. I kept watching the trailers and inserts for it today, and it's one endless flood of dreary, dark, blue, grey, whatever you like, depressing visuals one after the other. I understand that it's about survival in wintry wilderness, but is it unwatchable or what. In the sense of all that blue imagery of it. I'm just sad I'm not cinematographically literate to appreciate the magnificent work of Emmanuel Lubezki, but it looks so unappealing. I'd vote for The Hateful Eight. I'm not sure why. Robert Richardson doesn't seem to be adored around here. And that's not a euphemism for "hated".

What would be the pros and cons and the similarities and the differences between between 65 mm film and digital cameras such as the ALEXA 65 and Sony F65?

Here are the nominated films in the Best Cinematography category: The Hateful Eight – Robert Richardson Carol – Edward Lachman The Revenant – Emmanuel Lubezki Sicario – Roger Deakins Mad Max: Fury Road – John Seale

I know. But I was specifically referring to this very particular kind of that whole golden glow, which I think started when he started post-producing his films at least in part digitally.

Any films or scenes from films that influenced you that have a warm colour palette? I see a lot of dark, grey, blue and a lot of artificial, studio lighting? :)

It's too bad that since quite recently I can't find the interview with him on the ASC's blog pages where he talked about how he used the camera to photograph stuff to convey what he wanted to do with the colours to the colourist. It seems like that part of the Web site is gone. One other thing: what is this thing he is looking through in the second picture? http://www.woodyallenpages.com/2016/01/rip-vilmos-zsigmond-woody-allen-cinematographer/ Then there was that other interview where he spoke of how they were taught cinematography and lighting when he was studying at the academy in Budapest.

It's funny you should say that because I was kind of going backwards to see if I could pinpoint when is it that he started using this kind of yellowish, golden glow I keep being fascinated by, and I think I've established that it was first used in You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, which went through the digital opticals process. I did detect a lot of this kind of glow in Hollywood Ending as well. Which remind me of an allusion from that film... There's a scene in Central Park, where the director, played by Allen, discusses how they will shoot something with the Chinese cinematographer/cameraman, production designer, costume designer and a few other crew members. The dialogue goes like this: – We can play it for the winter. Use snow. – I buy that. A white background... – ...to set off the two leads in marvelous forties red! – What? What? – What is he saying? – No white. He cannot shoot white background. What's this about the white background being a no-no?

What kind of readings did he used to do?

Ha! Oh, dear! I was actually wondering for a long time if such a thing existed! Thank you, Adam! :)