Ari Michael Leeds

"Cinematography should serve the story" is definitely a cliche, here. So overused it has become ambiguous. As to "story," that just means the film as a whole. It's a visual story. I don't see any hangups there. Language is fluid, changing.

What is this a Donald Trump debate? I don't have a team of handlers and speech writers doing four or five revisions over what I'm pecking out on an old smart phone, sheesh! You want to pick apart inconsistencies, fine, but those were generalizations after all the implications started that I was a prima dona who wouldn't know how to work to light a show in a matter that served its story. That's a personal attack without merit. Again, don't know how you can draw those conclusions from text blocks in one or two exchanges. I did not once say "Battlestar Galactica's cinematography is garbage," which both you and Stewart have repeatedly tried to put in my mouth. But what I DID say, I have no regrets for "not being able to take back" because I stand by that. I think it was ugly and I do not think that ugly served that story, or, as an overall look, serves ANY story. How deliberately showing the WEAKNESSES, the inadequacies of a format serves a story is right up there with saying 3D animation is cinematography.

The constructiveness you could take away would be not to underexpose negative film more than one and a half stops or overexposed digital enough to blow the highlights. You are still defending this as some sort of artistic contribution to the field of cinematography, which I find to be right up there with insisting that 3D Digital Animation is "Cinematography" and films like Avatar therefore are somehow deserving of cinematography awards. It just doesn't compute. I suppose I have the "advantage" in that my own work is so obscure that it is not available for criticism, sure. I do not even know the name of BSG's DP, let alone my calling him up and criticising him about it. My tone became more and more harsh the more and more what was done was defended, along with the rationalization that that style of cinematography was somehow necessary to "serve the story." I read the ASC article, think it was ASC, way back when the show first came out. And it still sticks in my mind as masterful explanation of work that didn't match with that work. I have been taught by many photographers and cinematographers, to know and respect the limitations of an emulsion or a digital camera. To deliberately ignore those limitations, and allow the work to fall outside of them produces compromised results for which I can see no legitimate motivation as to their serving anything. If their aim was to simulate being sloppy photography, they accomplished that very well. How does one tell the difference between really bad photography and photography that emulates bad photography? Something of a puzzle.

Its true speed is about 1,000, so yes, my numbers are correct. That's why it's TMZ *P*3200. The P shows it's not a true 3,200. What he's arguing, the important part of the statement, is that somehow a 400 film pushed to 3200 is a better choice than a 1,000 film pushed to 3200.

Exactly, you know me from blocks of text on the internet after one or two discussions. What does that say about you? That you can draw conclusions from sparse information and supposition? Poor form. If you are like this on the internet, I wonder what you are like on a film set in a high-stress situation.

Not only am I an arrogant prima dona whose photography is self-serving and attention-calling, now I am a coward too. Incredible how you've made all these deductions through blocks of text on the internet. Speaking of two different things being substantially the same, how are your frequent refrains to vaulted "serving of the story" substantially different than trolling me and belittling my well-founded opinions? Let's get back to BSG 2003, though: I've done a little digging, and they shot the pilot on 35mm fiml that was pushed to be gritty. So were they "serving the story" or serving the suits who gave a directive, as if stone tablets delivered by God from down off a mountain to save money by converting to inadequate HD cameras of the time? Since we are praising and holding as unfaultable, the cinematographers behind the looks of television shows. I am still waiting for a reason why what we see in this show, unpleasant imagery, "serves the story." At least you have actually seen it. Coupled with other deficiencies, the look of BSG is one of the reasons why I didn't make it past the first couple seasons.

Nice picking and choosing. That was after three or four "serve the story" refrains, which completely mischaracterizes me as some sort of prima dona who only cares about creating loud, attention-grabbing images, regardless of the needs of the production. And that's still not the same as saying "Battlestar Galactica's cinematography is garbage."

TMax 3200 is 1-1/3 to 1-2/3 stops faster than TMax400 to begin with, and can be pushed an extra two, by your own description, meaning it can see about 3-1/2 stops further into the shadows than the 400. So the faster film is the logical choice for pushing in an ultra-low-light situation. I've pushed plenty of 400 film, and I wish I would have had 800 or 1600 film, instead. Don't tell me the 400 is the better choice because that disagrees with all repudable information, including that of the manufacturers and people who have shot film in low light and their results, opinions, and published, documented studies that measure the performance of pushed film. Sayign that 400 pushes better than a faster fiml designed for pushing is incorrect and bad advice and I encourage someone who wants to push fiml to use the fastest, new-emulsion stock available, not a slower stock pushed more stops!

Comparing Barry Lindon to Battlestar Galactica 2003 is incredibly insulting to the innovative, original work on Barry Lindon. BSG was NOT the first show to underexpose things two stops, or overexpose them three.

I don't recall saying "Battlestar Galactica is garbage." I did say it was ugly, and I got annoyed after three or four "serve the story" refrains. This isn't a digital thing, either. I wouldn't recommend underexposing negative fiml two stops either. If that's an aesthetic choice, great, but I still do not understand deliberately making an entire episode or season or series look bad. Maybe for a dream sequence or a home movie sequence. And I don't see how saying I would not do that or work in that fashion is "putting myself above the story," or any such nonsense. Insulting the viewer's optic nerves so much that they do not want to watch anymore is serving the show how, exactly? Not sure how what I wrote above can be interpreted as me being arrogant and putting my work or my reel above the story or the series, not wanting it to make blood come out of the eyes of its viewers. That's something different than having an arrogant chip on my shoulders and insisting upon contrasty, stylized, attention-seeking cinematography in a show that has an otherwise-established style already B)

LOL, old habits die hard, Rob? :-D

I just don't get how making a show look horrible and, at least for someone who is sighted, difficult to watch it diverges from professional norms so far, "serves the story."

That's only for the SFX. The IMAX was contacted printed unless there was CGI involved. I am speaking of the IMAX prints. They optimized for both 35mm and IMAX portions with each respective projection format. Hate to say it, but never saw Dark Knight [&-rises] in 35mm, only IMAX, for each.

T-Max 3200 has been discontinued, hasn't it? And, having used it myself, no, that's absolutely terrible advice. 400 film does NOT push to 3200 well (3 stops!) a 1,000 film pushed 1-2/3 stops is much better. And, I assure you, 400 film pushed three stops will have plenty of grain, far more, in fact than the 3200, and shadows with almost no detail. T-Max P3200 rated at 1000 and given normal processing actually has quite decent grain. It's a faster film with larger grain. More speed causes more grain. T-Max films all are modern, high-tech films that improved substantially upon the high-speed films they replaced, think there was a technical film that was 1250 or 2000, NOT pretty grain. I talked to an FBI guy that says Kodak tested T-Max P3200 up to *250,000 when it came out, with usable images. That's the one you want to use in low light.

Have you seen BSG Stuart? Is it about asserting dominance or actually having an intelligent discussion with you?

LOL he "has too much latitude." I think I have read all there is to read on the internet, now. Gee we have that same "problem" with film! What do we do with all this latitude? Further, we have to use that much bigger color space. An ordeal and a hassle, I know! You shoulda waited two weeks to post this.

Right, in most cases, a full frame with each color or step.

What's it called, DMR, DNR? No, the blowup was 4K, at least the 2008 installment, not sure about 2012. Better than the loss from optical. THink it was called DNR? I rememeber someone complaining abou some slight smeariness, or interpolation effects. Still, the important thing is getting the detail off the 35mm onto the IMAX as best as possible. I try not to be too much of a purist with sharp scans with crisp grain. Plenty of loss with an optical blowup. I've scanned quite a bit of film in my days with several different scanners, telecines. There is nothing that say you HAVE to remove the grain. I always opt to leave it in. There's a different look to it, but there are different looks to different types of film printers too, condensed versus diffused lighting sources, optical printing, etc. A 4K film scan from 35mm gets practically all the information and renders a crisp grain pattern. They aren't missing much. My objection has always been 2K, which threw out more information than was lost in a 4th generation film copy. 5K and 6K scans are better, but that is really just oversampling at that point.. In stills terms, 4K is ~12 MP, 5K is ~19, 6K is ~24MP for a 4-perforation anamorphic frame. Even 5 is probably more scanner info than needed for a frame 3/4" x 1" (20x25mm)

It's satisfactory, but you want to photograph the checker at the same physical size on 8mm film as you do on 35mm film. It should get bigger and bigger the smaller the format you get. It is not just for video correction, it is so you can check the processing and color and exposure on a light box as well, or with a densitometer at the lab. The size of the aperture on the densitometer is maybe 1/4 to 3/8" (7-10 mm) in diameter.

Alright, you want to play the "serve the story" cliché game? How does deliberately under- and over-exposed garbage on BSG, wildly blown highlights, terrible looking imagery "serve the story" in any way. Gritty, sure. Desaturation, sure. Bleach bypass, sure. Shakey cameras, snap zooms, hand racked focus, manual iris pulls, sure. But that? And I bet I am arguing people who haven't even seen the garbage they are defending.

Yes, definitions of porn have changed over the years, but there is some stuff that is borderline, and some stuff that clearly is. There is some stuff that clearly isn't.

"ut it is completely in spite of the cinematography, which is hard on the eye and mind" -This. "Yeah, but first you have to define 'good'" -It's like porn: You know it when you see it. I actually liked "Minority Report." Bleach bypass and a heavy cold filtration. That could be considered "bad" cinematography. Same with "Saving Private Ryan." Ditto "The Shield." Technically wrong, but not ugly. I like the outdoor pool scenes in "Minority Report" before his son is abducted. The rest of the movie "wrong" and blue, bleach bypass scope.

The "Dark Knight" movies used 4K upconverts of the 35mm sequences in the IMAX print. That looked quite nice. And Star Wars was shot on film.

I mean, if it's improved dynamic range, great. So why don't they have a system like that set up with a *film projector?* B)

All I know is deliberately ugly shows don't win awards. Then again, neither do safely-lit rom coms, but I just do not get an ugly aesthetic. Gritty, imperfect, sure. I like the look of "Collateral" an early digital movie because it did things that were impossible with film. Push the envelope, deliberately underexpose some, but not to the point where it is distractingly bad, unless we're talking about a 2nd unit shot that's supposed to represent a home movie or something. We're paid to make things look GOOD, right? Why hire someone then tell them to go against their own training except for the limited exceptions for point-of-view or simulated stuff.