Francesco Bonomo

same here. There are at least 4 commercials on high rotation here in Italy with the same "problem", and I know for a fact (knowing people who were involved in the making of them) that at least 3 of them where done that way because, simply put, some of the people involved didn't have a clue of what they were doing and simply took the most rented camera, i.e. Alexa, and chose LogC because they "heard" it's better (and at least one of those commercials didn't even have a DIT, just an AC who doesn't know anything about LUTs, Log, or Rec709). Only in 1 situation that look was chosen for "creative" reasons, and it actually works pretty well for that one commercial.

The funny thing, at least to me, is that the one cinematographer who is very verbal in his dislike of the title "director of photography" is Vittorio Storaro. I must say I understand and share his position on the subject (though it doesn't really matter, me being absolutely no one) and if I had to choose, I'd still pick "cinematographer" over "Director of Photography" (just a personal preference, I guess), but ironically in Italian there's no exact translation for "cinematographer". Storaro suggests to use a word that is not even used anymore (Cinematografo), but that literally means "movie theater". So now there's some kind of compromise and someone calls himself "autore della fotografia cinematografica" ("Author of Cinematic Photography"). Even more ironically, in Italy there's a preference in choosing DoP instead of DP. Too bad, since DOP is a EU label for certain kind of very famous local food products (Denominazione di Origine Protetta), some sort of trademark.

Italy has completed the 100% "switch off" to digital tv last month. No HD available yet, so it looks...well....ok, I guess, but it doesn't really matter since the quality of programs is crappy, at best (and getting worse). If you want HD here, you must have a SKY decoder, but the compression is so high that sometimes it looks like UBER-sharpened standard dvd-quality.

I had the pleasure of having Mr. Goi as instructor at a workshop in Maine a few years ago (Visual Storytelling, in 2006). It was a life-changing experience for me (literally), partly because it happened at the right time in my life, but also because of the things he taught and the way he did that. His love for cinematography, storytelling and teaching was truly inspiring. It was great to read his editorials in American Cinematographer during his presidency, and even though I'm sure the next president will be just as good, I'll miss the guy.

Phil, David, thanks for the NAB reports. From what I've read, it's one of those NAB where not a lot of exciting stuff is shown, but there's a hint to it. It took me just a quick look at a picture taken of the new Arri/Zeiss anamorphics to get excited, but that's me ;) . Hopefully I'll make it to IBC or CamerImage later this year so I can see those lenses not on a computer screen and before they hit rental houses next year. Thanks again!

I don't see the point of 4K right now and frankly I don't buy the idea of "shoot now in 4K because 2 years from now you'll want to go back to that material and re-release it". Sure, maybe I would, but I don't see Rodriguez re-shooting Sin City from scratch just because he shot the first one on F900. But sooner or later, 4K will be the standard (here in Italy we're still shooting TV series on S16mm and there's been an increase theatrical features shot digitally due to the introduction of Alexa), I just don't get why people would spend so much money on tools that will be necessary in the future. Last time I checked, we live in the present, and the present is not 4K (some would say it's not even 100% 2K). What I get even less, is packing a sensor with a resolution we don't need (at the moment) in a body that wasn't designed for shooting motion pictures. Ok, so Canon had an incredible luck with the 5D mark II, something they openly admit they weren't expecting, and after introducing a camera that somehow looks and handles pretty much like a "real camera" (the C300) they pull another DSLR-for-video out of the hat? For 15.000$? And people should buy just because it's got 4K, pretending not to see the inherent limitations that come with that design? The images might look good, even great, but do people actually enjoy buying or renting that TON of accessories to make a DSLR barely usable in a real world/set scenario? (and even if I like Hurlbut's work and his enthusiasm for filmmaking and cinematography in general - I really do - I can't help but think that comparing a DSLR to a F65 or an Alexa or an Epic is easier when you have a business that relies on selling accessories for that kind of camera...then again, I haven't put my hands on the 1DC, he has and did a good job with it, so my opinion is pretty much irrelevant)

Here in Italy we have a national contract for 10 hours/day (including 1 hour meal break), or 7/8 hours per day with no lunch break, with 11 hours of "rest time" between days. This is what usually happens on tv series. In feature films it's not unusual to have overtime at the end of the day, and in commercials those extra hours are very common. (worked on a commercial a while ago where we worked 18 hours on the 1st day, 16 on the second, 18 again on the third and last day).

shot by Chivo Lubezki directed/shot by Wally Pfister

according to IMDB it was shot on Kodak Vision 250D 5246 and Vision 500T 5279 (I don't have the American Cinematographer issue about it, so I cannot double-check). However, shooting on the same film (not available anymore, btw), wouldn't give you the same look. The "look" depends on many things, and film stock is only one part of a much larger equation.

same here :D

Absolutely, Adrian. In the end it's all about what works better for you, and it's good to have many different choices. For the record, I still own a 558 cine, bought for about a third of the street price via ebay, and it's served me well. I decided to go a different way (i.e. not all-in-one) simply because it works better for me, just like you're saying. My advice to Lorenzo was simply based on personal experience and on the fact that if the "combo" factor was not that important, he could save some money.

Is it absolutely important for you to have an "all-in-one" meter? Because you could easily find 2 different dedicated meters (incident and spot) and save about 200$. Sekonic 758: 822$ (B&H) Spectra Professional IV-A: 372$ (B&H) Minolta spot meter (on ebay, used in good conditions): around 250$ (total: 622$)

Yes, I'd say I agree with you on the amount of fill. It's almost as if he went too far into getting a more "classic" high-key look for the picture. Getting back to topic, I've heard from some people who've seen War Horse, and while they liked it a lot, they said daylight scenes look a little bit overlit too, so I don't think it has to do with the choice between anamorphic and spherical. I think that was a deliberate sylistic choice by Kaminski (in Indiana Jones 4, too) and it made sense to him, whether we like it or not. As I've written before, Indy 4 is definitely not my favorite in the series, but way more because of the story than the cinematography. (DISCLAIMER: almost needless to say, I'm a huge fan of his work) :-)

John, I don't know if "twist" is the right word, and if it is, I don't know if it's something that comes from Kaminski's approach or if is it a choice made by Spielberg in trying to "update" the series. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't remember Slocombe using nets or soft filters in the first 3 films, nor I do remember a strong use of shooting with back light, while Kaminski seems to use those quite a bit in pretty much everything he's shot, including Indy 4. I also feel the camera moves a lot more in Indy 4 compared to the first 3 films, it's more "dynamic" so to speak. Although I like the way Indy 4 looks, to me it looks slightly more "glamorous" or "polished" than the other 3 movies, if those two words make any sense.

Me neither, i thought the cinematography was pretty good, to me it looks like Kaminski tried to follow in the footsteps of Slocombe, paying a tribute to his cinematography, but with a personal "twist". Actually, I think the movie was ok, but it was almost completely ruined by the ending and by the way exposition was handled.