Jump to content

300 the Movie


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ermm, 'Eastenders' is a soap...

From what I hear there is a lot of controversy between what separates a drama from a soap. On the 'Red Lion Square' series I shot, it was a soap, but we all called it a drama to give it more 'class'. (upping the production value)

 

Just cause something is harder to do does not make it better but I do get where you're going with your argument.

I agree. There are many variables as to what constitutes a piece of art being 'better'. Neither one on its own is enough to call it better than another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
From what I hear there is a lot of controversy between what separates a drama from a soap.

Not really I think. A soap is merely a (cheap) tv-series shot on video, can be comedy or drama. What I meant in my last post was that when I think of drama I do not think of 'Eastenders', but of proper films. You know, Bergman and Co.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When comparing:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/51231452/

 

to this:

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/51296535/

 

It's easy to see that the first image is more stylized and suited towards films like 'Sin City', and that the second is more suited towards a drama like 'Eastenders'.

 

I must have missed something. Is the first image a straight photograph or is it digitally manipulated?

 

But 'Sin City' is totally synthesized like 'Shrek'. It and '300' are more akin to cel animation and anime than cinematgraphy.

well, 'Mary Poppins' without the charm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I hear there is a lot of controversy between what separates a drama from a soap. On the 'Red Lion Square' series I shot, it was a soap, but we all called it a drama to give it more 'class'. (upping the production value)

 

Here in the US, a television drama that airs daily in mid-afternoon is a "soap opera". Lots of dramas (such as The OC or Desperate Housewives) are basically the same in story structure...but the production, writing and acting are generally of a higher quality, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that a movie like 300 points out with exageration which I think is something which is not much discussed is the gray area between cinematographer and production designer/art director.

 

Once I sat reviewing reels with a producer who was feeling verbal and was making comments on what he liked about the cinematographer's work. I didn't say anything just listened. I would say that 70% of his comments were really about the art direction. I see this time and time again. He would talk about how good the distressed texture on the wall looked. How the red on the out fit made the character stand out so perfect from the mostly gray set.

 

It's true, you can do much with light and how you capture these things, but I think really that a great production designer / art director would be a cinematographer's best ally. Ideally everyone works together as part of a team to make this all work together.

 

I know myself when I do green screen stuff, the more we know what the final will look like, the better equiped the DP will be to light the characters such that they fit into the scene. But then... who made the image beautiful? The artist who did the world? The DP who lit the actor? The Director? Maybe the actor just because they're the most beautiful piece of art in the shot. It's really impossible to say. It's the synergy which I think can pay off in the long run. But I think being aware of the reliance of everyone on eachother can really help get toa positive end result.

 

All this is probably very obvious for people who have worked on a few movies. But I can not emphasize enough how NOT obvious it is for people who have worked on many movies but just not from a hands-on involvement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Daniel, weren't you the one saying that you preferred "mainstream" movies to my stylized work on "Northfork"? Isn't the look of "Northfork" closer to the look of "300" than a mainstream movie like, let's say, "Casino Royale"? Or do you only like stylization when it's combined with mainstream entertainment? Because there's nothing mainstream about the look of "300" -- it's very atypical of a big-budget movie.

 

Sure, stylizing photography can take more work, adding efx to shots adds more work and expense, and involves post-production people more, but don't confuse the difficulty of creating something artistic with its artistic value. There has to be room for subtlety in art too.

 

And the average cinematographer over the course of his or her career will be involved in all sorts of projects with differing degrees of stylization involved. Look at Emmanuel Lubezski's career, shooting movies that range from the heavily art-directed & efx-driven "Sleepy Hollow" or "Lemony Snicket" to the handheld realism of "E Tu Mama Tambien" or "Assasination of Richard Nixon", or the more epic naturalism of "New World" or "Children of Men." Or look at Larry Fong's career -- they don't all look like "300". The nature of the project defines the degree of stylization needed. There aren't "two types" of cinematographers, but there are many types of cinematography and some cinematographers favor some types more than others. But you can't just split people into two categories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've found there are two different types of cinematographers. The ones who can make things out of nothing (make stuff up, i.e. Sin City). And the ones who can produce the best from what there is. (Conrad L. Halls style of work)

The stylized look of Sin City can only nominally be attributed to the cinematographer (though the director was dp'ing). And I was talking to a guy who did VFX on Sin City the other day, he said the whole process was automated; they'd drop in all the shots and the computer would automatically "sin city-ize" them, then they'd go through and tweak them a little. It's another way of doing a film, it's not a type of cinematographer, because once the greenscreen is shot, it's out of the cinematographer's hands, someone else is making the image.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really I think. A soap is merely a (cheap) tv-series shot on video, can be comedy or drama. What I meant in my last post was that when I think of drama I do not think of 'Eastenders', but of proper films. You know, Bergman and Co.
Here in the US, a television drama that airs daily in mid-afternoon is a "soap opera". Lots of dramas (such as The OC or Desperate Housewives) are basically the same in story structure...but the production, writing and acting are generally of a higher quality, of course.

Well not that it matters that much... true a soap opera typically depicts a lower class, social network within a small area. (i.e. Albert Square)

 

But saying programs like 'Eastenders' are not dramas is like saying 'heavy metal' is not 'rock'. Based around the same thing just, different in ways.

 

Well, whatever it doesn't matter much. To me anyway.

 

I must have missed something. Is the first image a straight photograph or is it digitally manipulated?

 

But 'Sin City' is totally synthesized like 'Shrek'. It and '300' are more akin to cel animation and anime than cinematgraphy.

well, 'Mary Poppins' without the charm.

Ok. First thing, I'd just like say that I know 'Sin City' and '300' look so great mainly because of the digital elements added in post. But I'm just talking about 'stylized' photography altogether.

 

The first picture has had no digital editing, and neither has the second. As far as I know. What I'm saying is, the first picture may be more suited to 'less stylized' productions such as 'Eastenders' e.t.c. And the second is more suited to the more stylized films.

 

That's all fair enough.

 

But I could have gone out and shot that first picture. The second however would prove more of a challenge.

 

I know the second wouldn't 'fit in' to productions such as 'Eastenders' but it's still, harder to produce and requires more skill.

 

 

One thing that a movie like 300 points out with exageration which I think is something which is not much discussed is the gray area between cinematographer and production designer/art director.

 

Once I sat reviewing reels with a producer who was feeling verbal and was making comments on what he liked about the cinematographer's work. I didn't say anything just listened. I would say that 70% of his comments were really about the art direction. I see this time and time again. He would talk about how good the distressed texture on the wall looked. How the red on the out fit made the character stand out so perfect from the mostly gray set.

 

It's true, you can do much with light and how you capture these things, but I think really that a great production designer / art director would be a cinematographer's best ally. Ideally everyone works together as part of a team to make this all work together.

 

I know myself when I do green screen stuff, the more we know what the final will look like, the better equiped the DP will be to light the characters such that they fit into the scene. But then... who made the image beautiful? The artist who did the world? The DP who lit the actor? The Director? Maybe the actor just because they're the most beautiful piece of art in the shot. It's really impossible to say. It's the synergy which I think can pay off in the long run. But I think being aware of the reliance of everyone on eachother can really help get toa positive end result.

 

All this is probably very obvious for people who have worked on a few movies. But I can not emphasize enough how NOT obvious it is for people who have worked on many movies but just not from a hands-on involvement.

The funny thing is, I only saw the real importance of the art direction after I shot that film 'Check Mate'. I realise now that it would have been a whole lot better if I had only of cleared some things out. (It was an experimental movie... total cack... fun experience, that kinda thing)

 

So I can see easily where you coming from with that.

 

 

Daniel, weren't you the one saying that you preferred "mainstream" movies to my stylized work on "Northfork"? Isn't the look of "Northfork" closer to the look of "300" than a mainstream movie like, let's say, "Casino Royale"? Or do you only like stylization when it's combined with mainstream entertainment? Because there's nothing mainstream about the look of "300" -- it's very atypical of a big-budget movie.

 

Sure, stylizing photography can take more work, adding efx to shots adds more work and expense, and involves post-production people more, but don't confuse the difficulty of creating something artistic with its artistic value. There has to be room for subtlety in art too.

 

And the average cinematographer over the course of his or her career will be involved in all sorts of projects with differing degrees of stylization involved. Look at Emmanuel Lubezski's career, shooting movies that range from the heavily art-directed & efx-driven "Sleepy Hollow" or "Lemony Snicket" to the handheld realism of "E Tu Mama Tambien" or "Assasination of Richard Nixon", or the more epic naturalism of "New World" or "Children of Men." Or look at Larry Fong's career -- they don't all look like "300". The nature of the project defines the degree of stylization needed. There aren't "two types" of cinematographers, but there are many types of cinematography and some cinematographers favor some types more than others. But you can't just split people into two categories.

Personally I would say that 'Casino Royale' is more closely related to 300, than Northfork. From what I can remember 'Northfork' had a continuous blue desaturated look about it. It was about a town that was soon to be flooded and various people would die.

 

Compare it with 'Titanic'. A movie where some people are being left behind on the boat and refuse to go, people are dying e.t.c. The difference is in Titanic, they turned it into eye candy. Rich in colour, contrast, the music track really moved it along, it was just a lot more mainstream. To me.

 

I'm pretty sure the Polish brothers could have asked for Northfork to be more like that, and had a slow, sad and moving soundtrack. But they didn't, they wanted the cinematography and music to be more iconic of the story. And it was. But, the majority of people don't like that. 'Citizen Kane' is a prime example of a film that used cinematography and sound in a way that depicts the story more accurately. But the majority of audiences today wouldn't like it. They want to see full colour, high contrast, tear jerking scenes e.t.c.

 

And I agree, like most things I don't really think you can split these cinematographers up into two separate groups precisely. But just saying 'roughly'.

 

But I'm certainly not confusing the difficulty of creating something artistic with its artistic value, it's why I said you can't really 'meter' a piece of arts greatness on a particular level.

 

(Not that I'm trying to lecture you here David, I'm just illustrating the way I see things personally.)

 

 

 

The stylized look of Sin City can only nominally be attributed to the cinematographer (though the director was dp'ing). And I was talking to a guy who did VFX on Sin City the other day, he said the whole process was automated; they'd drop in all the shots and the computer would automatically "sin city-ize" them, then they'd go through and tweak them a little. It's another way of doing a film, it's not a type of cinematographer, because once the greenscreen is shot, it's out of the cinematographer's hands, someone else is making the image.

True but I mean more 'stylized' films as a whole. Not exactly these new breed 'green screen' films.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Personally I would say that 'Casino Royale' is more closely related to 300, than Northfork. From what I can remember 'Northfork' had a continuous blue desaturated look about it.

 

And "300" has mainly a continuous brown desaturated look, except for some night scenes with a blue desaturated look.

 

And "Casino Royale" has mostly a naturalistic color look, normal color levels, etc.

 

In "Northfork" and "300" the color effects are not natural, whereas in "Casino Royale" and most mainstream movies, they are.

 

I don't see why you think "Casino Royale" and "300" have anything in common, look-wise.

 

So basically you seem to be saying that when an arthouse movie stylizes a look, you don't like it, but when a mainstream movie does, you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And "300" has mainly a continuous brown desaturated look, except for some night scenes with a blue desaturated look.

 

And "Casino Royale" has mostly a naturalistic color look, normal color levels, etc.

 

In "Northfork" and "300" the color effects are not natural, whereas in "Casino Royale" and most mainstream movies, they are.

 

I don't see why you think "Casino Royale" and "300" have anything in common, look-wise.

 

So basically you seem to be saying that when an arthouse movie stylizes a look, you don't like it, but when a mainstream movie does, you do.

The way I see it, movies like 'Northfork' aren't exactly 'stylized'. By 'stylized' I mean, something that sticks out, and grabs you. i.e. high contrast, saturation e.t.c.

 

Northfork didn't seem to do that, for me. Northfork was more concentrated on telling the story. As opposed to just creating a piece of eye candy that stood out and grabbed you.

 

Casino Royale looked very 'pristine' and really stood out to me. Sure films like 'The Idiots' were stylized (i.e. had the camera shake, very amateur, realistic look) but they weren't 'stylized' in the sense that they were shot with smooth camera movements, moving sound tracks, contrasty images.

 

 

One prime example of what I'm saying:

 

Not that I have nearly enough skill to shoot either of these movies, I'd still feel a whole lot more comfortable shooting a film like 'Forrest Gump' than I would '300'.

 

No, the 'stylized' look would not suit a film like Forrest Gump, but I'm certain that a stylized film like '300' would be a lot more harder to shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to check into this thread so late guys, but I've really enjoyed all your thoughts! Very insightful. Hopefully I can clear up some things (but this is a cinematography board so forgive me if I stick to the point).

 

Although there was obviously a ton of CGI, the sets were still gigantic. They were the biggest I'd ever lit and it was pretty intimidating! There was months of prelighting. The Sparta set alone barely fit into the stage and it almost touched the ceiling in some places! So make no mistake, this was no 'standing on a green box in front of a greenscreen'. Far from it.

 

About the 'art school' comment...well Zack and I did go to art school together actually. In addition to film, previously I studied photography and he studied painting in London.

 

For the record, my favorite cinematographers are the likes of Conrad Hall, Lubezki, Storaro...but that doesn't mean my work emulates theirs. I'm just not that good. But I do try to carry out the director's vision, and in the case of '300', if you saw the early conceptual art, or the graphic novel, or Zack's storyboards, I think I did a pretty good job (and a daunting one at that), and at the end of the day that's what matters to me.

 

David: as usual, thanks for putting things in perspective. You make a great point that 'Lost' is worlds apart from '300'. Again, it's the nature of the project. Who would even think those two things were shot by the same guy!? Neither are 'my style'...it's what's appropriate.

 

"300 is more like cel animation than cinematograpy"...ouch. Last time I checked, Bambi wasn't filmed with Panavision on stage! Seriously though, I never worked harder or had to pay more attention on a shoot...and had to develop a whole digital work flow to keep me confident things would work out down the line. But that's another topic.

 

Keep up the comments guys, it's very thought provoking.

 

Larry Fong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to check into this thread so late guys, but I've really enjoyed all your thoughts! Very insightful. Hopefully I can clear up some things (but this is a cinematography board so forgive me if I stick to the point).

 

Although there was obviously a ton of CGI, the sets were still gigantic. They were the biggest I'd ever lit and it was pretty intimidating! There was months of prelighting. The Sparta set alone barely fit into the stage and it almost touched the ceiling in some places! So make no mistake, this was no 'standing on a green box in front of a greenscreen'. Far from it.

 

About the 'art school' comment...well Zack and I did go to art school together actually. In addition to film, previously I studied photography and he studied painting in London.

 

For the record, my favorite cinematographers are the likes of Conrad Hall, Lubezki, Storaro...but that doesn't mean my work emulates theirs. I'm just not that good. But I do try to carry out the director's vision, and in the case of '300', if you saw the early conceptual art, or the graphic novel, or Zack's storyboards, I think I did a pretty good job (and a daunting one at that), and at the end of the day that's what matters to me.

 

David: as usual, thanks for putting things in perspective. You make a great point that 'Lost' is worlds apart from '300'. Again, it's the nature of the project. Who would even think those two things were shot by the same guy!? Neither are 'my style'...it's what's appropriate.

 

"300 is more like cel animation than cinematograpy"...ouch. Last time I checked, Bambi wasn't filmed with Panavision on stage! Seriously though, I never worked harder or had to pay more attention on a shoot...and had to develop a whole digital work flow to keep me confident things would work out down the line. But that's another topic.

 

Keep up the comments guys, it's very thought provoking.

 

Larry Fong

Wow... I'm pretty thrown back that you're a member here Larry :o

 

First of all I'd like to say that '300' looked amazing from the trailer and I can't wait to see it. Nice work!

 

Out of interest, how did you get to learn how to shoot a film like that? From what I've read here, your other work is a lot different. And also, your imdb page credits you with just 9 cinematography roles, I've seen many people with far more credits yet they aren't shooting anything anywhere near as big.

 

It's the same with Sam Mendes imdb profile. He barely had any credentials and soon enough he was shooting 'Road to Perdition' with Tom Hanks, Jude Law, Conrad L. Hall e.t.c.

 

Anyway, amazing to see you posting here Larry. Hopefully you'll stick around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
It's the same with Sam Mendes imdb profile. He barely had any credentials and soon enough he was shooting 'Road to Perdition' with Tom Hanks, Jude Law, Conrad L. Hall e.t.c.

 

take it you've never heard of a little thing called theatre then daniel? imdb is a reference tool like any other, but is not a biography or even a cv, if I only got work based on my imdb page i'd be fu**ed!

 

keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Larry,

 

I've only seen the trailer so far, but I wonder, did you push stock to make it so grainy or did they add it in post?

 

 

It's the same with Sam Mendes imdb profile. He barely had any credentials and soon enough he was shooting 'Road to Perdition' with Tom Hanks, Jude Law, Conrad L. Hall e.t.c.

He was a very famous theatre director (at the Donmar Warehouse) before he went into film. Among others he directed Nicole Kidman in 'The Blue Room', which caused quite a stirr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

take it you've never heard of a little thing called theatre then daniel? imdb is a reference tool like any other, but is not a biography or even a cv, if I only got work based on my imdb page i'd be fu**ed!
He was a very famous theatre director (at the Donmar Warehouse) before he went into film. Among others he directed Nicole Kidman in 'The Blue Room', which caused quite a stirr

Fair do's... didn't think about theatre.

 

But I would have thought any 'larger' productions would have been on imdb. I've done several films, but only one of them is on imdb. But if anything was worthy of TV, or cinema release or even festivals it should be on imdb.

 

Maybe I'm over estimating imdb credentials.

 

So Daniel you havent see "300" only the trailer !!!

Yes only the trailer.. but it was still enough to work out what the cinematography will be like. Without going into details.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WOW, lots of specific opinions on a movie you haven't even seen!

 

Must be an effective trailer :lol:

 

And no, larger theater productions won't be on imdb, afterall it's the "internet MOVIE database"

Edited by Joseph Winchester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually it's more opinions based on 'stylized' movies as opposed to realism.

 

And hold on... theatre lighting technicians also do film? I'm sure it's a common occurance, but not for theatre technicians to become amazing film DP's.

Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the movie and will go see it again. I have not wanted to see a movie twice at the movies since "Star Wars" I was so taken with the story I really didn't take the time to look at it technically. But what I did notice most of all was not the coloration but the composition of shots. The move is great!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Larry, I thought your work was amazing (and I have a good sense of what your contributions were.)

 

I heard that you shot on Expression 29 -- I was wondering if the efx people were OK with that for bluescreen work, plus if they added an overall grain patina in post. I only bring this up because Matthew Labitique shot "The Fountain" on Expression pushed one-stop for grain, but the efx people made him shoot the efx shots unpushed, saying that they could match the grain later to the pushed footage... but Matty complained to me that they actually were never able to get it right, hence why some shots in the movie are grainier than others.

 

As for Daniel asking whether it's harder to shoot "Forrest Gump" versus "300" -- the more he works, the more he'll realize that almost all shoots are hard in their own unique ways, because you push yourself within limitations of budget and schedule. There is the old story where Kubrick asked John Boorman how the "Emerald Forrest" shoot was going and Boorman said "it's been very hard." Kubrick replied "They are all hard, John." And Boorman agreed.

 

I'm sure shooting in Hawaii for "Lost" was a different sort of challenge than "300", difficult for very different reasons.

 

Hell, I bet Louis Malle thought shooting "My Dinner with Andre" was hard!

 

A more heavily stylized image often requires more steps, more complexity, but not always. Sometimes the hardest lighting set-up you do on a movie ends up looking so natural that people think you didn't do anything!

 

Another example: Disney's "Pinocchio" was probably their most technically challenging animated feature, even more than "Fantasia" or "Snow White" was. They had a record number of multi-plane glass shots in that movie. However, for one underwater scene, they created a watery effect by sliding a cheap piece of rippled glasss over the cel animation, and that's the shot that the premiere audience applauded when it was over, sending Disney into a fit because they didn't notice the really expensive multi-plane shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I feel about the thread going so far off target from my original post, but as usual Mr Mullen pulls it back to where it should be: a discussion about the movie's cinematography and the impact - if any - it has had on each of us as aspiring filmmakers.

 

Personally, having seen the movie I am very impressed with the look of the film. Its presentation was very well crafted and in particular I like the:

 

1. Color palette - it suited the era

2. Compositions - very epic and shouted greek to me

3. Lighting - evocative and painterly

4. Motion - kiss ass and dramatic

 

I also found the film to have a strong element of Theatre within it, especially the performances. Very like a greek play brought to life.

 

I read, maybe in American Cinematographer, that 3 cameras were used simultaneously to capture sequences which were then "welded" together to provide the seamless change of view/perspective within action/battle sequences. I personally, would like to hear more about that particular process.

 

In addition, the compositions evoke classical painting and art in general of the greek period. I'm also curious if particular/specific paintings were referenced as inspiration to create specific shots/sequences and how easy of difficult this made the entire process of creating an entire film where continuity lay in the hands of the digital compositors - it seems - more than the cinematographer.

 

The link between painting and cinematography never seemed clearer than with this picture, although many previous works have been very artisitc and painterly; Robin Williams' "What Dreams May Come" is a personal favorite of mine, but that was almost entirely done in post and is a less complicated film in terms of visual and special effects.

 

I've read and thought myself so many times, of that famous phrase "painting with light". This film is an exposition of sorts on that principle and I find myself drawn to my more esoteric influences right now, as I am in preproduction on a short film in my directing class, than before I saw 300.

 

I'm not interested in breaking apart the 3 act structure, the dialogue, and other shortcomings that may or may not exist within the film. I am really interested in getting into the mindset that created this stunning piece of work and seeing where I am in comparison - some introspection on my part clearly. And perhaps learning, if Mr. Fong can share some more, how the Director and Cinematographer got to that level as individuals and then as a team on this film.

 

For too long I've been struggling with the success of commerical films that look too similar and lack personality versus the failure of other films which are clearly inspired works but fail to capture the imaginations of the audience out there. 300 shows there is a way to go forward, or at least it showed me that light.

 

My 2c on the other topics discussed. I've always looked at Mr. Mullens' films as examples of ingenuity and creativity that illustrate what a gifted cinematographer can do within a limited budget and with limits on the tools available. His consistency and quality are obvious. It makes no difference what he attempts. Creativity. You can't pay for it but it can change the lowest budget film into a work of art.

 

Art itself is an amorphous and intangible thing. All we can do is create, letting our passion guide us and then let others judge if we have indeed created art.

 

Ah. I'm not usually prone to long posts or to such a personal one, but there you have it. Its what's been going on in my head since I saw 300, and where better to share than in this community of talented and passionate creators.

 

Thanks to all for sharing, especially those we look up to who show us it is possible to attain that dream we all share.

 

I'll step off the soap box now :-)

 

K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for Daniel asking whether it's harder to shoot "Forrest Gump" versus "300" -- the more he works, the more he'll realize that almost all shoots are hard in their own unique ways, because you push yourself within limitations of budget and schedule. There is the old story where Kubrick asked John Boorman how the "Emerald Forrest" shoot was going and Boorman said "it's been very hard." Kubrick replied "They are all hard, John." And Boorman agreed.

In all honesty, I hope and I'm sure you're right. It just doesn't seem that it would be harder, to me. But then again I wouldn't know, yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Film Gears

CINELEASE

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...