To the surprise of absolutely nobody, the BBC PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (1995) is significantly better-composed in its 1.33:1 originally-broadcast ratio than in its 1.78:1 form, which remains the only version available digitally.





It was shot on Super 16mm, which has a 1.66:1 aspect ratio, but almost certainly composed for 1.33:1. The 1.78:1 is typical of this type of horizontal extraction wherein they use the unintended extra info on the sides and crop the top and bottom somewhat.

This is by no means a rigorous rundown of all the possible issues with the new AMERICAN GRAFFITI 4K release, but *yikes*.

First: possible the messiest power widow / local adjustment I've seen in a UHD release, in which the Mel's sign has been *very* clumsily adjusted. The digital noise reduction is completely extreme, of course. Baffling choice for a film *shot on a film stock specifically because it was grainy.* Destroyed detail all over the place. Tons of artifacting in motion.

The use of unexpected camera height choices in this scene from THE GRAY MAN (Russo Bros, 2022) reminded me of what I still insist is the finest scene in any MISSION IMPOSSIBLE movie... ...which is, of course, the restaurant scene in De Palma's entry. The whole scene can be found here. Give it a watch.

Thirty five minutes into THE GRAY MAN and we've had eight location title cards. Who approved this. Constantly resisting the urge to tweet through this.

From an article I mostly liked, but I disagree with this framing of 'outdated' formal techniques. We've also got to consider the inverse: why were these techniques so popular in their time? What changed about the overall formal/industrial framework that led to their disuse? It's similar to complaints about three-point lighting or 'stagey' acting in midcentury Hollywood films. Yes, a performance in that vein would stick out like a sore thumb in most any contemporary mainstream film, but what language were they contributing to at the time?

I don't have much to say on this that hasn't already been said a million times, but the contrast between the duels at the end of STAR WARS 2 and STAR WARS 3 is a good argument for why thinking of light as a compositional tool is, to say the least, handy. It's a basic technique done -extraordinarily- well, but Suschitzky's separation of foreground and background using a complimentary palette of orange and blue allows him to construct geometrically effective frames from virtually any angle.

From professorsatyajitray.wordpress.com/2019/05/03/set…

https://twitter.com/SadHillDevan/status/1582950857288871938

1956:

A question that's come up a few times since posting this: why didn't I mention ISO!

The thing about ISO is that, for the most part, it is fairly technically arbitrary and amounts to a colour correction in-camera of the same base image.

https://twitter.com/SadHillDevan/status/1580659509877682176

For most manufacturers/models (there are exceptions!) ISO in-camera is roughly equivalent to simply adjusting the gain (in linear encoding) of your image in post-production.

Here's a quick test to illustrate this: each stop of ISO has been offset by a linear gain adjustment.

BIG THREAD:
Can we blame the current plague of ‘flat’ lighting on digital image capture? Are DOPs getting lazy because their cameras can do low-light? Are DITs ruining movies by insisting on overexposure? Sounds like a great time to talk about digital cinematography and 'log'! DISCLAIMER: This reductive tweetstorm is more about the application of digital imaging science more than the science itself. For more on *that*, I recommend @troy_s’s website: hg2dc.com and Arri’s DI Companion: dicomp.arri.de/digital/digita…

I defy anyone here to identify what the first shot in this clip is establishing on your first try. I included every single frame of the shot. Nothing has been trimmed. The thing that makes discussing the immense brokenness of JURASSIC PARK 6 in any coherent way difficult is that there's no consistent throughline to the incompetence. Every other scene presents new issues. Check out this set of cuts. I don't even know where to begin.

THE NORTHMAN has intensely peculiar camera operation, and I'm surprised it hasn't been brought up more. You've got lots of shots like this, in which the camera seems to be reacting deliberately sluggishly and panning/tilting in a jagged and awkward way. This is most notable towards the latter half of the shot where the camera reframes in these fits and starts instead of smoothly panning. It feels like some poor operator is fighting against a janky fluid head - of course, almost certainly not the case!

This is among the most tasteless things I've ever seen, and also happens to be completely representative, in my own personal experience, of how craven and amoral the corporate videography world can get.

https://twitter.com/j_mcelroy/status/1524880495955173376

The breaking point for me was when I arrived on-set as a camera operator to what turned out to be a 'documentary-style' cosmetic surgery commercial. We were filming someone (pretending) to get examined pre-operation, and it was among the most humiliating things I've ever filmed.

Everyone's talking about how 'flat' THE BATMAN is visually. Well, not everyone: but I've certainly been far from the only one to notice a common thread among criticism that it, and other 'underlit' movies, feel 'flat'. But what the hell does 'flat' mean??? You could be talking about a whole galaxy of stuff! Composition, lighting, image processing, layering, depth of field, contrast, saturation, the list goes on. So let's go down that list.

The (predictably) dismissive responses to @SadHillWill's little tweet provoked me to enunciate my thoughts as to why films like RISE OF SKYWALKER are interesting, so here goes a minor rant.

https://twitter.com/SadHillWill/status/1500387296297713664

@SadHillWill Central to this defense is the idea of the "Anti-Masterpiece" that Will (with some input from yours truly) put forward in this wonderful list here. letterboxd.com/willross/list/…

SKYFALL and SPECTRE sure are an interesting contrast in colour direction techniques! Both are directed by Mendes, but more than anything else each film exemplifies the specific palette strategies commonly employed by each their respective cinematographers.

Here's a tweetstorm: By far the most common question I'm asked in the context of my cinematography classes is some form of "what camera/lens/gear should I buy/use" or "what camera did X person use for Y?" In the ensuing conversation, I'll generally emphasize the importance of developing one's own visual skills. Tools obviously matter, but after a certain point the gains are marginal compared to what can be accomplished by putting work into developing one's own skills/style/voice.

I talk a lot about film emulation and digital cinematography, but it's rare that I get as good an opportunity to experiment with them as I did with @doctorgloria's new short A SAFE DISTANCE. Here's a little demo I made to demonstrate the process.

The process begins on-set, and with a series of decisions: do we want to actually emulate the properties of film, or certain visual tics that folks tend to associate with film but are separate phenomena?

Gandalf r u ok Oh no

Watching MANK I was struck at how darn ancient Gary Oldman looked in comparison to other characters who were ostensibly his age so I made a little chart. There's a lot going on here. Firstly, it's insane to me that they seem to have manufactured a 29-year age gap between Herman and Sara Mankiewicz.