Cinematography

I'm shocked that Parasite isn't on there. Talk about visual storytelling at its best!

"Parasite" is one of my favorite recent movies, Karen "Kay" Ross.

When it comes to cinematography things get subjective. The good people at Film Threat maybe have forgotten the great Vittorio Storaro, with beatiful images in movement like “The Conformist” or “Apocalypse Now”.

Ooo, Gentian Gjikopulli, you are speaking my language, sir! Then again, I didn't know about "The Conformist" until I taught IB Film, and then I just became OBSESSED! Talk about exercising the wealth of cinematic language as art! Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if "Parasite" took inspiration from it, with the underground scene inspiring their initial basement apartment.

"Vgnetted Image"

Communication is getting ideas across to others. Inventing your own terminology may work for you but don’t be surprised if nobody knows what you are talking about. The images you chose say a bit, but with little available guidance, the interpretation of your intent is left to each viewer. Determining the point you are trying to make is thus quite elusive at best.

To answer your question, the "Vignette lens" or the "peephole lens" is a lens that is deliberately designed to display an image in a camera viewfinder in the shape of a circle with a diffuse outline. This is the same, as you know, as the image that is formed by the Camera Obscura. You also know that the images created by camera lens are all circular, with a sharp outline, and that the only reason the images produced by camera lens are in a rectangular shape is because the CMOS sensor itself is a rectangular shape i.e. the rectangular sensor cropped the large circular image falling on it from the lens into a rectangular shape. The peephole lens or, if you prefer better terminology, the Obscura lens, is different from all other lens because it takes the full image circle and SHARPLY reduces its size so that the image fits into the boundaries, the borders, of the rectangular sensor. (One result of this is that large swathes of the image sensor pixels will have no light fall on them and so will remain dark and unused. ) An additional and critical feature of the Obscura lens is that it also can set the size and cardinal position of the circular image anywhere on the viewfinder. This means the image can be placed dead center in the viewfinder, shifted to the left or shifted the right, upwards or downwards, all of which are simple and feasible features. The bottom line? Such a lens, on any camera, will allow a DP or Camera to look and record scenes in a way that has not been done before in Cinematography. It is a new tool.

A peephole lens or camera is used in place of an optical peephole in a door that allows you to see who is outside and either record or transmit it. Any time the sensor is larger than the image size of the lens there will either be vignetting or a smaller and smaller circular image occupying the center of the image, assuming the lens and mount are aligned approximately correctly.

If this is new to you, good, you've discovered something.

Any S35 or larger camera sensor that is perhaps using a B4 mount 2/3" lens will show the same thing is the full sensor is viewed. That is why, when using such lenses, the camera output is cropped to a center section of the lens with a commensurate drop in the available scan lines for the image, i.e. a "4K" camera may only show a clean full image that is "2K".

This type of image is easily available with a post production effect or using a matte when shooting. Images from silent movies that were supposed to be the p.o.v. of someone looking through a small handheld telescope did exactly that. Over 100 years ago. So, as always, everything old is new again.

Yes indeed. Vaya con Dios!

The camera is not a “peephole” camera. It is a Leica M10 Zagato. Should anyone actually choose to use an actual peephole camera for a project, test a lot to make sure the results are what you had in mind.

If only, Andrew, if only.

Florin Şumălan Theatre is a great starter kit for film for many reasons, including lighting. Three-point lighting is employed still, but you don't have to worry about which way the audience is facing - it's very clear, whereas a camera setup can change (and frequently does). We learn and employ all the basics of quality of light (high key, low key, high and low contrast, softness/sharpness, etc.). We employ overheads to design the lighting hang (which more film sets should do). We even use color gels, diffusion, and gobos (I think they call them "cookies" in film). Scrim lighting is a fantastic practical effect using nothing but essentially a white sheet and directional lighting. This is used directly over the light in film and photography, but it can be an integral part of leading the eye from one space to another for theatre set design.

The big difference for film is often time and collaboration - you don't have as much time to set up your lighting and make it perfect, plus you have more factors to check with before rolling cameras. Check the color from the art department, check the framing and intensity with the camera department, and keep it consistent from one shot to the other with the script supervisor. Although, lighting for film is hardest with wide shots. If you go super close, you can light with just about anything so long as it does the job. In that way, film is easier. But generally, I find theatre lighting to be foundational and those who are fast at it are best suited to the film industry.

Just as people say to read to get ideas on how to write screenplays, I would say the same for filmmakers about going to the theatre - you will get some great inspiration there!

Karen "Kay" Ross, here is an interview with cinematographer Vittorio Storaro, where he says some interesting things from his life, regarding this subject we were talking about, if you wish to listen.

I copied the video URL at current time, but if it doesn't start at that time, it's at 53:37:

https://youtu.be/-chfLB8kmvU?t=3217

We talked once, Karen, about using The Bard in my work. So my latest, a comedy called GHOST TOWN, NM, has three references (maybe I should use the word "stealings") from him. Won plenty of contests too!

That's awesome, congrats, Lynn H. Elliott!

Here's a short video about it. https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/704318663

Great find - thanks for sharing!

Stage 32 also has terrific resources and connections for cinematographers as well as classes and education in the field.

This is awesome!! Thanks for sharing!

Cinematic is a term I only ever see in a couple of places. Advertising and in certain types of postings. It is far too general a term to be of any specific use in a discussion of actual production. Never ever heard it used on set . Never heard it in planning meetings. Never even had one of the kiddies ask if there was an app for that.

Advertisers mostly should know better and they do. When I see the term I immediately know the ad is not aimed at people working in the industry. This came to mind when I received an email from a major lens manufacturer that included:

“The cinematic look provided by the lens family”…

Meaningless prose, even though I like the lenses in question. But it did remind me of this question.

As it is a term I have no reason to use, the closest I get is in explaining specific details of shots or sequences that are more appropriate to display on big screens in darkened theaters at proper viewing distances, than on televisions in a home setting with a compromised viewing environment, i.e. in a Cinema or not. So I suppose that if the primary intent of some project is to be displayed in a Cinema, then we can only hope that some of the elements actually achieve being “cinematic”.

Wonderful question. Cinematic to me is a feeling, a visual interpretation of a story when I watch it that evokes so many emotions.

Great to meet you, Shadi AbuSharar! Wow, fantastic work! And what an interesting combination - DP and Colorist. Is there a reason for taking the reigns as a Colorist? I know many a DP who keep friends with editors to ensure their footage looks good out the other end LOL

Hi Karen "Kay" Ross for me light and color is what my eyes see and when i go the set to film i know how i want to light and i know how it's going to be colored, it something i enjoy doing, after every shoot i go to my home i start coloring, in my opinion every DP should know at least how to do the basic Color Grading "like a director cut".

The Batman’s Paul Dano & Jeffrey Wright on Way Cinematographer Greig Fraser Is a Painter With Light:

https://youtu.be/3CdPcbgWydA

Sam a reasonable shortcut approach is to use the Netflix approved camera list.

https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Ca...

This gets around lots of "stuff" like, "my XXX is best for everything because I own it".

Broad choice of cameras there, even ones I would never use :-) To me the story and desired images the Producer and Director want that will dictate the camera chosen.

Even with a low budget, find other ways to save money but get the main camera that makes the images you want for your story. Lots can be saved with planning and limiting things like the number of camera bodies, size of the lens package, as well as associated departments like grip and electric as well as various supporting areas.

Of course shooting with a camera from that list might remove some potential roadblocks from selling the project. An added benefit.

Whatever camera your DP already owns and won't charge you for? LOL I'm not sure I would recommend the Black Magic series since adapting glass for it can be selective and tricky, BUT if you're filming interiors and want a single setup with multiple cameras, then Black Magic may actually be a great option for you (it's a good studio camera, not so adaptable for outdoor/natural light).