Talk:Cinematography/Archives/2014

Shitty Video
The video included on this page really sucks. Look at it. Seriously, please let me delete it. It's bullshit. It's embarrassing to a collection of knowledge such as this. Also, anyone can use a camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.203.70 (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone!
This article has been vastly improved. It finally got the expertise it deserves. Thanks to all involved. Please keep expanding it. Keep up the great work! (June 7, 2006.)

Major renovation in progress
I had been avoiding this article due to the large amount of work necessary to clean it up - but an finally taking it on. There will be a great deal of information moved to cinematographer from here - to focus this article not on the individual, but on the art and science behind the technique of cinematography.

I'll be removing the expert tag when I'm done with these edits.

LACameraman 00:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Q: What is the Trumbull effect?

A: I haven't found a "Trumbull effect", but maybe you should refer to Douglas Trumbull, "a pioneer of the optical and digital effects industry." Paulo Oliveira 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Direction for article
This article is far too important to be left like it is. The text needs a bit more coherence and also some images are necessary. For the "See also" list I think we should opt with lists instead of individual topics (for example, instead of "video format", "video stock", etc. we can use "list of video-related topics"). Opinions? Paulo Oliveira 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

About the edit Paulo Oliveira 14:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC):
 * I created the section Cinematographer and moved the respective information to it.
 * I changed the order of the information but deleted nothing (I still feel it is a bit incoherent/incomplete, but it is the best I can do for now).
 * American Society of Cinematographers and British Society of Cinematographers are present in List of societies of cinematographers. I took them out of "See also".
 * Camera is in the article. I took it out of "See also".
 * Camera operator and Director of photography are in Film crew. I took them out of "See also".
 * Center for Cinematography doesn't (didn't?) have a link. I took it out of "See also".
 * Film stock is in the article. I took it out of "See also".
 * Film technique and Forced Perspective is included in List of film techniques. I took it out of "See also".
 * Video and Video assist are in List of video-related topics. I took them out of "See also".
 * Who is Joe Jennings? He is no reference in the field of cinematography... that I'm aware of!

Don't Agree with merger of Cinematographer and Cinematography
There is a lot to be said just about cinematographers, their history, notoriety etc, that should be seperate from a page about cinematography. One is on people...a carreer, the other is a branch of photography. Many cinematographers have pages of their own that should link to cinematographer. --Plowboylifestyle 19:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The natural tendency is to want to discuss the issues of "what a cinematographer does" and "what is cinematography" in the same breath. This article should be almost entirely about the career discipline and not go at all deeply into the "science"&mdash;issues like focus, aperture, shutter speed, etc. deserve their own fairly lengthy articles...to be shared with other photographic disciplines.  A redirect would continue to allow people to link to cinematographer independently, so that if enough material ever truly comes along to justify a separate article, it could be split again with no harm done...I just don't think that day is coming any time soon.  Metaeducation 22:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Plowboylifestile, even if cinematographer does need a little cleanup. The page is quite lengthy even without that long list of people. There is enough information for the cinematographer article and the cinematography article to be separate. Thelb 4 08:15, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I concur that Cinematography and Cinematographer need to be separate articles - however, Cinefotografía does not need to be a seperate article and should be merged into Cinematography. I'll be cleaning up the Cinematographer article as well, soon. LACameraman 13:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree there separate, we dont merge doctor and medicine now do we? --Kylehamilton 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

clapperboard link
Someone has repeatedly added The Clapperboard Website, claiming it's "The best guide to independent film making on the web." But half of the site's pages have nothing on them other than the author's explanation that, "I am still in the early stages of writing the content for this site..." More significantly, it's not specifically devoted to cinematography. Can anyone provide a reason for including this link? If not, it should be reverted. --Jeremy Butler 01:09, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * It's link spam, keep reverting it, and furthermore track contributions from that IP and revert the link spam on other articles. We hold standards for content on wikipedia, and content that we link to should have similar standards. In this case its just silly since this person is trying to bring traffic to his website before it even has anything to offer. Plowboylifestyle 20:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This link spammer also deliberated sabotaged the link to cinematography.com--editing it so that it was misspelled. He/she seems to miss the point of Wikipedia. --Jeremy Butler 13:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Lighting Link
I'm not sure I agree with the change of the Lighting link from the overview Lighting article to Stage lighting article. Although it may be more germane, in concept - stage lighting is extremely limited when compared to cinematographic lighting. I'm a little torn on this link change... Thoughts? LACameraman 22:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed both references to stage lighting in this article. Stage lighting (both conceptual design and physical fixtures) is only a mere fraction of what a cinematographer utilizes. For instance, stage lighting usually has one or two Fresnel fixtures (500W and 1K), the cinematographer has no fewer than 13 tungsten fixtures and 8 HMI fixtures (some manufacturers have many more) in Fresnel varieties. Stage lighting doesn't even scratch the surface. That doesn't include fluorescent, Xenon, LCD and many other types of light fixtures available to the cinematographer. Although I appreciate Wikipedia editors trying to improve the article with direct Wikilinks - these links are not germane to the discussion of cinematography. Perhaps an article on film lighting...? LACameraman 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Pre-history article
Sure. I support the merge. The Pre Cinema History article is a bad stub, anyway. No reason why it can't flow into this piece nicely. Perhaps better for History of film however? LACameraman 17:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind it; it's a copyvio from here. I've tagged the page appropriately. Girolamo Savonarola 20:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Boo-ya... Nice catch. Next? LACameraman 21:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Expert
I've removed the Expert request tag for a second time. This article HAS been reviewed by an expert in cinematography. If there is some specific concern, please voice it on this page and I'll be happy to review. LACameraman 20:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Merge
I removed the merge tab I seeno reson to merge this topic with one that is all ready redirecting itself to this article, I will review this arcile from time to time to ensure it is updated--Kylehamilton 22:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

history cleanup
I've tagged the history section as needing a cleanup based on the recent edits today. There's certainly some useful info there, but it's way too detailed and esoteric for a small-medium sized article on cinematography as a whole, much less the history section. Plus I feel that it's not NPOV and is specifically designed to create a pro-French slant on the creation of cinematography, which was the product of several nations and different technologies (not just the camera). Le Prince is often overlooked, I agree, but emphasis on the first inventor discounts the much more influential and long-lasting work created by those who followed him, to say nothing of those whose work was crucially precedent. I'm not going to delete or revert the edits myself, but I believe that it needs heavy editing (including mainly deletion) in order to keep the article NPOV and on-topic. Girolamo Savonarola 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What you are saying is funny, since I have added the uncredited French inventors BECAUSE they were not even mentionned on this article. This article seemed to me to be non neutral but American oriented, with the cinema history starting in New York in 1917, without mentionning the true first films in France... Also the American Edison was credited, (even before the Lumière how surprising!!) as a pioneer which is false. The true pioneers, the inventors of the words, the inventors of the devices were all French and the Lumière are just impostors! Also the French version of the article was not available in the language summary which strengthened my feeling this English article was US oriented, like many others just like the Encyclopedie one of the finest French inventions credited in the English article as the translation of an English work! Ha! What a joke!! Now having said this, I agree that my words in the article could be rephrased to a more accurate English. But hey, cleaning does not mean removing the truth and crediting Edison or other impostors for an invention they did not committed. Le Prince shot the first films in 1888, you can like or dislike it, but this is true to History facts, so don't try to burry it please. Sooner or later, truth is always said. Cliché Online 22:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to bury anything. The objection is the disproportionate amount of information added in relation to the size of the article, the size of the section, and the top-level scope of each. I'd like the information preserved, but I'm not certain this amount of depth is appropriate to this article. There is already an article on Louis Le Prince, for example, as well as the precursors of film, and history of film; the amount of detail would be better left there. As far as POV goes, Since the device, terms and art were both invented by French people, cinema from its litteral meaning to its generic sense, can be legitimatelly considered a French invention is a highly contentious term at best, especially given the work of others such as Hannibal Goodwin, George Eastman, Wordsworth Donisthorpe, Eadweard Muybridge, Ottomar Anschutz, to say the least. (See also Pre Cinema History, Who's Who of Victorian Cinema, and Adventures in Cybersound for excellent resources on early cinema history.) No one truly invented cinematography - it was a massive effort by many individuals across several countries. Each evolved from and expanded on the work of their predecessors. Le Prince's format, for example, used paper film and had no perforations or provision for prolonged duration filming. Girolamo Savonarola 22:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * "the "birth" of the movies was actually a gradual process of evolution with many blind alleys and crisscrossing paths. It involved a number of individuals in Europe, the United Kingdom, and the United States, who, from the 1860s on, worked on often similar inventions with varying degrees of success" this is from the history of film article, as you can see, the French are not mentionned but the article focus on English and Americans, this is what I said. Englidh wikipedia articles are non-neutral but UK/US centrist, so what i said about this article was not an invention. I'm glad to see there is an article about LePrince though, but I would like he be mentionned on this article insted of Edison and Lumières who came after him. Now there is a difference between "film" (medium), the "cinematographe" (projection device) and "cinematography" (art). Both terms are French, as you can see, which is significant and demonstrates where the origins lies despite the collective effort. Also the Lumière who only bought the license to Bouly should not be credited in this article since their first films came out in 1894, while LePrince made the first with his own cinematography device in 1888. Before my edits, this History article started in 1919 in New York with ASC, but since LePrince shot his first film in England before that, as mentionned in his bio article "he filmed Roundhay Garden Scene, almost certainly the world's first successful attempt to record "moving" images why not having mentionned this in the article before me? Because he is French? I'm pretty sure that if it was Edison or Eastman who did it instead, the article would had started by this statement don't you agree?! Here is a non-US/UK cinematography perspective: Cinematography before 1895 (pre-Lumière protocinema) Cliché Online 08:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I've rewrote my edits, to a shorter, cleaner two-part paragraph. Statements like "In 1919, in Hollywood, the new motion picture capital of the world" demonstrates how much I was right about the non NPV in this article. An American city, Hollywood, is mentioned as "the new capital" while the French capital, the historical first, which is what the section is about, "History", was not mentionned. So I have corrected this, and I think your tag should be removed by now. Also Bollywood, (new "capital"?) "the largest cinematography output in the world in terms of number of films produced and in number of tickets sold, should be, at least, mentionned, it would be fair, unless you prefer this article to remain non neutral." Cliché Online 08:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Still not cleaned up? I would remove this tag if no one disagree. By the way i've updated the Louis Le Prince article and i'm still working on it to give this untold pioneer the tribute he deserves. Cliché Online 14:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I still massively disagree - the section exists to discuss the total sum history of cinematography, not the first ten years of film technology. You could also easily argue that cinematography as an art form didn't even exist until well into the 20th century, which would render most of the discussion moot. Girolamo Savonarola 21:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course that cinematography as an elaborated art came later with Lumière, Georges Méliès and others, but the films of Leeds Bridge and Roundhay Garden are part of cinematography art since:
 * shooting locations: Le Prince chose specific places on the bridge and in the garden to shoot his films.
 * camera angle: Le Prince chose a specific perpective on the bridge to shoot the traffic, same for the garden.
 * light source: Le Prince chose a specific natural light source to shoot his films.
 * film genres: The Leeds Bridge is clearly the first "documentary" or maybe "news" in history, since featured characters plays their own role and don't act. However, in the garden scene, all featured characters are not stand still looking at the camera but they are performing, they are the first characters, they perform dancers role, they are just the first actors of history.

Louis Le Prince is the first one who have done cinematography, he used a camera, he shot at 20fps on a flexible film, and he had exhibited his films. There are witnesses in New York DC and in Leeds, Yorkshire who have watched his films in private exhibitions. Now you can refuse to admit the historical, effective, truth because he was French and because the credited Edison and Lumière are actually impostors, this is an historical fact that nobody can deny. FACTS (Kilburn assisted Le Prince while he experimented his camera-projector in New York) Cliché Online 17:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you are the only one to "massively" support the tag you've added yourself, and that i've cleaned up my edits, again, toward your "strict cinematography" request (while you don't) i suggest to remove this tag now. Unless someone else disagree. Cliché Online 18:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Replaced "clean up tag" by "section stub tag" since clean up is for "ungrammatical, poorly formatted, confusing section" not "incomplete section" as mentioned by the editor who has added the tag: "I am leaving up the cleanup tag because despite the good faith efforts on your part, the section is horribly incomplete and has been since a long time before your edits. A history section needs to have a history beyond 1919." (Girolamo Savonarola's user talk statements) Cliché Online 16:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As someone has requested a third opinion, I thought that I would provide one. My opinion on the matter is as follows:

What the main problem seems to be here is that, especially in the section in dispute, no one has found (or at least not cited) sources. I flagged some examples of uncited sources in the debated section regarding history, but there are many others in the article as a whole. My suggestion is, then: nothing beats citing a reliable source. If you do so when making your edits, it's a lot harder for someone else to come along and simply state disagreement-they then are responsible for finding a source which contradicts your own. Citing reliable sources isn't a formality, it's a necessity! Therefore, rather than taking one particular position or the other, I urge the two involved to find and review sources and to analyze whether such sources do in fact support your position. If there is a genuine dispute within the cinematographic and/or historical communities as to this fact, the article should reflect the existence of such a dispute. Else, if there is a consensus within these communities, one or the other of you is wrong and examination of source material will reveal who is correct. Either way, it seems to be badly needed. Seraphimblade 02:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First man on the screen
Roundhay Garden Scene (the original title might be French) directed by Louis LePrince, 1888! :) Is it possible to make it available in the wiki common? Cliché Online 09:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * All right it is available as an .Ogg file. Good, I've updated the movie article. Cliché Online 10:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Made a little redux tribute version imagining how Le Prince would had presented his film. This version runs at 12fps (current digitalized version is 24fps), which was the original rate used for this film. Leeds Bridge Scene was shot at 20fps (framerate was adjustable using the right-hand lever) according to Alphonse's son who was with him. Alphonse was assassinated in New York after testifying in the Edison brief (Equity 6928) funny coincidence isn't it? It happened few time before Edison was credited sole inventor of motion picture film, which he's not. Cliché Online 17:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC) (minor edits 6 june 2007)

Article: "Depht of Field and Focus"
The article is confusing due to word usage (diction) and interchanging adjectives used for your ideas. Mentioning "Videographers try(ing) to emulate the look of 35mm film" was confusing. It did not seem to fit. Videographer in this context could be read as an optics researcher or another name for Cinematographer. This sentence could also be read as biased.

Correct me if I am wrong but I don't know how fair it is to Tout Citizen Kane as a prime example of depth of focus. It is the easiest to pick out. It's creators may not have known they were contributing to a discipline at all. Or even knew of the term "deep focus". I would suggest citing a more recent film done after the discipline was established where a cinematographer knowingly applied the technique.

This last point is debateable. Reggie 24.189.58.6 01:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Reggie - As far as Citizen Kane being cited as an example of extreme depth of field, it is the textbook example. Cinematographer Gregg Toland was hired (actually "borrowed" from Samuel Goldwyn) specifically because he photographed his previous film The Long Voyage Home (1940) with extreme depth of focus. This was no an accident and the filmmakers (Wells, Toland and art director Perry Ferguson) worked meticulously to design sets and lighting to accommodate the deep depth of focus. Lens choices, lighting and even the use of new, faster black and white film stocks (Eastman Kodak Super XX) were specifically designed to accommodate this look. It was absolutely intentional. "Depth of field" and "Depth of Focus" were certainly not new terms in the 1940s - these photographic principles date back to the 1800s. It is, photographically speaking, a perfect example of extreme depth of focus. Gregg Toland knew full well that he was working with "deep focus." All the best, LACameraman 03:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that they went through the effort to bring in the enormous amount of additional light needed to achieve the effect I think is proof enough that the filmmakers knew exactly what they were going for. And each of those arclights required an operator, these things needed to be planned for. Certain scenes are clearly staged with deep focus in mind. Getting these shots was not a small deal that happened on accident. Brybry26 08:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"Videographer" (for video) has long been the accepted analog of "cinematographer" (for film). I think the term should disappear for two reasons: Videographer refers to a recording medium, while cinematographer refers to motion pictures in general, and the increasingly hybrid nature of feature film production already has DPs shooting video as often as film.Jim Stinson 23:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm requested to translate this article to french for fr.wikipedia.org. I also am a DP and camera operator. I have a problem with this very section of the article. It states that "70 mm film has the least depth of field for the same focal length lens than does 35 mm. 16 mm has even more and most digital video cameras have more depth of field than 16 mm. Wich is false, to my knowledge. The dof is increased while format is shorter, for a given field of view, but not for a given focal length. A 25 mm has defenetly more dof in 35mm than in 16mm, given the fact the 25 mm is a wide lens in 35mm while it's a normal lens in 16/Super 16. If one wants to accomplish the same shot ie have the same angle of view or field of view at a given distance, one should use a 12mm or so in 16 and, therefore will notice more dof at a smaller format but one must compare at same field/angle of view, not at same focal length, thought this is what is written in the article. Mind if I correct it ? laurent andrieux (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody answered my question, I will correct the article as I feel. There then might be some mistakes since English is not my native language. Please have a look and correct. laurent andrieux (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Chimera?
I had added the softbox manufacturer to the Chimera disambiguation page, and it keeps getting deleted (see Talk:Chimera). They suspect it as commerical spam, and are unsure whether it is notable. Is it? I thought this company is important as the key maker (inventor?) of softboxes. Do you use it as a token (such as Frigidaire or ProMist) or not? On a practical level, if someone hears about "Chimera" in a filmmaking context and goes to wikipedia, currently they'll never find anything. For this reason, I don't care if only appeared in the dab page without its own article, you see it all the time, but apparently dab entries are intended to be navigational and not informative. What I originally tried to put in there: "Chimera (filmmaking), a manufacturer of lighting equipment commonly used in still and motion picture photography" Binba 01:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd create the article before adding the dab. That way they can evaluate the article themselves for notability/spam issues if they have any suspicions. Girolamo Savonarola 09:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Aspect Ratio and Framing
I have done some clean-up of the aspect ratio section, but I think it needs to be expanded to describe aesthetic differences between formats, since Cinematography is an art. At the moment, that section is mostly a bunch of numbers. RJ4 (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe even split the bulk of the aspect ratio numbers into a separate article ???RJ4 (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Birth of cinema
Far as I see, the first paragraph of the History section says nothing about the topic of the article. It can be removed in its entirety since the linked History article covers the questions it actually addresses. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Cinematography
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Cinematography's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ReferenceA": From F-number: Smith, Warren Modern Optical Engineering, 4th Ed. 2007 McGraw-Hill Professional From Wallander (UK TV series):  From Leave It to Beaver: Leave It to Beaver, episode 55: "The Boat Builders". From N. Chandrababu Naidu: TIME Asia | South Asian of the Year Chandrababu Naidu | 123099 – CNN. Articles.cnn.com (1999-12-30). Retrieved on 2012-01-16. From Joseph Petzval: Fizikai Szemle 1995/01.16 Péter Konkoly, Szlovák Müszaki Múzeum, Kassa (Kosice in Slovakia) From Phantom of the Opera (1943 film): Scott McQueen, audio-commentary on Phantom of the Opera DVD (Universal) From The Time Tunnel: The Time Tunnel: Volume Two, Disc Four, side B <li>From Boy Scouts of America: Charity Rating Guide and Watchdog Report, Volume Number 59, December 2011</li> <li>From History of film: Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2003. © 1993-2002 Microsoft Corporation..</li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

գրում է Neo-կետ, իսկ հեղուկ է 0.50 կարով ծննդյան քվեարկությամբ ավելի բաց կոդով pensamietos մյուս բոլոր մտքերն միասին — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.94.128.238 (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge tag
I don't think Mood lighting belongs all by itself -- too brief & would be better here, I think. ♥ Her Pegship ♥ 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief - I totally agree. The Mood lighting article is almost a candidate for speedy deletion. Slide it on in to the lighting secion here. LACameraman 22:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Stub status alone does not make an article automatically merge-worthy. I would agree if the article had little potential for expansion, but I think that you could easily write far more about the subject - and likely provide some good example stills - in a manner which would be too far extended from the general discussion of cinematography. Keep split would be my vote. Additionally, why is it in the filters section?
 * And furthermore - and this is really an entirely different issue that needs to be dealt with ASAP - the section on lighting! Most likely the single most important aspect of cinematography is lighting. So important, at the moment, that we can't devote more than another four sentences of little specificity to follow that quote! Quite frankly, the topics in lighting and camera are myriad to begin with, and it may be better to have many links to more extensive articles devoted to each of the techniques alone. However, it seems as if every other section within the article goes into a fair depth, occasionally even beyond what is appropriate for this article. Alright, that's my rant done. Girolamo Savonarola 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lighting is extremely difficult to sum up or discuss on any significant level with any brevity. How do you touch on lighting? Is a discussion of 3-or 4-point lighting germane? Do you talk about qualities of light? Types of fixtures? Control of light? Reflection, refraction, absorption? Styles of lighting (whoo-boy there's a nightmare in and of itself...)? How do you discuss light without a major dissertation? This is my conundrum and, thus, why the passage is so small. I am certainly open to any suggestions or revisions. The Mood lighting article, to me, is absolutely silly. It would be like writing an article on "sparkly paint" and linking it to articles on cars. It isn't even descriptive of anything - what kind of "mood"? If this would be expanded into a larger article on lighting styles: Hard, soft, combination, fashion, drama, high-key, low-key, then THAT would be of merit and a great link from the "Lighting" section of this article. That would require a massive amount of work and photographic support - work that is currently beyond my personal involvment with Wikipedia or, more specificaly, Project Filmmaking. I would, however, be happy to lend considerable support to anyone who would tackle such an endeavor. For the time being, I vote for merge at best. LACameraman 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)