Topics

Changes in framing because of changes in business model of studios

Rivai Chen
 

Hello CML

This post interests me a lot. Im curious what monitor size that typically people use to shoot feature. I mean director monitor. Is 24” broadcast monitor enough """ or anything larger. Size of the monitor definitely affects the way DP frames. I notice a lot when i saw a frame from 5” and 7”, the feel are very different despite same image from DP monitor.

I believe cinematic framing will survive in TV and anything lower but harder on the opposite. 

Rivai
Producer
Eclade Pictures

Daniel Drasin
 

Geoff writes: ... the actual perceived image size, i.e. angle of vision, is the same for my 55” 4K TV as it is for my Samsung Tablet. Obviously framing for either should be the same. However, when sitting five rows back from a large cinema screen the experience is totally different and it’s not a case of characters coming in and out of vision is it’s been shot using a small screen as reference.

Doesn't part of this difference have a lot to do with sound?

Sound design and its subliminal impacts are a key component of cinematic drama. Home sound reproduction can be very good, but the impact of sound in a large, darkened, communal environment is worlds apart from that of home audio or headphones -- not to mention tiny phone or tablet speakers. Granted, there's not much a cinematographer can do about sound design, but I think we do need to remember that screen size tends to bring with it other aspects of environmental synthesis. How this plays out in framing decisions would, I suppose, depend largely on the script and the director's intentions. But all else being equal, the intended acoustical and musical environment would seem to have quite a direct bearing on framing decisions, even if the particulars of the score and sound design haven't yet been worked out. 

Dan Drasin
Producer/DP
Marin County, CA

Allen Facemire
 

Bill McCreary asserts:
"You frame for the intended frame, and then you stop overthinking it. One shouldn’t waste time thinking about things they can’t control."

There is validity in that assertion but also you generally compose for the frame, which doesn't always mean using the rule of thirds. Sometimes the frame needs to be built like a triangle with the focal point leading the frame or even above it, like a clock on a mantle.  I get a bit weary of seeing the "off frame" model we see a lot these days.  That's basically framing the subject with more side room as if something or somebody is going to appear in the empty space. They are essentially speaking away from the frame rather than to it as in conventional framing.  That sometimes plays well but as a entire framing theme, it bothers me.

Allen S. Facemire-DP/Operator
Atlanta, Georgia-USA
1stcamera@...

Michael Most
 



On Apr 23, 2018, at 10:28 PM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:


My point is that if we remove all the differences between a home and cinema viewing then WTF would we go to the cinema?

Do you have an audience at home? Are you “getting out of the house” when you watch at home? Do you have a 40 foot screen in a purpose built environment at home?

There are an awful lot of reasons why people go to the cinema. And for the most part, they have nothing to do with technology or picture quality.

Mike Most
On Location Services Director
Technicolor
Los Angeles, CA.


Billy McCreary
 


You frame for the intended frame, and then you stop overthinking it. One shouldn’t waste time thinking about things they can’t control.

I’d agree with Mike here. When I used to program websites (before you could easily tell the site to check for user settings) there was I lot of worry about different screen sizes, computer RAM, internet speed, etc. Sort of like trying to color grade for different monitors. It was just too difficult. Now it’s simple to check the user settings and adjust automatically. I'm wondering if there will ever be a way for content to include metadata that checks the settings of your TV and adjusts them to the creators preference. At least that would help the color issue.


On Apr 24, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

My point is that if we remove all the differences between a home and cinema viewing then WTF would we go to the cinema?

I’m still hoping theaters move into a VR realm. Using the space to create VR worlds that one could experience and interact with rather than just view. I feel like even with todays technology you could create pretty believable worlds. "Don’t wanna fly all the way to Grand Canyon? Experience it virtually!”™

bMac
DP | EDIT | VFX | TAMPA

Jan Klier
 

Not as much on framing, but perception, there is the issue of pixel-per-degree. Apple made the Retina displays a huge marketing hit. The underlying theory though is the pixel density and to exceed the eyes ability to discern. Technically a retina display needs to exceed 57 pixel per degree of vision. The distance to the screen is a critical variable in that formulation. So where you sit in a theater does change that element of your visual experience of the film in addition to the other aspects already discussed here. As we are surrounded with ever higher quality displays that calibrate our expectations, we may subconsciously optimize our viewing distance accordingly or upend it intentionally to get a different experience. 

Jan Klier
DP NYC

On Apr 24, 2018, at 1:28 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

I have to disagree with Argryis, there is a big difference in perception and reaction to a larger image ( in terms of angle of vision) to a smaller image.

Geoff Boyle
 

I was five rows back for “Darkest Hour” 😊 loved it.

 

I have to disagree with Argryis, there is a big difference in perception and reaction to a larger image ( in terms of angle of vision) to a smaller image.

Just as some paintings just don’t work when you’re close to them.

Experimenting this morning I found that the actual perceived image size, i.e. angle of vision, is the same for my 55” 4K TV as it is for my Samsung Tablet. Obviously framing for either should be the same. However, when sitting five rows back from a large cinema screen the experience is totally different and it’s not a case of characters coming in and out of vision is it’s been shot using a small screen as reference.

A 2 shot 2:35 framed for small screen using characters at the extremes of frame works, it doesn’t five rows back from a large screen.

I don’t sit at the back of a cinema because I go to a cinema to have a different experience to the home viewing one.

My point is that if we remove all the differences between a home and cinema viewing then WTF would we go to the cinema?

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+31 (0) 637 155 076

 

From: cml-general@... <cml-general@...> On Behalf Of Bruce Alan Greene
Sent: 23 April 2018 18:11
To: cml-general@...
Subject: Re: [cml-general] Changes in framing because of changes in business model of studios

 

Interesting question Geoff.

Another thing to consider:  When I go to the cinema, I find that most people prefer to sit in the back of the cinema, making their viewing experience rather like a big screen TV at home.

So, even for the cinema, do we frame for the people in the front or the back?

BTW, I saw "Darkest Hour" towards the front of the cinema, and I thought it was a wonderful example of framing for the "big screen" with wide compositions that guide one's eye to the focal point of the composition.  It wouldn't work so well at home or the back of the cinema though :)

Bruce Alan Greene
DP Los Angeles
www.brucealangreene.com

Steve Oakley
 

On Apr 23, 2018, at 1:37 PM, Mike Sippel <msippel@...> wrote:
“You frame for the intended frame, and then you stop overthinking it.”
I think the question here is more about what should be the “intended frame” – how wide is a wide? How close is closeup?
Until you have to have 9:16 safe vertical social media. Or shooting for digital signage thats vertical, or extremely horizontal LED displays like 4:1 but no one says that until after the fact. Then 8K might save you.



As for what size is the “right” one given the multitude intended viewing conditions with mutually exclusive “preferences”, I’d expect that will be largely left to individual taste – and perhaps notes from the executives depending on whether they’re viewing dailies in a screening room or on their phone.
cinematographers concerned about this might see some benefit to having monitors of a few different sizes around on the set when composing – pick one size as the hero but check the other ones periodically to confirm things don’t feel too small or too large and maybe nudge in or out to compensate.
Mike Sippell
if you have “Creative” types on the shoot, that would be pure hell. Less is way more on set in many ways. Make them happy by picking up new angles / shots not on the boards here or there which turn out to save the edit later, but a couple different monitors ? thats asking for trouble, especially when one of them goes "I like it like this “ pointing at worst monitor, etc.

Steve Oakley
DP / Editor / Colorist / VFX Artist
Madison & Milwaukee WI
920 544 2230

JD Houston
 


On Apr 22, 2018, at 10:46 PM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

Something I’ve been wondering about for a while.
Should we frame for a large screen or a small screen?

I think that movie framing can work well on a small screen, and it has advantages all it’s own.
It does wonders with vistas, there is a grand sense of sky and horizon, “deep space” works really 
well for framing, etc…  Many of these are just OK on a small screen, but are advantages of cinema.
You don’t lose the story points when translated to a TV (maybe if watching on a mobile phone).

IMAX of course can amplify these effects even more because now the image goes all the way to 
your periphery and motion can effect you even more strongly.

There has been for several years, a transition in films so that they look more like TV shows.
Couple that with ‘busy’ frames both in terms of detail and motion, and you have many summer action movies
that seem to have already made that transition.  “Spectacle” works in either format.

Rather than framing for smaller screens because it is a dominant consumer format,  I would suggest that
only through creative use of the advantages of cinema can DPs save Movie Theater from a bleak future.

Content on TV often exceeds the qualities of current film-making, and it may be swimming upstream, 
but I think that a best foot forward for big screen is still the right way to think about most projects.
While the story and drama drive the design of the image,  it is better when possible to use the wider spatial
palette of cinema when possible. With 4K TV becoming more accessible, there is less worry that you will lose
small things in frame that are significant.

I think people sitting near the back of the theater are taking refuge from over-aggressive camera work that is uncomfortable to watch.

Designing for the average seat in the middle of the theater (2.5 SH) is still the best we can do.

As far as movie theaters going away, how many theater for plays and operas are still around.  Maybe the multiplex is doomed, but it is not certain
that Theatrical Cinema is a form of entertainment that will go away.   Many who predict the future are off-course, so it is still just making
a show for a place that can make money back quickly so that the rest of consumer access is just gravy.

+1 Cinema Framing vote from me.


Jim



Jim Houston
Consultant, Starwatcher Digital, Pasadena, CA

Bob Kertesz
 

I have heard older cinematographers observe that since HD monitors have become ubiquitous on sets the framing preferences of directors has tended to go tighter on closeups that they were in the film days where the image was typically evaluated in a dailies screening room with a larger screen

I think that observation is valid, although it's also valid to point out that images seen in large screen dailies are always 'after the fact', and thus subconsciously evaluated with the thought of "Do we really want to spend the time and money to re shoot this?" in mind.

The first time I was ever invited to film dailies many years ago, the well know DP who invited me took me aside just before we entered the screening room and said "Remember, unless there's some major technical flaw like a neg scratch or fogging, no matter what we see in there, never express surprise because whatever is on that screen, it's exactly what we wanted."

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

DIT, Video Controller, and live compositor extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *

Mike Sippel <msippel@...>
 

“You frame for the intended frame, and then you stop overthinking it.”

 

I think the question here is more about what should be the “intended frame” – how wide is a wide? How close is closeup?  I’ve noticed with some directors (usually those who began their careers in TV before moving to theatrical films) there’s a tendency is to want to shoot all their dialog in a tight closeup – which is fine for a small screen where the percentage of the viewer’s field of view filled by the screen is small enough that you need a tighter closeup on the face to be able to catch all the little details and movements that make a performance effective.  The same framing on the big screen can seem a little too close – unscientifically I’d hazard to guess because the face then is large enough that you can’t take in its totality from a single eye position and have to flick your eyes around the frame – from eyes, to mouth, back to eyes, etc. – to observe all the emotional cues. 

 

Humans are very astute readers of human faces and are able to assess a person’s emotional state almost instantly and without conscious thought just by seeing their face, but the brain subsystems responsible for making those emotional inferences require seeing the whole face (or at least multiple parts of it) at once to do their autonomous job.  If you don’t believe it, try looking at an ECU of someone’s eye (only) and try to deduce their emotional state – it’s hard.  Seeing both eyes is better, but eyes and mouth together seem to be the minimum requirement for the subconscious heuristics to work to a high degree of certainty without involving the rest of the brain. 

 

When people talk to other people they tend to orient themselves to be a certain distance away from them.  That exact distance is influenced by a lot of factors (see the entire field of proxemics) but seems across cultures to have a defined range which, given the relatively uniform angle of view for the human visual system and range of real-world human facial sizes, results in our being accustomed to seeing (and reading) faces that occupy a definite range of percentages of our field of view.  If the face is bigger or smaller than that, it becomes more difficult to parse.

 

As with most factors in image composition this can be used for effect if done consciously, but has an effect on the perception of the image regardless of whether it’s done purposefully or intuitively.  I have heard older cinematographers observe that since HD monitors have become ubiquitous on sets the framing preferences of directors has tended to go tighter on closeups that they were in the film days where the image was typically evaluated in a dailies screening room with a larger screen (my own basis for this comparison being limited as I came of age professionally after monitors had become ubiquitous) – which suggests that directors are, whether consciously or not, adjusting their perception of what size feels “right” for a closeup based upon the conditions under which they are viewing it.

 

As for what size is the “right” one given the multitude intended viewing conditions with mutually exclusive “preferences”, I’d expect that will be largely left to individual taste – and perhaps notes from the executives depending on whether they’re viewing dailies in a screening room or on their phone.  Maybe just as some colorists proof their work both on a calibrated 14fL screen from a DCI-spec projector and on the crappiest consumer flatscreen they can find at their local big box retailer, cinematographers concerned about this might see some benefit to having monitors of a few different sizes around on the set when composing – pick one size as the hero but check the other ones periodically to confirm things don’t feel too small or too large and maybe nudge in or out to compensate.

 

Mike Sippel

Senior Field Support Technician

Arri Rental

 

 

Mike Sippel

Senior Field Support Technician

 

ARRI Rental
3980 Dekalb Technology Pkwy #800
Atlanta, GA 30340
Phone: (678) 248-5432
Website | Facebook | Twitter

ARRIRENTAL


This message is confidential. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. If you have received it by mistake, please let us know by e-mail reply and delete it from your system; you may not copy this message or disclose its contents to anyone. Please send us by fax any message containing deadlines as incoming e-mails are not screened for response deadlines. The integrity and security of this message cannot be guaranteed on the Internet.




This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.
For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

Luis Gomes
 

Worrying about our “youth” trend of watching everything on smartphones?

It’s been ages since I have seen a proper movie screen. With moving curtains  and all. 
And any of you remember “intermission” and that great social moment?

Luís. 
Finland. 
Too old for this world. 
--
Gomes.luis@...
http://fi.linkedin.com/pub/luis-gomes/20/11b/335/
Freelancer video Professional. 
Finland. 

Jose del C Martinez
 

Hi Cml

   I think Geoff opinion makes sense and this will happen very soon. Most of the big companies are getting that way but to gain something we have to loose something. Art in this medium is getting a different turn.

Jose del C. Martinez, SOC
Cinematographer/Gaffer
Natas & Smpte member
Vaisty Films Corp.

On Apr 23, 2018 1:46 AM, "Geoff Boyle" <geoff@...> wrote:

Something I’ve been wondering about for a while.

Should we frame for a large screen or a small screen?

There are major differences between the two, simplest of all is a shot that on a small screen requires a twitch of the eyeballs can break your neck on a large one. Of course there’s also the question of how much detail can you take on a small screen?

I feel that a lot of the framing that I don’t like and the excessive use of limited DoF can be attributed to small screens.

 

So, and this is the meat of my problem, if 2/3rds of theatrical income is from movies costing more than $100m and Disney make 2/3rds of those, what happens if/when Disney acquire Fox and make that 2/3rds 3/4trs.

 

If in a year or so Disney decides that they have a Netflix like system of their own in place and don’t want to hand over 40% of the revenue from those 75% of blockbusters to theatres and then release everything on their net system instead…

 

In this fantasy world the end result is the closure of most theatres, with just a few surviving “art” houses.

 

If this is the case, and I believe that it’s the most financially likely, should we be framing everything for smaller screens?

 

My definition of a smaller screen is one that you don’t need to move your head or engage in vigorous eyeball movement to follow the action.

 

This may seem a wild idea but it’s one that will significantly impact how we shoot.

 

I know that the death of cinema has been predicted many times but Netflix is clearly showing the way…

 

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+31 (0) 637 155 076

 

Michael Most
 

On Apr 23, 2018, at 9:10 AM, Bruce Alan Greene <bruce@...> wrote:

So, even for the cinema, do we frame for the people in the front or the back?
You frame for the intended frame, and then you stop overthinking it. One shouldn’t waste time thinking about things they can’t control.

Mike Most
On Location Services Director
Technicolor
Los Angeles, CA.

Bruce Alan Greene
 

Interesting question Geoff.

Another thing to consider:  When I go to the cinema, I find that most people prefer to sit in the back of the cinema, making their viewing experience rather like a big screen TV at home.

So, even for the cinema, do we frame for the people in the front or the back?

BTW, I saw "Darkest Hour" towards the front of the cinema, and I thought it was a wonderful example of framing for the "big screen" with wide compositions that guide one's eye to the focal point of the composition.  It wouldn't work so well at home or the back of the cinema though :)

Bruce Alan Greene
DP Los Angeles
www.brucealangreene.com

Shilpa Mankikar
 

I thought about this while planning my last project - which is a 40-min indie pilot/film.
These days, with "auteur tv", the lines are more blurred than ever. 
(Insecure, Atlanta, Handsmaid's Tale, Master of None where one episode was all shot in 1-take.)
Even Youtube series now lean towards flashy camera work when they
get funded. 

I ended up using more cinematic framing and language than shooting
everything with standard sitcom set-ups. Ultimately, that's my personal
sensibility after studying film, and you get more creativity and flexibility. 
Then I could still have cinematic movement or extra-wides. 
That said, we had a tight schedule, and sometimes shot 10 pages/day.
So that was easier to shoot out with 2-3 cameras and traditional mother/daughter
coverage or alternately two mediums in conversation.
 
For festival submissions & Acquisitions, it falls under several categories -- series or film.
We won several awards in both categories.  It looks great on big screens in theaters,
and I feel like I've done justice to the screen, with our limited budget.  I've also watched it on mobile
devices at a nursing home with seniors, and it translates.  Since it's Rated G for all audiences,
I considered whether Seniors would be able to see some details, but most of them will not be watching
my project on a mobile device when it releases. 
Aside from Mobile, even "small screens" are often "big screens" at home now. 

More than that, I find the factory settings of new TV's -- almost offensive. Why bother finishing Post
if your Audience is going to watch it at home on such horrible settings?   
I was just trying to reset someone's HD+ TV settings yesterday, and we couldn't figure it out.

Yeah everyone was worried about audiences leaving Art-Houses dry, but
in New York the real estate developers have been shutting down even
profitable theaters.  But I have to say, the theatrical release slates have been
pretty homogenous and boring.  Sometimes I don't feel like watching anything
that's out.  I just follow buzz.  And almost everything "critically acclaimed" at a major
market is so violent or tinged with pedophilia, I don't feel like adding yet another
negative thing into my system. 
 
Shilpa 

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

Something I’ve been wondering about for a while.

Should we frame for a large screen or a small screen?

There are major differences between the two, simplest of all is a shot that on a small screen requires a twitch of the eyeballs can break your neck on a large one. Of course there’s also the question of how much detail can you take on a small screen?

I feel that a lot of the framing that I don’t like and the excessive use of limited DoF can be attributed to small screens.

 

So, and this is the meat of my problem, if 2/3rds of theatrical income is from movies costing more than $100m and Disney make 2/3rds of those, what happens if/when Disney acquire Fox and make that 2/3rds 3/4trs.

 

If in a year or so Disney decides that they have a Netflix like system of their own in place and don’t want to hand over 40% of the revenue from those 75% of blockbusters to theatres and then release everything on their net system instead…

 

In this fantasy world the end result is the closure of most theatres, with just a few surviving “art” houses.

 

If this is the case, and I believe that it’s the most financially likely, should we be framing everything for smaller screens?

 

My definition of a smaller screen is one that you don’t need to move your head or engage in vigorous eyeball movement to follow the action.

 

This may seem a wild idea but it’s one that will significantly impact how we shoot.

 

I know that the death of cinema has been predicted many times but Netflix is clearly showing the way…

 

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+31 (0) 637 155 076

 

Bob Kertesz
 

And it’s rumored that Netflix is shopping for a theater chain. Go figure.
It's not an uncommon business model to destroy your competition then
move into their space.

Amazon, for example, who has pretty much cut off the heads of retail
book stores, opened one in (I think) New York City recently.

Which is a good thing for me, because if the Disney Borg acquire Fox, I
plan on doing a lot of reading instead of watching the endless non-stop
crap that marriage will produce.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

DIT, Video Controller, and live compositor extraordinaire.

High quality images for more than four decades - whether you've wanted
them or not.©

* * * * * * * * * *

Mako Koiwai
 

Proper viewing distance should be equal to the diagonal of the image. To me screen size is not important. It’s about viewing distance ...

Makofoto, s. pasadena, ca 

Argyris_Theos_cml
 

Composition varies with size. Painters have known this for ever.
It is not about moving your head (because you don't anyway = objects come in and go out of your attention)
It is about composing for multiple sizes. Classic anamorphic features have made a great career in tv, even though we do not agree with pan and scan.
In my view the answer is: create stunning images and they will survive any abuse.
Best

Argyris Theos, gsc
DoP, Athens Greece,
theos@...
+306944725315
Skype Argyris.Theos
www.vimeo.com/argyristheos
via iPhone

23 Απρ 2018, 8:46 π.μ., ο/η "Geoff Boyle" <geoff@...> έγραψε:

My definition of a smaller screen is one that you don’t need to move your head or engage in vigorous eyeball movement to follow the action.

Jeff Kreines
 

On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:58 AM, Jeff Kreines <jeff@...> wrote:

And it’s rumored that Netflix is shopping for a theater chain. Go figure.

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@...
kinetta.com

Sent from iPhone.

On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:46 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

I know that the death of cinema has been predicted many times but Netflix is clearly showing the way…

Daniel Drasin
 

Geoff writes: If in a year or so Disney decides that they have a Netflix like system of their own in place and don’t want to hand over 40% of the revenue from those 75% of blockbusters to theatres and then release everything on their net system instead…   In this fantasy world the end result is the closure of most theatres, with just a few surviving “art” houses.

Ironically,  those few surviving art houses may soon all be owned by Netflix! 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/netflix-oscars-academy-awards-buy-movie-theatres-beasts-of-no-nation-a8314386.html

Of course, "cinema exhibition" began with those hand-cranked peep-hole kinetoscopes. So now that we all have little peep-holes, perhaps cinema will soon have come full circle. and everything will have to be shot in MCU and ECU.

Dan "is that a peep-hole in your pocket?..." Drasin
Producer/DP
Marin County, CA

Jeff Kreines
 

And it’s rumored that Netflix is shopping for a theater chain. Go figure.

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@...
kinetta.com

Sent from iPhone.

On Apr 23, 2018, at 12:46 AM, Geoff Boyle <geoff@...> wrote:

I know that the death of cinema has been predicted many times but Netflix is clearly showing the way…

Geoff Boyle
 

Something I’ve been wondering about for a while.

Should we frame for a large screen or a small screen?

There are major differences between the two, simplest of all is a shot that on a small screen requires a twitch of the eyeballs can break your neck on a large one. Of course there’s also the question of how much detail can you take on a small screen?

I feel that a lot of the framing that I don’t like and the excessive use of limited DoF can be attributed to small screens.

 

So, and this is the meat of my problem, if 2/3rds of theatrical income is from movies costing more than $100m and Disney make 2/3rds of those, what happens if/when Disney acquire Fox and make that 2/3rds 3/4trs.

 

If in a year or so Disney decides that they have a Netflix like system of their own in place and don’t want to hand over 40% of the revenue from those 75% of blockbusters to theatres and then release everything on their net system instead…

 

In this fantasy world the end result is the closure of most theatres, with just a few surviving “art” houses.

 

If this is the case, and I believe that it’s the most financially likely, should we be framing everything for smaller screens?

 

My definition of a smaller screen is one that you don’t need to move your head or engage in vigorous eyeball movement to follow the action.

 

This may seem a wild idea but it’s one that will significantly impact how we shoot.

 

I know that the death of cinema has been predicted many times but Netflix is clearly showing the way…

 

 

Cheers

 

Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS

Cinematographer

Zoetermeer

www.gboyle.co.uk

+31 (0) 637 155 076