Web Analytics

A lesson in perspective


Geoff Boyle
 

Another of my series of basic lessons…

 

https://cmltests.net/Lessons/The-Effect-of-Perspective-240mm-to-12mm.html

 

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 


Eric Wenocur
 

Very cool! BTW, there's a word missing in the first sentence:

This is a very simple (demo) of the effect of focal length on face shape


Eric Wenocur
Lab Tech Systems
301-438-8270
301-802-5885 cell


On 7/30/19 4:36 AM, Geoff Boyle wrote:
Another of my series of basic lessons…

https://cmltests.net/Lessons/The-Effect-of-Perspective-240mm-to-12mm.html

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl <http://www.gboyle.nl/>

www.cinematography.net <http://www.cinematography.net/>


Mitch Gross
 


This is a very simple (demo) of the effect of focal length on face shape

With all due respect, this is not really about focal length at all. It is about distance to subject. The primary effects of face shape and the way the background is rendered are completely aspects of subject distance. The secondary effect of size of the subject in the frame is determined by focal length. 


Mitch Gross
Cinema Product Manager 
Panasonic System Solutions Company of North America
New York



Geoff Boyle
 

Understood but these basics lessons are aimed at people who will not understand that but will understand the focal lengths.

 

Sometimes accuracy is not good for learning 😊

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 

From: cml-general@... <cml-general@...> On Behalf Of Mitch Gross
Sent: 30 July 2019 14:21
To: cml-general@...
Subject: Re: [cml-general] A lesson in perspective

 

 

This is a very simple (demo) of the effect of focal length on face shape

 

With all due respect, this is not really about focal length at all. It is about distance to subject. The primary effects of face shape and the way the background is rendered are completely aspects of subject distance. The secondary effect of size of the subject in the frame is determined by focal length. 

 

 

Mitch Gross

Cinema Product Manager 

Panasonic System Solutions Company of North America

New York

 


Geoff Boyle
 

Thank you, corrected and modified to also reflect Mitch’s point 😊

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 

From: cml-general@... <cml-general@...> On Behalf Of Eric Wenocur
Sent: 30 July 2019 14:08
To: cml-general@...
Subject: Re: [cml-general] A lesson in perspective

 

Very cool! BTW, there's a word missing in the first sentence:

This is a very simple (demo) of the effect of focal length on face shape


Eric Wenocur
Lab Tech Systems
301-438-8270
301-802-5885 cell


On 7/30/19 4:36 AM, Geoff Boyle wrote:

Another of my series of basic lessons…

https://cmltests.net/Lessons/The-Effect-of-Perspective-240mm-to-12mm.html

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl <http://www.gboyle.nl/>

www.cinematography.net <http://www.cinematography.net/>


Bernard Harper
 

Hi Mitch,

     Camera-to-subject distance has a similarly dramatic effect: Gender, as explained here,

www.bernieharper.co.uk

www.bernieharper.co.uk/research/conclusions/

I have revised the site recently and the effect is more clearly described. But it would be better with a link to the new test :-) 

Bernie Harper PhD

Vision Scientist/Stereographer

UK

 


Roberto Schaefer, ASC, AIC
 

I had learned some time ago to shoot men’s closeups with longer focal lengths (65-135) and women’s with shorter lengths (27-40). The obvious reasons as stated by Bernie and shown in Geoff’s demo that the wider focal lengths have the slimming effect as well as diminishing the relationship of the neck to the face, and the longer focal lengths have the opposite effect which makes the male subject appear to have a stronger neck and therefore a “buffer” appearance. Of course this always is subjective and depends on the story that you are telling. The other factor that isn’t apparent in Geoff’s demo is the relationship of the subject to the background which also affects the story telling. I for one prefer to use wider lenses closer when I want to be engaged with the subject and have a closer emotional relationship whereas the longer focal lengths tend to be more observational, more at a physical and emotional distance. Spying on someone opposed to being with someone.
my tuppence.
R.Schaefer, ASC AIC ETC
vacating in Savannah


Bernard Harper
 

Hi Roberto,

    I think you are right that cinematographers have used this effect to their advantage. But the universal feedback I got from stills professionals is that wide-angle lenses fatten because they cause "ballooning" and appear to over enlarge facial features and roundness. In perception tests however, the slimmer neck and larger eyes found in the wide angle portraits were always interpreted by the participants as slimmer.  The shocking discovery was all the male subjects were always rated at or below their actual weight regardless of focal length. But the females were always seen as overweight, regardless of what lens was used or how slim they were. Gulp!

Bernie

www.bernieharper.co.uk

  

 


Luis Gomes <gomes.luis@...>
 

Could you kind gentlemen and ladies elaborate a little bit on the subject. 
With television lenses I have found I can specially with women. Get a more flattering image using something like a 200/ 300 mm lenses. Or in tv speak. Extender on an walk away something like 100 meters.away from subject. 
That of course brings a lot of problems. Like having to use sign language and assure to “miss Finland “ that it will look better than me using my 7 mm lenses   Five centimeters from her face. 

Yes. Not everybody has access to prime lenses. 

Luis. 
Having holidays at the moment  
Finland. 
--
Luis Gomes

Conforming
Digital Media Services
Field and News Gathering
Post Production


Art Adams
 

>Extender on an walk away something like 100 meters.away from subject.

The magic word there is "extender." Those soften the image nicely.

What effect do you see on such long television lenses that you don't see in non-television lenses?

 

Art Adams

Cinema Lens Specialist

 

Our Burbank office has moved! You can now find us at 3700 Vanowen Street, Burbank, CA 91505.

 

ARRI Inc.
3700 Vanowen Street
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone:  (818) 841-7070
Fax:     (818) 848-4028

Get all the latest information from www.arri.com, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

 

 


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


Bob Kertesz
 

The shocking discovery was all the male subjects were always rated at
or below their actual weight regardless of focal length. But the
females were always seen as overweight, regardless of what lens was
used or how slim they were.
Sadly, pretty much the way such things are rated in real life as well.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

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

* * * * * * * * * *


Bernard Harper
 

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 08:06 PM, Bob Kertesz wrote:
>Sadly, pretty much the way such things are rated in real life as well.

The Sophie Turner example is particularly shocking. Since the show finished she has lost vast amounts of weight. Anyone who drops below BMI 18 she could quickly spiral into a serious eating disorder. Her comments show she finds accusations of being a "fat actress" emotionally crushing. Yet modified shooting techniques could make the fattening effect less extreme. 

Bernie

www.bernieharper.co.uk

 

 


Luis Gomes <gomes.luis@...>
 

That would be really hard to explain. Without doh some images. I do have some examples but I am not really sure how to upload images to CML. 
My friend shot a tv series using Alexa mini and some prime lenses. 
I was struck about how faces would be somehow “fat” and strangely round “seeing on broadcast” not sure how they looked at the “grading theater”

With my “extender” experiment somehow the ladies looked more “thin” 
Like cheek bones and noses looked more natural. 
The more standard “interview” style of standing really close to subject wide angle looks really awful. 
Guess that’s why tv favours small people. 
Right on the nose with the “extender” comment. 
I understand it really stresses a lens ability. 

Luis. 
38 degrees Turkey. 
Soon back to work. 
Finland. 
--
Luis Gomes

Conforming
Digital Media Services
Field and News Gathering
Post Production


Bob Kertesz
 

Right on the nose with the “extender” comment.
I understand it really stresses a lens ability.
Like many things, it depends.

For those unfamiliar, an extender is a piece of glass that drops into
the light path on the interior (most of the time) of the lens. There
have been one or two versions that screwed onto the back element or else
mounted onto the body, then the lens goes onto the extender's mount.

Its function is to (usually) double the focal length of the existing
lens. So a sports lens that's 600mm on the long end becomes 1200mm with
the extender flipped in. Flipping it in is most often a mechanical
process that simply involves a lever near the back of the lens. Since
there is stop loss (usually a stop or so), expensive box lenses usually
do automatic iris compensation, even if the iris is set for manual
control by a video control person back in the production truck.

Flip-in extenders, just like lenses, have improved over the years. They
do perform poorly in most cases at F4 or more open. Symptoms include
softness, vignetting, chromatic aberrations, keystoning, and parallax
issues. But if you're outdoors running around F8 to F11, they perform
quite well if the lens is a current decent design and expensive. I'm
willing to guess that not many here would be able to tell whether it was
in or out at F11 during a day baseball game. It becomes pretty obvious
during night games when lenses are at F4 or F2.8 or even more open. At
those open stops, it makes the image appear to be from a standard def
lens in need of work.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

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

* * * * * * * * * *


Christopher Mosio
 

"Her comments show she finds accusations of being a "fat actress" emotionally crushing. Yet modified shooting techniques could make the fattening effect less extreme. 

Or men could stop being such fuck-tards.

I think Roberto’s practice of filming (yes, filming!) women with a 27-40ish mm lens is a compelling one.  I would have thought that with decades of screen and makeup tests being done by studios, a stronger concensus over most flattering focal lengths would have emerged.  (David Mullen, that’s a cue for you…)

----

Chris Mosio

Cinematographer/Seattle +
MosioMedia.com
Get LinkedIn with me



Bernard Harper
 

>Or men could stop being such fuck-tards. Chris Mosio

Hi Chris. I think the comments she got on social media may have come from women too. A lot of them :-(  

>I think Roberto’s practice of filming (yes, filming!) women with a 27-40ish mm lens is a compelling one.

My research suggested the historic issue was sound intrusion. So a whole grammar of cameras at a distance and long boom mics imprinted on the system. And if the actress looks fat, get one who it a hell of lot skinnier.  Or.....

>I would have thought that with decades of screen and makeup tests being done by studios, a stronger consensus over most flattering focal lengths would have emerged.

I have a section on contour makeup on the website:  http://www.bernieharper.co.uk/practical-implications/hair-make-up/

Bernie

www.bernieharper.co.uk
:  


Mark Kenfield
 

This is a really interesting discussion! 

I’ve always erred on the side of caution and kept to more telephoto lenses for close-ups (both male and female) in order to flatten perspectives, and not enlarge anyone’s nose.

But I suppose if the nose is small enough that it can take the closer subject distance, then getting wider and closer could be a very useful trick.

I’ll be adding closeups at different focal lengths to all of my makeup/wardrobe tests from now on, to see who can handle what.

Very interesting. Thanks everyone 🙏

Cheers,

Mark Kenfield 
Cinematographer 

0400 044 500

On 31 Jul 2019, at 8:58 am, Christopher Mosio <chris@...> wrote:

"Her comments show she finds accusations of being a "fat actress" emotionally crushing. Yet modified shooting techniques could make the fattening effect less extreme. 

Or men could stop being such fuck-tards.

I think Roberto’s practice of filming (yes, filming!) women with a 27-40ish mm lens is a compelling one.  I would have thought that with decades of screen and makeup tests being done by studios, a stronger concensus over most flattering focal lengths would have emerged.  (David Mullen, that’s a cue for you…)

----

Chris Mosio

Cinematographer/Seattle +
MosioMedia.com
Get LinkedIn with me



Christopher Mosio
 

Bernie, I think your research is fascinating.  Sound intrusion, that explains a lot. 
I'd be interested to know what focal length lenses classic Hollywood portrait photographers favored back in the day of larger format still cameras.
---

Chris Mosio

Cinematographer/Seattle +
MosioMedia.com
Get LinkedIn with me


Bernard Harper
 

Hi Chris. Glad you like the work. I think they used standard lenses in the classic studio stills of the 1940s. Early stills of Bing Crosby showed his ears to be relatively normal, a sure sign of a standard lens. He always claimed his jug handle ears were created by the movie camera, a tele effect almost certainly forced on them by sound recording. Silent era on-set stills often show the camera much closer to the actors. And I cannot remember ever seeing a long telephoto shot in any silent era movie. Maybe tele lenses were demanded by sound recordists and not directors? 

Bernie

www.bernieharper.co.uk

 


Jonathon Sendall
 

Bernard, I'd heard a story that Bing Crosby had his ears glued back in his early career and that the heat of the lights melted the glue and his ears used to ping forward. After that they gave up.

No idea if it's true or not but it made me laugh.

Jonathon Sendall
Director/DP
London UK
mob. 07813261793
ShowreelInstagramJPS Cineworks Forum


Bob Kertesz
 

Bernard, I'd heard a story that Bing Crosby had his ears glued back in
his early career and that the heat of the lights melted the glue and
his ears used to ping forward.
So, ummm, it was really Ping Crosby...

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

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

* * * * * * * * * *


ian@...
 

"Yet modified shooting techniques could make the fattening effect less extreme. "

A great, low-cost way to make everyone look slim (regardless of the lens) is to simply shoot in DCI and then squeeze the footage to fit a UHD release.  Yes, it's happened, and no, I couldn't talk them out of it when I realized what post had done.  It went to air that way.  

Everyone was so happy with how the cast looked that they thought everyone looked fat when it was scaled back to reality.  In the editor's defence, he said he really thought they all looked that slim so hadn't caught it earlier (he hadn't met the cast).   It really made me wonder if I was crazy for not doing it again on the next project. 

I mean, you cant make this up.  And, no- I won't be sharing the name of the show...

 

Ian


Ian Kerr csc

Cinematographer

Vancouver, Canada


Bernard Harper
 

On Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 02:02 AM, Jonathon Sendall wrote: ernard, I'd heard a story that Bing Crosby had his ears glued back in his early career-No idea if it's true or not but it made me laugh
It is easier to believe that people just looked at his youthful (standard lens) head-shots but did not recognise him because his trademark was missing. So they made-up the story to explain the later production-stills ears that are all taken from a respectful distance and with a very long lens :-) 

Bernie 

http://www.bernieharper.co.uk/research/

 
 

 
 

 
 
 


Bernard Harper
 

>A great, low-cost way to make everyone look slim (regardless of the lens) is to simply shoot in DCI and then squeeze the footage to fit a UHD release. Ian Kerr 

Hi Ian, was that a 5% squeeze along the horizontal?  I would recommend that anyway (for women only), and to shoot their close-ups from the 3-5 feet away. 

I have now heard from two sources that Jim Cameron was so concerned about Kate Winslet's on screen size he seriously considered an anamorphic squeeze just for her. Once again, J.C. is 25 years ahead of everyone else!!!

Bernie

http://www.bernieharper.co.uk/research/


John Brawley
 


Shhhhh

It’s been happening for many years, as long as I’ve been shooting anyway. 

I remember it was pretty routine to squeeze in telecine back in the early 90s. 

Last few shows I’ve done have also had something of a squeeze. 

I do find it’s better to do it overall rather than shot by shot because you notice it more against unsqueezed shots, especially with recognisable cast. 

I do wonder about taking responsibility for the health and well-being of our cast. For years we’re conditioned to “look after” woman, this feeding a culture of unobtainable self image. 

I always try to talk opening about with the actors I’m working with, men and woman.  

It’s an interesting discussion that maybe spins out of this. 

John Brawley
Cinematographer
London UK




On Jul 31, 2019 at 10:45 AM, <Bernard Harper> wrote:

>

I have now heard from two sources that Jim Cameron was so concerned about Kate Winslet's on screen size he seriously considered an anamorphic squeeze just for her. Once again, J.C. is 25 years ahead of everyone else!!  


Bernard Harper
 

> It’s an interesting discussion that maybe something spins out of this. John Brawley

I would love to establish the metric by which the actors real size and character size is managed on screen (regardless of focal length). It can be done, but everyone in the image chain all need to know what both metrics are, and if they diverge or converge. At the moment, it is a black art. And too often it goes badly wrong. Sophie Turner is one of countless thousands of "fat actresses" who have never been like that in realty. On my website I claim the fattening effect is the only optical aberration that is unstudied and uncorrected. In the early days of anamorphic "mumps," great efforts were made to ensure square squares and circular circles were reproduced across the whole range of lens combinations. But fat faces and bodies were just ignored when it is easier to hire a skinny actress.  

Bernie

 


Roberto Schaefer, ASC, AIC
 

I recall shooting music videos in the 80’s and 90’s when we would refer to the “Paula Abdul squeeze”. It was very common to squeeze horizontally in telecine to slim the singers on screen. It was usually done to a small percentage so as not to be too noticeable, just enough to make them appear slimmer. Of course it depended on who the singer / musician was...
And to note more about my wider lens and closer practice, I don’t recommend being so close (or so wide) as to cause distortion or goofy looking features. I would say that obviously one needs to use their judgement and experience to know what the limits might be. Unless of course you are trying to obtain an unusual comic or scary look. Refer to Joe Sedelmeir’s commercial work where he used wide lenses very close to the actor’s (male and female) faces for a comic effect. And of course early hip-hop music videos which often shot with 6mm or 8mm lenses for a dramatic effect.
R. Schaefer, ASC AIC ETC
melting down south 


Mark Weingartner, ASC
 

To these I would add the “signature” look of the Men in Black movies - Barry Sonnenfeld as director 

Mark Weingartner
LA based DP etc

On 31Jul, 2019, at 06:54 14, Ganzo <ganzo@...> wrote:

And of course early hip-hop music videos which often shot with 6mm or 8mm lenses for a dramatic effect.


Eric Wenocur
 

And let us not forget reports coming out about people considering plastic surgery because they have
been seeing themselves in photos taken with cell phones! The wide-angle lens used up close (like
in a selfie) gives that fish-eye distortion which makes everyone's nose look big. The idea that
people would begin to think that' s how they really look is troubling. Physics is unforgiving,
especially to the unaware.


Eric Wenocur
Lab Tech Systems
301-438-8270
301-802-5885 cell


On 7/30/19 9:35 AM, Bernard Harper wrote:
Hi Mitch,

     Camera-to-subject distance has a similarly dramatic effect: Gender, as explained here,

www.bernieharper.co.uk <http://www.bernieharper.co.uk>

www.bernieharper.co.uk/research/conclusions/ <http://www.bernieharper.co.uk/research/conclusions/>

I have revised the site recently and the effect is more clearly described. But it would be better
with a link to the new test :-)

Bernie Harper PhD

Vision Scientist/Stereographer

UK


Bernard Harper
 

 
>And let us not forget reports coming out about people considering plastic surgery because they have 
been seeing themselves in photos taken with cell phones!  Eric Wenocur

Hi Eric. The arms-length selfie is the least distorting type of portrait. But most people here will have seen debut actress performances and noted next time you saw them they lost vast amounts of weight. These are the people who are hitting the "health" clubs, going on fad diets and bankrupting themselves with plastic surgery.  It is a deeply unhealthy obsession caused by flawed imagery. Implicating cellphones is unhelpful, particularly when they offer a simple way to correct a problem (url below) that most professionals do not want to formally address.

Bernie
 


Eric Wenocur
 

Hi Bernie,

Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. My understanding is that plastic surgeons are getting requests from
people (girls presumably) for nose jobs because their noses look big in cell-phone pix. The
distortion also produces narrowing of the face, but that's not necessarily good. In your two photos
of Sophie Turner (who I am not familiar with) I'd call the left photo "natural" and the right one
distorted. I don't see that as an improvement, but I also don't know what she actually looks like.
I wouldn't even think those shots are the same person!

The photo in the middle of the article looks reasonable to me, and I'm surprised it's from a cell
phone at close proximity, but the right-hand shot still looks more natural. Plus, the degree of
distortion will depend on the imager and lens in a given phone.

In any case, I don't doubt your important points about the effect of inaccurate imagery on
self-image, perceived image, etc.


Eric Wenocur
Lab Tech Systems
301-438-8270
301-802-5885 cell


On 7/31/19 10:52 AM, Bernard Harper wrote:
>And let us not forget reports coming out about people considering plastic surgery because they have
been seeing themselves in photos taken with cell phones!  Eric Wenocur

Hi Eric. The arms-length selfie is the least distorting type of portrait. But most people here will
have seen debut actress performances and noted next time you saw them they lost vast amounts of
weight. These are the people who are hitting the "health" clubs, going on fad diets and bankrupting
themselves with plastic surgery.  It is a deeply unhealthy obsession caused by flawed imagery.
Implicating cellphones is unhelpful, particularly when they offer a simple way to correct a problem
(url below) that most professionals do not want to formally address.

Bernie
http://www.bernieharper.co.uk/research/conclusions/


Bernard Harper
 

> My understanding is that plastic surgeons are getting requests from people (girls presumably) for nose jobs because their noses look big in cell-phone pix.> n any case, I don't doubt your important points about the effect of inaccurate imagery on self-image, perceived image, etc.

Hi Eric, Thank you!  Sophie Turner (she really is the same person in both pics!) is the latest in a long line of young actresses who have never been overweight but have been pressured to lose vast amounts of it.  The latest pap shots suggest she has now succumbed to the pressure.

 

    The research indicates there is no ideal method of reproduction of body image in 2D. Identifying what is the least worst is intriguing, because the selfie generation has also discovered that 2.5 to 3-5 feet away with a high quality lens can work well, which is precisely what the research indicated.  The point for me is about what is best practice when nothing the operator can do can be perfect. And as we know, on-screen talent is endlessly linked to plastic surgery.  I think what motivates “civilians” to opt for the knife (or extreme dieting) may be fundamentally different to what the stars are doing. In the case of S.T.,  minor changes in the way she was lit and photographed could have made a real difference to her mental and physical health. And as she was cast as a child and grew up in front of the camera, the obligation to do no harm seems more obvious for actresses like her. 

Bernie

www.bernieharper.co.uk

 


Bob Kertesz
 

Shhhhh

It’s been happening for many years, as long as I’ve been shooting anyway. 

I remember it was pretty routine to squeeze in telecine back in the early 90s.

I was asked to squeeze the images on a Rank Cintel on an expensive high end music video in the mid-eighties. The quite famous female performers were adamant about having it happen, although I did have to talk them back a bit on the amount they wanted. It's kind of obvious if you know what to look for...the bass drum behind them was more vertically oval, for example.

So yeah, many years.

-Bob

Bob Kertesz
BlueScreen LLC
Hollywood, California

Engineer, Video Controller, and Live Compositor Extraordinaire.

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

* * * * * * * * * *


Jeff Kreines
 

On Jul 31, 2019, at 11:53 AM, Bob Kertesz <bob@...> wrote:

the bass drum behind them was more vertically oval, for example.
What!? Those weren’t special oval drums made for girl groups?

Next you’ll be telling me that those wagon wheel spokes that spin backwards aren’t real!

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@...
kinetta.com

Sent from iPhone.


Luis Gomes <gomes.luis@...>
 

One request. 
CML general is now CML chat. 
Let’s simplify things Geoff. 

Luis. 
Turkey. 
Saw some tv crew today. Nobody had headphones. 

Finland. Same o. 
--
Luis Gomes

Conforming
Digital Media Services
Field and News Gathering
Post Production


Geoff Boyle
 

Herding cats 😊

 

I try asking people to use chat but they don’t until I smack them.

 

I really don’t want to hit anyone, but I will if you make me…

 

cheers
Geoff Boyle NSC FBKS
EU based cinematographer
+31 637155076

www.gboyle.nl

www.cinematography.net

 

 

From: cml-general@... <cml-general@...> On Behalf Of Luis Gomes
Sent: 31 July 2019 23:24
To: cml-general@...
Subject: Re: [cml-general] A lesson in perspective

 

One request. 

CML general is now CML chat. 

Let’s simplify things Geoff. 

 

Luis. 

Turkey. 

Saw some tv crew today. Nobody had headphones. 

 

Finland. Same o. 

--

Luis Gomes

 

Conforming

Digital Media Services

Field and News Gathering

Post Production


Luis Gomes <gomes.luis@...>
 

Hey Geoff. My ten cents. 
I think I am not even subscribed to CML chat. 
And what is CML chat? I can post I had good pizza today?
CML general makes sense in my thinking. But true! I haven’t really red the “mods” descriptions. 
But really nice thread from CML general. 
Fat women. DPs fault. Bing Crosby and his glued ears. And people having plastic surgery to be more “Snapchat” adequate. 
Great stuff. 

I loved the extreme technical explanation from mr . Bob Kertesz  Makes my wonders. Are this people like boat captains with extremely accurate captains logs?

Luis. 
Back to work. 
Feels like flipping burgers. 
Finland. 

Lots of cats in Alanya. 
Sad story. 
--
Luis Gomes

Conforming
Digital Media Services
Field and News Gathering
Post Production