Gianluca, where did the idea of writing a book about lenses come from? Why did you feel the need to

put this knowledge down on paper?

There are already plenty of books about cinema lenses and optical phenomena, so my motivation certainly wasn't driven by a lack of resources in the field. My reasons were both personal and practical. First and foremost, there's my enormous passion for cinema, cinematography and photography. But there's also the fascinating thought that these highly technical and technologically sophisticated tools are ultimately used to tell stories that end up on a screen and move an audience. And yet, everything passes through a lens and a camera. That's what fascinated me from an early age. I discovered this world by visiting film sets from the age of three, thanks to my father, a well-known Italian production designer. Later, I attended film screenings organised by my local parish film club in Rome, followed by my studies at the European Academy of Special Effects, directed by Academy Award winner Carlo Rambaldi. My journey is described in detail, and with a touch of humour, in the introduction to the book. Who did you have in mind while writing the book: VFX artists in general, cinematographers, or anyone who works with images? What do you think is missing from the resources currently available? Having worked in this industry for more than 25 years, I've met countless interesting people who share my passion and have an impressive level of technical expertise. I've also met many directors who, while artistically accomplished, clearly lacked a sufficient technical background. I believe filmmakers should have an in-depth understanding of their expressive tools when telling a story. Think of a painter who chooses one brush over another to achieve different strokes, textures and nuances in a painting. A painter needs to know their brushes and tools.
Ultimately, an artist's job is to translate what's in their mind into something tangible, so that it can be visualised, brought to life and shared with others. The same applies to cinema. A director needs to understand the camera, just as they need to understand their ‘eye’ — in other words, the lens. Many of the world's most talented and celebrated directors have a profound understanding of their medium and a genuine passion for the technical side of filmmaking. Then there are visual effects artists, the category I belong to. Here, too, I've met many outstanding artists. But I've also discovered that a great many others have no natural passion for photography or the visual arts in general. They tend to approach visual effects almost mechanically, working on shots simply to make them look better. They often don't even ask which lens was used to shoot a particular shot, let alone
consider the characteristics of that specific lens. Learning to click through the tools in a graphics application until you achieve a result is one thing. Understanding what's behind an image and the story it tells is quite another. I feel there's still a gap between the world of production and the world of post-production. Each side knows a little — or assumes it knows — about what's happening on the other side. In my view, however, these two worlds still don't communicate enough. It's nobody's fault in particular. It's the result of a dialogue that never properly happened because a bridge was never built. In some cases, it may also stem from the dangerous and unproductive assumption that one already knows everything, combined with a degree of negligence. This happens on both sides. Sometimes cinematographers, directors and other crew members make decisions on set without fully considering the implications for post-production. They assume everything can be fixed almost automatically later, or they fail to give the on-set VFX Supervisor enough time to ensure a shot will work properly, capture the necessary data and so on. On the other hand, in post-production, there's often a tendency to look at a shot as a problem to be solved, without asking why a particular aesthetic decision was made in the first place. Visual effects companies, increasingly squeezed by shrinking budgets and overwhelmed by workloads, sometimes fail to provide their artists with important technical information about the production history of a particular shot. Instead, they present it simply as a problem that needs fixing. I've also often heard artists criticise how a scene was shot, confidently declaring how they would have done it themselves if they'd been on set. What they may not realise is that the crew could have worked incredibly hard to capture the shot as effectively as possible, given the technical challenges, camera equipment, lens choices and logistical constraints of the set. Such judgements are often rooted in a complete lack of foundational knowledge of cinematography. Ultimately, I've also discovered that many filmmakers are unfamiliar with certain characteristics of cinema lenses. As a result, they may be missing opportunities to tell their stories in a more personal and distinctive way. In the age of digital cinematography, where the immediacy of the visual result is an undeniable convenience, it's become relatively rare to capture a shot that's technically wrong. But that doesn't automatically make us complete cinematographers or filmmakers. A deeper understanding of our tools allows us to achieve an even more compelling aesthetic result than a simple, sterile, razor-sharp digital image. As I mentioned, there are plenty of educational resources on cinematography. However, I've noticed that many delve too deeply into the technical details of optical engineering, moving away from the practical knowledge an artist actually needs. My book does cover some optical principles, but without going overboard or getting lost in engineering details, simply because that's not what an artist needs. If you want to build a career as an optical engineer, this isn't the right book for you. Every subject, including the more technical ones, is approached from the perspective of its aesthetic impact. The book is also interactive, allowing readers to access high-resolution content from a repository, including still frames and video footage, captured using more than 80 lenses that I tested while writing the book, across several different camera systems. So, in a nutshell, this book is intended for anyone working creatively with the cinematic image.
Do you remember the first time you realised how radically a lens could change the look of an image? There wasn't really a single defining moment. I'd say I'm a cinema enthusiast, and when watching a film, I can recognise when an image genuinely moves me — perhaps because the technical choices, combined with the camera angle, successfully convey a powerful emotion. I love Steven Spielberg's films. He's exactly the kind of director I was referring to earlier: someone with a profound understanding of cinematography, which is clearly evident in his mastery of visual storytelling. I still remember certain shots in Indiana Jones where the use of rack focus and depth of field gives action sequences extraordinary impact. Then there's Schindler's List, where the decision to shoot in black and white was incredibly effective. I'm also struck by the way the film highlights the tragedy experienced by children during the Holocaust
through delicate compositions and shifts in focus. We also see a little girl who, despite not having a central role in the story, manages to create an incredibly powerful emotional impact. To me, that's perfect cinema: shots created with a clear understanding of both the technical medium and the visual and emotional language of filmmaking. I could also mention Saving Private Ryan, where the use of a narrow camera shutter angle makes the images even more dramatic, frantic and stroboscopic. It helps recreate a battlefield that feels more real than cinematic. It was a deliberate creative choice.
Why is it so important for VFX artists to know which lens was used to shoot a scene? First of all, when working with moving images and, for example, inserting a computer-generated element into a shot, the first stage is camera tracking. This involves reconstructing the camera's movement in order to generate a digital camera that CG artists can use in their animation software. This ensures that the generated elements adhere correctly to the original footage — in other words, that they appear properly anchored to the image. Before this stage, however, it's essential to know which lens was used during filming, its focal length, the camera model and the sensor size. These details, together with special footage of distortion grids, are needed to temporarily remove lens distortion during the animation and rendering stages.
What are the most common mistakes you see VFX artists make when trying to replicate the behaviour of a lens? Lens characteristics such as field curvature, coma and even anamorphic compression often work together to create a lens's distinctive look. Many artists, however, simply try to imitate the overall appearance without realising that what they're seeing may be the result of several different optical phenomena interacting with one another. Understanding these phenomena can make a significant difference to a digital artist's approach to creating a visual effect.
How much of an image's cinematic character comes from the lens, and how much comes from lighting, the sensor and exposure? Cinematography is a collaborative art, and this applies both to the many professionals involved in the creative and technical process and to the technology itself. I always like to use this comparison when talking about cinematography. Lighting, sensor type and size, exposure, the use of filters and many other factors all contribute to the overall look of an image. Every one of them matters. The book contains several chapters devoted specifically to the creative side of cinematography and to the different tools available to shape a shot. Beyond the lenses themselves, which obviously play a major role in creating a visual look, sensor size and the final delivery and projection format are also fundamental.
During compositing, artists then reapply the corresponding distortion to the rendered CG elements so that they integrate correctly into the original image, or plate. But that's only the most basic and straightforward aspect of the process. There are many other lens characteristics that need to be recreated and applied to computer-generated imagery to achieve seamless integration with the lens used for filming. We explore these aspects in the book, too.
Sensor size, for example, can influence depth-of-field behaviour, which means depth of field doesn't depend solely on focal length. With today's large-format camera systems, it's possible to achieve shots with several distinct planes of focus that appear even more three-dimensional, as well as shallower depth of field. These characteristics are particularly appealing for intimate scenes or situations where the story calls for greater separation between characters and the background. The capture and projection format also plays a role. Most films we see in cinemas use a widescreen format, but a more square aspect ratio may be appropriate when verticality is a fundamental element of the story. Naturally, this also affects composition and even the required accuracy and scale of production design, among other things.
How important is it to distinguish a lens-related issue from a lighting problem when creating visual effects? How does your knowledge of lenses influence your decisions when supervising a VFX sequence? Whenever I go on set as a VFX Supervisor, I always make sure to find out well in advance which cameras and lenses will be used. If you can establish a good working relationship with the Director of Photography and the camera team, it's also worth discussing whether a particular lens or shooting technique is appropriate for the planned post- production work or the effect being created. I'm the kind of supervisor who wants to have all the relevant data available and avoid surprises on set — or at least minimise them, because there will always be a few. Having a supervisor on set is particularly important because, for example, despite blue screens having been used since the 1940s, there's still a great deal of negligence and inconsistency when it comes to lighting them. It's true that today's digital tools allow us to remove blue screens more easily and accurately. However, that doesn't diminish the importance of having a blue or green screen that is properly and evenly lit, positioned at the right distance from the actors, and free from obvious seams, patches or repairs. These issues can slow down rather than speed up the VFX process and, ultimately, affect the quality of the final result. I can't mention any specific films, but I've worked on scenes shot inside large sound stages with blue or green screens, intended to look as though they took place outdoors. Unfortunately, many cinematographers struggle to visualise the final appearance of such scenes and tend to light the actors in a somewhat theatrical way. The key light can end up being far too obvious, hard and directional, undermining the illusion that the actors are standing in an outdoor environment. The distance between the actors and the screen is also often underestimated. At a certain size, the screen itself becomes a substantial light reflector. In all these situations, consulting the VFX Supervisor and/or VFX Cinematographer is crucial. Just imagine what it means in post-production to
have to correct the lighting on the actors before they can be convincingly integrated into a background added later. There are other considerations, too. Modern cameras and lenses can record metadata and other information that is useful to VFX artists, provided it is communicated properly. However, certain details can cause problems in post- production if they aren't documented adequately. For example, consider the use of an additional Diopter or a Lens Extender. These details can easily be overlooked during filming, and they aren't normally recorded by the camera. As a result, the effective focal length of a shot and its depth of field may differ from what you would expect based on the lens's nominal focal length. The depth of field may also be altered. This can create problems during camera tracking, potentially leading to an inaccurate result because we're unaware of the underlying cause. That's just one small example of an issue I discuss in much greater depth in the book.
Distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, bokeh, breathing and fall-off: which of these phenomena is most often overlooked? I'd say these characteristics are often not properly captured or profiled. In reality, several techniques can be used to create a kind of digital profile of a lens, and I describe them in the book as well. Of course, much depends on whether you can test the lenses before the film shoot begins. I consider this extremely important. In my view, it's essential to understand the eye through which you'll be seeing the scenes you're going to work on. Every lens is different, even when it's the same brand, model and focal length. That's why it's always worth arranging a lens-testing session before shooting begins, ideally alongside the tests that cinematographers and camera assistants routinely carry out before heading to set. Take lens breathing, for example. It's particularly noticeable in vintage lenses and many anamorphic lenses. If we're working on shots that involve focus pulls and need CG elements added to them, lens breathing is something we'll have to account for. Once again, lens testing can help us establish values to use in post-production to simulate the focus- breathing ratio and reproduce it digitally on CG elements. Bokeh is another important aesthetic characteristic of a lens. Its shape, internal texture and softness should ideally be recreated using dedicated lens tests. I discuss some of these techniques in the book. Bokeh is such a distinctive visual feature that cinematographers may choose particular lenses specifically for their out-of-focus rendering. Naturally, they expect CG elements to exhibit the same look.
Can we truly recreate the character of a real lens digitally, or will something always be lost? Could AI convincingly simulate a lens's behaviour without actually understanding the underlying physics? We're still some way from achieving highly faithful lens profiling using traditional techniques. One reason is that the major lens manufacturers are still exploring how best to provide digital data that allows these characteristics to be recreated and simulated without making the process excessively complex, expensive or time-consuming. This is a crucial consideration. If the process becomes too complicated, people may simply decide not to undertake it at all. That would mean some lens characteristics would continue to be simulated manually, essentially by eye.Some optical characteristics are extremely difficult to measure. Obtaining perfectly accurate data can sometimes require examining and measuring the internal components of a lens — which isn't a viable option — or designing specialised devices and methodologies to extract the necessary information.On the other hand, some machine-learning tools are beginning to offer interesting alternatives and possibilities, particularly algorithms based on look transfer. Essentially, you can train a system on the aesthetic characteristics of a particular lens and then transfer that look to another image.I've personally tried and tested some of these tools, and I have to say they're promising. However, the ones I've tested were general-purpose simulators based on specific lenses that users can select.But what happens when you need to train a look-transfer system for a particular set of lenses on a specific project? How long would it take, and who would be responsible for doing it? At present, there are still many questions to answer and workflows to develop before we can provide definitive answers.
We understand that you've also worked as a VFX Cinematographer on film and advertising productions. What does the role involve? The title VFX Cinematographer is particularly appropriate for someone with a solid background in cinematography and camera technology, an in-depth understanding of cinema lenses, and knowledge of how they influence the final result in compositing and CGI. For example, if a professional works on set alongside the Director of Photography (DoP) to define lens choices, monitor image characteristics, capture tracking data and ensure the proper integration of CG elements, the term VFX Cinematographer accurately describes their area of expertise. If that person also leads the entire VFX department and oversees its creative and technical decisions, VFX Supervisor with a specialisation in cinematography might be a more precise title. It's essentially a technical support role that requires an in-depth understanding of post-production and visual effects, as well as cinematography. It sits very close to the role of a VFX Supervisor and can be crucial on sets where specific scenes require extensive visual effects. In my view, the VFX Cinematographer should have a particularly close working relationship with the lead Director of Photography. They should be able to advise on matters such as lighting green or blue screens in relation to the actors and production design, while also anticipating and recommending shooting techniques that make the footage effective not only from a storytelling perspective but also in terms of VFX production. Some VFX Cinematographers may also be asked to manage and shoot scenes themselves, particularly those handled by a splinter unit or second unit. Personally, whenever possible, I prefer to discuss and share ideas about lighting and aesthetics with the lead Director of Photography, so that we can establish the key visual and technical aspects of the shoot together.
Optical imperfections are often considered flaws that need correcting. When do they become part of an image's beauty? Is there a difference between a technically correct image and one that genuinely feels cinematic? That's a wonderful question. While writing this book, I've tested a great many lenses, and I'll continue testing them for Cinematically to keep up with developments in cinema technology. Throughout this process, I can't say I've encountered a lens I'd consider inherently worse than another. Each has its own identity within the context for which it was designed, and each may have a place in a particular kind of storytelling. Sometimes, lenses that are considerably less expensive than others can produce a much more interesting look for the visual result you're trying to achieve. Technical perfection and the intrinsic quality of a lens don't always guarantee the best outcome. It ultimately depends on the story you're telling. For some projects, a geometrically perfect, high-contrast lens with extraordinary sharpness may be absolutely appropriate. In other contexts, we might want precisely the opposite. Let me give you a simple example. For a period drama, I might favour a visual aesthetic built around lenses that produce a more organic image and render skin tones in a softer, more flattering way, enhancing the romantic and ethereal qualities of certain characters. The same might apply to a fairy tale or a romantic fantasy. In some cases, certain aberrations can even help give a film an older, more period- specific appearance.
I'm reminded of the series Downton Abbey, which used Cooke S4 lenses, known for their somewhat classic look and warm rendering, with strong yet gentle microcontrast. Then there's The Crown, where Cooke Speed Panchro lenses were used for their low-contrast character and softness. I could also mention We Live in Time, the 2024 British romantic drama, which used Panavision PVintage lenses to achieve a very soft, natural look and avoid excessive sharpness. For science fiction or a crime thriller, I might instead opt for sharper, higher-contrast lenses. One example that comes to mind is Season 1 of Black Doves, where the cinematographer used Panavision Panaspeed lenses, known for their high definition, rich detail and pronounced contrast. Ultimately, the type of storytelling determines the choice. For a sharper, more hard-edged story, I'd favour a sharper look. For something romantic, fantastical or perhaps a comedy with more nuanced characters, I might choose a softer lens. Of course, these so-called rules can be completely overturned when you're deliberately pursuing a different aesthetic. The same applies to the choice between spherical and anamorphic lenses. By virtue of their optical design and visual characteristics, anamorphic lenses are often well suited to productions featuring expansive environments and landscape shots. But they can also be used in confined spaces, with the deliberate intention of creating claustrophobia, unease, an otherworldly atmosphere or, in more extreme cases, a sense of hallucination. We discuss these kinds of aesthetic decisions in the book, and some of the cinematographers I interviewed for the final chapter also share their personal perspectives on the subject.
How much should VFX artists know about lenses compared with people working on set? As I've already mentioned, I believe it's essential to understand the entire image-capture process, not just the lenses but also the cameras and the rigs used to mount them and execute camera movements. This doesn't apply exclusively to VFX artists. Every department involved in visual storytelling should have a good understanding of cinematography, albeit at different levels. Even in production design and costume design, when choosing a fabric for a set or selecting an actor's wardrobe, it's important to consider not only how well it fits the story and narrative but also how it will appear on screen under the lighting being used. It would also be valuable to maintain close communication with the Director of Photography, who might be considering low-contrast or high-contrast lenses. That decision can have a significant influence on the
choice of colours, fabrics and even furniture for a particular environment. When I think of Guillermo del Toro's most recent Frankenstein, I remember visiting the exhibition of props, makeup and costumes from the film here in London. The meticulous study of the colour palette in relation to the atmosphere of the cinematography and the lighting was truly what gave the film's overall aesthetic its distinctive identity. The same applies to visual effects artists. We work in film and television, so I believe a solid understanding of aesthetics and cinematography is absolutely fundamental. And by cinematography, I mean not only camera technology but also the lighting of actors and sets.
How important is it to understand the physics behind an image compared with relying on visual experience and artistic intuition? It's enough to say that you need to know the rules before you can break them. You can experiment with any kind of creative expression or aesthetic deviation you like, but you first need to understand the fundamentals. I believe this applies to every form of artistic creation.
With the evolution of digital cameras, has the character of lenses become more or less important? The character of a lens and the choice of which lens to use have always been fundamental to cinematic storytelling, ever since film was the only way to shoot a movie. Back then, people often looked for the sharpest lenses available to compensate for the softness inherent in film. With digital cinematography, the trend has reversed. We're now looking for lenses with less-than-perfect characteristics to add texture to digital images, which can seem almost too perfect because of increasingly advanced sensors. The aim is to make images feel more optical and filmic rather than precise and sterile. Film, as a visual medium, has a set of aesthetic characteristics that we've all absorbed into our perception of cinema. They allow us to distinguish a film almost immediately from a documentary, a music video or a commercial. When we see an image, we often recognise straight away whether it belongs to a film, not only because of the composition but also because of its aesthetic character — what we describe as cinematic. And that look is often anything but visually perfect or precise. In fact, sometimes the softer and less sharply defined an image is, the more authentic it feels. It's a little like painting. Imagine a painter achieving such technical perfection that they can recreate a scene so realistically that it looks like a photograph. We'd certainly appreciate their technical skill, but we'd probably still be more drawn to Caravaggio's depiction of people and environments, with his distinctive painterly, almost cinematic and dreamlike quality.
Today, almost any optical effect can be added digitally. Do you think this has improved the work of VFX artists, or does it risk making them less attentive to the original cinematography? I think this capability becomes dangerous when a digital artist stops asking whether they're actually reproducing the optical characteristics of a lens and simply takes it for granted that they'll be able to do so. It's true that visual effects now allow us to do practically anything. But it's essential to maintain a critical eye, learn to observe the world around us, understand how things behave and how light works — and, above all, study how the world looks through a camera. Cinema is, of course, an illusion, it’s fiction. Directors sometimes deliberately bend the rules to make their images more cinematic. That doesn't necessarily mean making them realistic or mathematically accurate, but rather making them serve the visual narrative and enrich the aesthetic result. Personally, the first thing I always ask my VFX artists to do before starting work on a shot is to understand its visual geography. That means identifying the direction of the key light, understanding the optical characteristics of the lens used, analysing areas of the image containing reflections, highlights and shadows and studying the camera movement, among other things. So, to answer your question, I believe it's vital for VFX artists to understand cinematography and, in particular, to be familiar with what was actually captured on set. From this perspective, we supervisors use various techniques during production to collect different kinds of data, photographs and reference images that will be useful in post-production and help artists understand the geography of the set as if they had been there themselves. I discuss these techniques extensively in the book, too.
With AI tools capable of generating or modifying images, how important will it remain to understand how a real lens behaves? Could knowledge of optics become an even greater advantage in a world where images are increasingly easy to generate? Artificial intelligence tools used in the arts learn from the material we feed them. If one day we were no longer able to provide them with new ideas, creativity and knowledge — or simply stopped doing so — these tools would have no choice but to recombine existing information. That could lead to aesthetic homogenisation. And if machines continued learning from that increasingly homogenised aesthetic, we could end up witnessing a form of regression. My point is that human creativity is what moves the world forward, and this applies far beyond the arts. Returning to your question, I don't believe images are necessarily easy to generate. Or rather, generating them has certainly become technically easier for people who previously lacked the ability or knowledge to do so. Today, anyone can generate an image, but that doesn't automatically make them a director or filmmaker. The idea always matters, as does the artistic training that gives you the tools to bring it to life. What worries me a little is the possibility that, when an artist cannot recreate what's genuinely in their mind, they might eventually settle for whatever an AI tool produces simply because it's the best result they can get. Becoming creatively lazy and accepting compromises could be the beginning of an aesthetic decline in the arts. And that would be a bitter punishment we'd have inflicted on ourselves, regardless of the technology. I understand cinematography — and always will — as a collaborative art form in which direct contact with the physical world is the only truly meaningful way to learn. I also believe in sharing knowledge and interacting with other artists. This is an invaluable source of richness that makes a film more compelling and convincing. The same applies to technical knowledge. If one day we all end up confined to our homes, making films on our computers, we'll not only face a global glut of content and projects that nobody will ever watch; I'm also convinced we'll lose many of the aesthetic qualities that define cinematography. That's simply because new generations of artists may never have worked on a set or experienced the characteristics of real camera systems firsthand. The risk is that we abandon our aesthetic heritage and replace it with images that feel sterile and increasingly similar to one another.
What technical skills do you think will be essential for VFX artists over the next ten years? Certainly, learning how to use AI tools and adapt them to your own creative needs will be the next step. AI is already here. It's no longer even new, so learning to embrace these tools from a technical perspective while maintaining a critical and objective eye is absolutely essential. Some artists are strongly opposed to these systems because they fear being replaced. But technological progress is inevitable, and failing to keep up with this revolution means being left behind. In that case, we'd be putting ourselves out of the market, rather than the technology itself doing it for us. We need to learn how to evolve our work and technical abilities. In some cases, new and innovative opportunities may even emerge that improve our professional standing.
That said, the visual effects industry has been using machine-learning tools for some time in certain stages of production, sometimes with remarkably useful results. However, there is a problem with becoming fixated on them. I'm referring to artists who insist on using AI tools simply because they're fashionable, because they believe they're now the only viable solution, or perhaps because they lack proficiency in some traditional VFX techniques. This can end up undermining productivity. Using machine-learning systems often amounts to a gamble: you try something and hope you're lucky enough to get an acceptable result after a few iterations. But when it doesn't work, persisting with the same approach simply wastes working time. AI should make us faster, not slower! Otherwise, it becomes a paradox. That's why, when I'm supervising visual effects work at a company, I always tell artists who want to experiment with machine-learning techniques to give themselves no more than an hour and a half. If the results aren't promising by then, they should return to traditional methods. Otherwise, productivity and the company's production schedule will suffer. If you multiply the hours wasted pursuing unsuccessful AI solutions across all the artists involved in a production, you end up throwing away a considerable amount of money. There have been reports of visual effects companies having to hire large numbers of artists to fix work that artificial intelligence has done badly. Is the world turning upside down? Are we handing creativity over to machines and turning ourselves into fixers? Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around? Weren't these tools meant to help us work more efficiently? That's why I believe AI must be adapted to our actual needs rather than becoming an obsession for artists. Above all, we need to learn how to train and direct these tools — and train ourselves to use them properly — so that we can achieve the aesthetic quality we're aiming for. Nothing less. We must avoid compromising our standards. By the way, in professional filmmaking, the level of detail is extraordinarily high. Nobody can afford to settle for a visual solution that doesn't work properly.
What's the one idea you hope readers will remember after finishing the book? A passion for the film image. Which subject required the most research or was the most difficult to explain? Probably astigmatism. It's an optical aberration that can occur in a lens, but it's difficult to find in practice and also quite complex to explain. We've noticed that the book cover says "Volume 1". Should we expect a Volume 2? Is there another subject you'd like to explore in greater depth or turn into a new book? Oh, there are still so many things to add — things I might even have included in Volume 1, because cinematography is constantly evolving and changing. But I would have needed more than a thousand pages! That's one of the reasons this website now exists, too. The idea is to create a point of reference for filmmakers, cinematographers and VFX artists, where they can share their passion for cinematography and explore its technical side. We'll test lenses and talk about equipment and technology. At least, that's the plan! Beyond that, there will certainly be a Volume 2 of Cinematically. This time, the focus will be more specifically on cinematic language and shot composition. That, too, comes from a passion I've had since childhood: keeping a little notebook in which I'd write down all the interesting shots I came across while watching films. The second volume will therefore focus more closely on visual storytelling through the language of cinematography and composition.
It's a style that feels more expressive and authentic than merely precise and descriptive. For example, when I visit the National Gallery, I love Canaletto's highly realistic depictions of Venice, with their extraordinary level of visible detail. He's one of my favourite painters. Then I move on to Caravaggio or Rembrandt. Even though everything feels softer and more painterly, and the lighting is far more atmospheric, their work still feels more authentic and alive to me. It's difficult to explain exactly what cinematic means because it's an aesthetic feeling that seems to be innate in all of us. My point is that the renewed interest in a slightly more vintage look in cinema stems precisely from the desire to recapture that optical quality and sense of authenticity.

To learn more about Gianluca Dentici , please click here or visit his website www.gianlucadentici.com

Gianluca, where did the idea of writing a book about

lenses come from? Why did you feel the need to put this

knowledge down on paper?

There are already plenty of books about cinema lenses and optical phenomena, so my motivation certainly wasn't driven by a lack of resources in the field. My reasons were both personal and practical. First and foremost, there's my enormous passion for cinema, cinematography and photography. But there's also the fascinating thought that these highly technical and technologically sophisticated tools are ultimately used to tell stories that end up on a screen and move an audience. And yet, everything passes through a lens and a camera. That's what fascinated me from an early age. I discovered this world by visiting film sets from the age of three, thanks to my father, a well-known Italian production designer. Later, I attended film screenings organised by my local parish film club in Rome, followed by my studies at the European Academy of Special Effects, directed by Academy Award winner Carlo Rambaldi. My journey is described in detail, and with a touch of humour, in the introduction to the book.
Who did you have in mind while writing the book: VFX artists in general, cinematographers, or anyone who works with images? What do you think is missing from the resources currently available? Having worked in this industry for more than 25 years, I've met countless interesting people who share my passion and have an impressive level of technical expertise. I've also met many directors who, while artistically accomplished, clearly lacked a sufficient technical background. I believe filmmakers should have an in-depth understanding of their expressive tools when telling a story. Think of a painter who chooses one brush over another to achieve different strokes, textures and nuances in a painting. A painter needs to know their brushes and tools. Ultimately, an artist's job is to translate what's in their mind into something tangible, so that it can be visualised, brought to life and shared with others. The same applies to cinema. A director
needs to understand the camera, just as they need to understand their ‘eye’ — in other words, the lens. Many of the world's most talented and celebrated directors have a profound understanding of their medium and a genuine passion for the technical side of filmmaking. Then there are visual effects artists, the category I belong to. Here, too, I've met many outstanding artists. But I've also discovered that a great many
others have no natural passion for photography or the visual arts in general. They tend to approach visual effects almost mechanically, working on shots simply to make them look better. They often don't even ask which lens was used to shoot a particular shot, let alone consider the characteristics of that specific lens. Learning to click through the tools in a graphics application until you achieve a result is one thing. Understanding what's behind an image and the story it tells is quite another. I feel there's still a gap between the world of production and the world of post-production. Each side knows a little — or assumes it knows — about what's happening on the other side. In my view, however, these two worlds still don't communicate enough. It's nobody's fault in particular. It's the result of a dialogue that never properly happened because a bridge was never built. In some cases, it may also stem from the dangerous and unproductive assumption that one already knows everything, combined with a degree of negligence. This happens on both sides. Sometimes cinematographers, directors and other crew members make decisions on set without fully considering the implications for post-production. They assume everything can be fixed almost automatically later, or they fail to give the on-set VFX Supervisor enough time to ensure a shot will work properly, capture the necessary data and so on. On the other hand, in post-production, there's often a tendency to look at a shot as a problem to be solved, without asking why a particular aesthetic decision was made in the first place. Visual effects companies, increasingly squeezed by shrinking budgets and overwhelmed by workloads, sometimes fail to provide their artists with important technical information about the production history of a particular shot. Instead, they present it simply as a problem that needs fixing.
I've also often heard artists criticise how a scene was shot, confidently declaring how they would have done it themselves if they'd been on set. What they may not realise is that the crew could have worked incredibly hard to capture the shot as effectively as possible, given the technical challenges, camera equipment, lens choices and logistical constraints of the set. Such judgements are often rooted in a complete lack of foundational knowledge of cinematography. Ultimately, I've also discovered that many filmmakers are unfamiliar with certain characteristics of cinema lenses. As a result, they may be missing opportunities to
tell their stories in a more personal and distinctive way. In the age of digital cinematography, where the immediacy of the visual result is an undeniable convenience, it's become relatively rare to capture a shot that's technically wrong. But that doesn't automatically make us complete cinematographers or filmmakers. A deeper understanding of our tools allows us to achieve an even more compelling aesthetic result than a simple, sterile, razor-sharp digital image. As I mentioned, there are plenty of educational resources on cinematography. However, I've noticed that many delve too deeply into the technical details of optical engineering, moving away from the practical knowledge an artist actually needs. My book does cover some optical principles, but without going overboard or getting lost in engineering details, simply because that's not what an artist needs. If you want to build a career as an optical engineer, this isn't the right book for you. Every subject, including the more technical ones, is approached from the perspective of its aesthetic impact. The book is also interactive, allowing readers to access high-resolution content from a repository, including still frames and video footage, captured using more than 80 lenses that I tested while writing the book, across several different camera systems. So, in a nutshell, this book is intended for anyone working creatively with the cinematic image.
Do you remember the first time you realised how radically a lens could change the look of an image? There wasn't really a single defining moment. I'd say I'm a cinema enthusiast, and when watching a film, I can recognise when an image genuinely moves me — perhaps because the technical choices, combined with the camera angle, successfully convey a powerful emotion. I love Steven Spielberg's films. He's exactly the kind of director I was referring to earlier: someone with a profound understanding of cinematography, which is clearly evident in his mastery of visual storytelling. I still remember certain shots in Indiana Jones where the use of rack focus and depth of field gives action sequences extraordinary impact. Then there's Schindler's List, where the decision to shoot in black and white was incredibly effective. I'm also struck by the way the film highlights the tragedy experienced by children during the Holocaust through delicate compositions and shifts in focus. We also see a little girl who, despite not having a central role in the story, manages to create an incredibly powerful emotional impact. To me, that's perfect cinema: shots created with a clear understanding of both the technical medium and the visual and emotional language of filmmaking. I could also mention Saving Private Ryan, where the use of a narrow camera shutter angle makes the images even more dramatic, frantic and stroboscopic. It helps recreate a battlefield that feels more real than cinematic. It was a deliberate creative choice.
Why is it so important for VFX artists to know which lens was used to shoot a scene? First of all, when working with moving images and, for example, inserting a computer-generated element into a shot, the first stage is camera tracking. This involves reconstructing the camera's movement in order to generate a digital camera that CG artists can use in their animation software. This ensures that the generated elements adhere correctly to the original footage
— in other words, that they appear properly anchored to the image. Before this stage, however, it's essential to know which lens was used during filming, its focal length, the camera model and the sensor size. These details, together with special footage of distortion grids, are needed to temporarily remove lens distortion during the animation and rendering stages. During compositing, artists then reapply the corresponding distortion to the rendered CG elements so that they integrate correctly into the original image, or plate. But that's only the most basic and straightforward aspect of the process. There are many other lens characteristics that need to be recreated and applied to computer-generated imagery to achieve seamless integration with the lens used for filming. We explore these aspects in the book, too.
What are the most common mistakes you see VFX artists make when trying to replicate the behaviour of a lens? Lens characteristics such as field curvature, coma and even anamorphic compression often work together to create a lens's distinctive look. Many artists, however, simply try to imitate the overall appearance without realising that what they're seeing may be the result of several different optical phenomena interacting with one another. Understanding these phenomena can make a significant difference to a digital artist's approach to creating a visual effect.
How much of an image's cinematic character comes from the lens, and how much comes from lighting, the sensor and exposure? Cinematography is a collaborative art, and this applies both to the many professionals involved in the creative and technical process and to the technology itself. I always like to use this comparison when talking about cinematography.
Lighting, sensor type and size, exposure, the use of filters and many other factors all contribute to the overall look of an image. Every one of them matters. The book contains several chapters devoted specifically to the creative side of cinematography and to the different tools available to shape a shot. Beyond the lenses themselves, which obviously play a major role in creating a visual look, sensor size and the final delivery and projection format are also fundamental. Sensor size, for example, can influence depth-of-field behaviour, which means depth of field doesn't depend solely on focal length. With today's large-format camera systems, it's possible to achieve shots with several distinct planes of focus that appear even more three-dimensional, as well as shallower depth of field. These characteristics are particularly appealing for intimate scenes or situations where the story calls for greater separation between characters and the background. The capture and projection format also plays a role. Most films we see in cinemas use a widescreen format, but a more square aspect ratio may be appropriate when verticality is a fundamental element of the story. Naturally, this also affects composition and even the required accuracy and scale of production design, among other things.
How important is it to distinguish a lens-related issue from a lighting problem when creating visual effects? How does your knowledge of lenses influence your decisions when supervising a VFX sequence? Whenever I go on set as a VFX Supervisor, I always make sure to find out well in advance which cameras and lenses will be used. If you can establish a good working relationship with the Director of Photography and the camera team, it's also worth discussing whether a particular lens or shooting technique is appropriate for the planned post-production work or the effect being created. I'm the kind of supervisor who wants to have all the relevant data available and avoid surprises on set — or at least minimise them, because there will always be a few. Having a supervisor on set is particularly important because, for example, despite blue screens having been used since the 1940s, there's still a great deal of negligence and inconsistency when it comes to lighting them. It's true that
today's digital tools allow us to remove blue screens more easily and accurately. However, that doesn't diminish the importance of having a blue or green screen that is properly and evenly lit, positioned at the right distance from the actors, and free from obvious seams, patches or repairs. These issues can slow down rather than speed up the VFX process and, ultimately, affect the quality of the final result. I can't mention any specific films, but I've worked on scenes shot inside large sound stages with blue or green screens, intended to look as though they took place outdoors. Unfortunately, many cinematographers struggle to visualise the final appearance of such scenes and tend to light the actors in a somewhat theatrical way. The key light can end up being far too obvious, hard and directional, undermining the illusion that the actors are standing in an outdoor environment. The distance between the actors and the screen is also often underestimated. At a certain size, the screen itself becomes a substantial light reflector. In all these situations, consulting the VFX Supervisor and/or VFX Cinematographer is crucial. Just imagine what it means in post-production to have to correct the lighting on the actors before they can be convincingly integrated into a background added later. There are other considerations, too. Modern cameras and lenses can record metadata and other information that is useful to VFX artists, provided it is communicated properly. However, certain details can cause problems in post-production if they aren't documented adequately. For example, consider the use of an additional Diopter or a Lens Extender. These details can easily be overlooked during filming, and they aren't normally recorded by the camera. As a result, the effective focal length of a shot and its depth of field may differ from what you would expect based on the lens's nominal focal length. The depth of field may also be altered. This can create problems during camera tracking, potentially leading to an inaccurate result because we're unaware of the underlying cause. That's just one small example of an issue I discuss in much greater depth in the book.
Distortion, chromatic aberration, vignetting, bokeh, breathing and fall-off: which of these phenomena is most often overlooked? I'd say these characteristics are often not properly captured or profiled. In reality, several techniques can be used to create a kind of digital profile of a lens, and I describe them in the book as well. Of course, much depends on whether you can test the lenses before the film shoot begins. I consider this extremely important. In my view, it's essential to understand the eye through which you'll be seeing the scenes you're going to work on. Every lens is different, even when it's the same brand, model and focal length. That's why it's always worth arranging a lens-testing session before shooting begins, ideally alongside the tests that cinematographers and camera assistants routinely carry out before heading to set.
Take lens breathing, for example. It's particularly noticeable in vintage lenses and many anamorphic lenses. If we're working on shots that involve focus pulls and need CG elements added to them, lens breathing is something we'll have to account for. Once again, lens testing can help us establish values to use in post-production to simulate the focus-breathing ratio and reproduce it digitally on CG elements. Bokeh is another important aesthetic characteristic of a lens. Its shape, internal texture and softness should ideally be recreated using dedicated lens tests. I discuss some of these techniques in the book. Bokeh is such a distinctive visual feature that cinematographers may choose particular lenses specifically for their out-of-focus rendering. Naturally, they expect CG elements to exhibit the same look.
Can we truly recreate the character of a real lens digitally, or will something always be lost? Could AI convincingly simulate a lens's behaviour without actually understanding the underlying physics? We're still some way from achieving highly faithful lens profiling using traditional techniques. One reason is that the major lens manufacturers are still exploring how best to provide digital data that allows these characteristics to be recreated and simulated without making the process excessively complex, expensive or time-consuming. This is a crucial consideration. If the process becomes too complicated, people may simply decide not to undertake it at all. That would mean some lens characteristics would continue to be simulated manually, essentially by eye.Some optical characteristics are extremely difficult to measure. Obtaining perfectly accurate data can sometimes require examining and measuring the internal components of a lens — which isn't a viable option — or designing specialised devices and methodologies to extract the necessary information.On the other hand, some machine-learning tools are beginning to offer interesting alternatives and possibilities, particularly algorithms based on look transfer. Essentially, you can train a system on the aesthetic characteristics of a particular lens and then transfer that look to another image.I've personally tried and tested some of these tools, and I have to say they're promising. However, the ones I've tested were general-purpose simulators based on specific lenses that users can select.But what happens when you need to train a look- transfer system for a particular set of lenses on a specific project? How long would it take, and who would be responsible for doing it? At present, there are still many questions to answer and workflows to develop before we can provide definitive answers.
We understand that you've also worked as a VFX Cinematographer on film and advertising productions. What does the role involve? The title VFX Cinematographer is particularly appropriate for someone with a solid background in cinematography and camera technology, an in-depth understanding of cinema lenses, and knowledge of how they influence the final result in compositing and CGI. For example, if a professional works on set alongside the Director of Photography (DoP) to define lens choices, monitor image characteristics, capture
tracking data and ensure the proper integration of CG elements, the term VFX Cinematographer accurately describes their area of expertise. If that person also leads the entire VFX department and oversees its creative and technical decisions, VFX Supervisor with a specialisation in cinematography might be a more precise title. It's essentially a technical support role that requires an in-depth understanding of post-production and visual effects, as well as cinematography. It sits very close to the role of a VFX Supervisor and can be crucial on sets where specific scenes require extensive visual
effects. In my view, the VFX Cinematographer should have a particularly close working relationship with the lead Director of Photography. They should be able to advise on matters such as lighting green or blue screens in relation to the actors and production design, while also anticipating and recommending shooting techniques that make the footage effective not only from a storytelling perspective but also in terms of VFX production. Some VFX Cinematographers may also be asked to manage and shoot scenes themselves, particularly those handled by a splinter unit or second unit. Personally, whenever possible, I prefer to discuss and share ideas about lighting and aesthetics with the lead Director of Photography, so that we can establish the key visual and technical aspects of the shoot together.
Optical imperfections are often considered flaws that need correcting. When do they become part of an image's beauty? Is there a difference between a technically correct image and one that genuinely feels cinematic? That's a wonderful question. While writing this book, I've tested a great many lenses, and I'll continue testing them for Cinematically to keep up with developments in cinema technology. Throughout this process, I can't say I've encountered a lens I'd
consider inherently worse than another. Each has its own identity within the context for which it was designed, and each may have a place in a particular kind of storytelling. Sometimes, lenses that are considerably less expensive than others can produce a much more interesting look for the visual result you're trying to achieve. Technical perfection and the intrinsic quality of a lens don't always guarantee the best outcome. It ultimately depends on the story you're telling. For some projects, a geometrically perfect, high- contrast lens with extraordinary sharpness may be absolutely appropriate. In other contexts, we might want precisely the opposite. Let me give you a simple example. For a period drama, I might favour a visual aesthetic built around lenses that produce a more organic image and render skin tones in a softer, more flattering way, enhancing the romantic and ethereal qualities of certain characters. The same might apply to a fairy tale or a romantic fantasy. In some cases, certain aberrations can even help give a film an older, more period-specific appearance. I'm reminded of the series Downton Abbey, which used Cooke S4 lenses, known for their somewhat classic look and warm rendering, with strong yet gentle microcontrast. Then there's The Crown, where Cooke Speed Panchro lenses were used for their low-contrast character and softness.
I could also mention We Live in Time, the 2024 British romantic drama, which used Panavision PVintage lenses to achieve a very soft, natural look and avoid excessive sharpness. For science fiction or a crime thriller, I might instead opt for sharper, higher-contrast lenses. One example that comes to mind is Season 1 of Black Doves, where the cinematographer used Panavision Panaspeed lenses, known for their high definition, rich detail and pronounced contrast. Ultimately, the type of storytelling determines the choice. For a sharper, more hard- edged story, I'd favour a sharper look. For
something romantic, fantastical or perhaps a comedy with more nuanced characters, I might choose a softer lens. Of course, these so-called rules can be completely overturned when you're deliberately pursuing a different aesthetic. The same applies to the choice between spherical and anamorphic lenses. By virtue of their optical design and visual characteristics, anamorphic lenses are often well suited to productions featuring expansive environments and landscape shots. But they can also be used in confined spaces, with the deliberate intention of creating claustrophobia, unease, an otherworldly atmosphere or, in more extreme cases, a sense of hallucination. We discuss these kinds of aesthetic decisions in the book, and some of the cinematographers I interviewed for the final chapter also share their personal perspectives on the subject.
How much should VFX artists know about lenses compared with people working on set? As I've already mentioned, I believe it's essential to understand the entire image-capture process, not just the lenses but also the cameras and the rigs used to mount them and execute camera movements. This doesn't apply exclusively to VFX artists. Every department involved in visual storytelling should have a good understanding of cinematography, albeit at different levels.
Even in production design and costume design, when choosing a fabric for a set or selecting an actor's wardrobe, it's important to consider not only how well it fits the story and narrative but also how it will appear on screen under the lighting being used. It would also be valuable to maintain close communication with the Director of Photography, who might be considering low-contrast or high-contrast lenses. That decision can have a significant influence on the choice of colours, fabrics and even furniture for a particular environment. When I think of Guillermo del Toro's most recent Frankenstein, I remember visiting the exhibition of props, makeup and costumes from the film here in London. The meticulous study of the colour palette in relation to the atmosphere of the cinematography and the lighting was truly what gave the film's overall aesthetic its distinctive identity. The same applies to visual effects artists. We work in film and television, so I believe a solid understanding of aesthetics and cinematography is absolutely fundamental. And by cinematography, I mean not only camera technology but also the lighting of actors and sets.
How important is it to understand the physics behind an image compared with relying on visual experience and artistic intuition? It's enough to say that you need to know the rules before you can break them. You can experiment with any kind of creative expression or aesthetic deviation you like, but you first need to understand the fundamentals. I believe this applies to every form of artistic creation.
With the evolution of digital cameras, has the character of lenses become more or less important? The character of a lens and the choice of which lens to use have always been fundamental to cinematic storytelling, ever since film was the only way to shoot a movie. Back then, people often looked for the sharpest lenses available to compensate for the softness inherent in film. With digital cinematography, the trend has reversed. We're now looking for lenses with less-than-perfect characteristics to add texture to digital images, which can seem almost too perfect because of increasingly advanced sensors. The aim is to make images feel more optical and filmic rather than precise and sterile. Film, as a visual medium, has a set of aesthetic characteristics that we've all absorbed into our perception of cinema. They allow us to distinguish a film almost immediately from a documentary, a music video or a commercial. When we see an image, we often recognise straight away whether it belongs to a film, not only because of the composition but also because of its aesthetic
character — what we describe as cinematic. And that look is often anything but visually perfect or precise. In fact, sometimes the softer and less sharply defined an image is, the more authentic it feels. It's a little like painting. Imagine a painter achieving such technical perfection that they can recreate a scene so realistically that it looks like a photograph. We'd certainly appreciate their technical skill, but we'd probably still be more drawn to Caravaggio's depiction of people and environments, with his distinctive painterly, almost cinematic and dreamlike quality. It's a style that feels more expressive and authentic than merely precise and descriptive. For example, when I visit the National Gallery, I love Canaletto's highly realistic depictions of Venice, with their extraordinary level of visible detail. He's one of my favourite painters. Then I move on to Caravaggio or Rembrandt. Even though everything feels softer and more painterly, and the lighting is far more atmospheric, their work still feels more authentic and alive to me. It's difficult to explain exactly what cinematic means because it's an aesthetic feeling that seems to be innate in all of us. My point is that the renewed interest in a slightly more vintage look in cinema stems precisely from the desire to recapture that optical quality and sense of authenticity.
Today, almost any optical effect can be added digitally. Do you think this has improved the work of VFX artists, or does it risk making them less attentive to the original cinematography? I think this capability becomes dangerous when a digital artist stops asking whether they're actually reproducing the optical characteristics of a lens and simply takes it for granted that they'll be able to do so. It's true that visual effects now allow us to do practically anything. But it's essential to maintain a critical eye, learn to observe the world around us, understand how things behave and how light works — and, above all, study how the world looks through a camera. Cinema is, of course, an illusion, it’s fiction. Directors sometimes deliberately bend the rules to make their images more cinematic. That doesn't necessarily mean making them realistic or mathematically accurate, but rather making them serve the visual narrative and enrich the aesthetic result. Personally, the first thing I
always ask my VFX artists to do before starting work on a shot is to understand its visual geography. That means identifying the direction of the key light, understanding the optical characteristics of the lens used, analysing areas of the image containing reflections, highlights and shadows and studying the camera movement, among other things. So, to answer your question, I believe it's vital for VFX artists to understand cinematography and, in particular, to be familiar with what was actually captured on set. From this perspective, we supervisors use various techniques during production to collect different kinds of data, photographs and reference images that will be useful in post-production and help artists understand the geography of the set as if they had been there themselves. I discuss these techniques extensively in the book, too.
With AI tools capable of generating or modifying images, how important will it remain to understand how a real lens behaves? Could knowledge of optics become an even greater advantage in a world where images are increasingly easy to generate? Artificial intelligence tools used in the arts learn from the material we feed them. If one day we were no longer able to provide them with new ideas, creativity and knowledge — or simply stopped doing so — these tools would have no choice but to recombine existing information. That could lead to aesthetic homogenisation. And if machines continued learning from that increasingly homogenised aesthetic, we could end up witnessing a form of regression. My point is that human creativity is what moves the world forward, and this applies far beyond the arts. Returning to your question, I don't believe images are necessarily easy to generate. Or rather, generating them has certainly become technically easier for people who previously lacked the ability or knowledge to do so. Today, anyone can generate an image, but that doesn't automatically make them a director or filmmaker. The idea always matters, as does the artistic training that gives you the tools to bring it to life. What worries me a little is the possibility that, when an artist cannot recreate what's genuinely in their mind, they might eventually settle for whatever an AI tool produces simply because it's the best result they can get. Becoming creatively lazy and accepting compromises could be the beginning of an aesthetic decline in the arts. And that would be a bitter punishment we'd have inflicted on ourselves, regardless of the technology. I understand cinematography — and always will — as a collaborative art form in which direct contact with the physical world is the only truly meaningful way to learn. I also believe in sharing knowledge and interacting with other artists. This is an invaluable source of richness that makes a film more compelling and convincing. The same applies to technical knowledge. If one day we all end up confined to our homes, making films on our computers, we'll not only face a global glut of content and projects that nobody will ever watch; I'm also convinced we'll lose many of the aesthetic qualities that define cinematography. That's simply because new generations of artists may never have worked on a set or experienced the characteristics of real camera systems firsthand. The risk is that we abandon our aesthetic heritage and replace it with images that feel sterile and increasingly similar to one another.
What technical skills do you think will be essential for VFX artists over the next ten years? Certainly, learning how to use AI tools and adapt them to your own creative needs will be the next step. AI is already here. It's no longer even new, so learning to embrace these tools from a technical perspective while maintaining a critical and objective eye is absolutely essential. Some artists are strongly opposed to these systems because they fear being replaced. But
technological progress is inevitable, and failing to keep up with this revolution means being left behind. In that case, we'd be putting ourselves out of the market, rather than the technology itself doing it for us. We need to learn how to evolve our work and technical abilities. In some cases, new and innovative opportunities may even emerge that improve our professional standing. That said, the visual effects industry has been using machine-learning tools for some time in certain stages of production, sometimes with remarkably useful results. However, there is a problem with becoming fixated on them. I'm referring to artists who insist on using AI tools simply because they're fashionable, because they believe they're now the only viable solution, or perhaps because they lack proficiency in some traditional VFX techniques. This can end up undermining productivity. Using machine- learning systems often amounts to a gamble: you try something and hope you're lucky enough to get an acceptable result after a few iterations. But when it doesn't work, persisting with the same approach simply wastes working time. AI should make us faster, not slower! Otherwise, it becomes a paradox. That's why, when I'm supervising visual effects work at a company, I always tell artists who want to experiment with machine-learning techniques to give themselves no more than an hour and a half. If the results aren't promising by then, they should return to traditional methods. Otherwise, productivity and the company's production schedule will suffer. If you multiply the hours wasted pursuing unsuccessful AI solutions across all the artists involved in a production, you end up throwing away a considerable amount of money. There have been reports of visual effects companies having to hire large numbers of artists to fix work that artificial intelligence has done badly. Is the world turning upside down? Are we handing creativity over to machines and turning ourselves into fixers? Wasn't it supposed to be the other way around? Weren't these tools meant to help us work more efficiently? That's why I believe AI must be adapted to our actual needs rather than becoming an obsession for artists. Above all, we need to learn how to train and direct these tools — and train ourselves to use them properly — so that we can achieve the aesthetic quality we're aiming for. Nothing less. We must avoid compromising our standards. By the way, in professional filmmaking, the level of detail is extraordinarily high. Nobody can afford to settle for a visual solution that doesn't work properly.
What's the one idea you hope readers will remember after finishing the book? A passion for the film image. Which subject required the most research or was the most difficult to explain? Probably astigmatism. It's an optical aberration that can occur in a lens, but it's difficult to find in practice and also quite complex to explain. We've noticed that the book cover says "Volume 1". Should we expect a Volume 2? Is there another subject you'd like to explore in greater depth or turn into a new book? Oh, there are still so many things to add — things I might even have included in Volume 1, because cinematography is constantly evolving and changing. But I would have needed more than a thousand pages! That's one of the reasons this website now exists, too.
The idea is to create a point of reference for filmmakers, cinematographers and VFX artists, where they can share their passion for cinematography and explore its technical side. We'll test lenses and talk about equipment and technology. At least, that's the plan! Beyond that, there will certainly be a Volume 2 of Cinematically. This time, the focus will be more specifically on cinematic language and shot composition. That, too, comes from a passion I've had since childhood: keeping a little notebook in which I'd write down all the interesting shots I came across while watching films. The second volume will therefore focus more closely on visual storytelling through the language of cinematography and composition.

To learn more about Gianluca Dentici, please click here

or visit his website www.gianlucadentici.com