Jump to content


Photo

Overlighting in Old Movies?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 25 June 2007 - 07:41 PM

It's interesting. I saw Lawrence of Arabia in 70mm on Saturday night, and I felt sure that it would rock my Cinematography Top 10. While the movie was just spectacular, and while it makes my Top 20 Cinematography for sure, I did feel that some of the scenes were overlit. Mainly these were the indoor scenes, but several times some of the outdoor scenes appeared to be overlit as well, to me. Way too much bounce back onto O'Toole.

I do realize that this is a product of the time in which the picture was shot. I also had the same exact problem with The Searchers.... While the outdoor, natural-light cinematography was flawless and amazing, as soon as they went indoors, many of the scenes were way overlit, IMO.

Is it fair to say that a turning point was reached with Days of Heaven, when Almendros agreed to the shoot the whole picture with natural light, aside from a a very small handful of scenes? Or were there pictures before DoH that really set the precedent for natural light?

For me, natural-light cinematography reached its apex with John Toll's The Thin Red Line, and has not really been topped since, with the possible exception of Malick's next picture, The New World.

Thoughts?

Edited by Tom Lowe, 25 June 2007 - 07:44 PM.

  • 0

#2 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 June 2007 - 08:34 PM

A friend of mine in film school used to say that older movies looked overlit and underexposed and modern movies look underlit and overexposed, and there is some reason for that.

For interior scenes, you have to factor that the stock was only 25 ASA from 1952 to 1959, then only 50 ASA from 1959 to 1968, then only 100 ASA from 1968 to 1981.

That's a lot of light just to get a decent f-stop.

Also factor in that movies were shown in drive-ins until the 1980's and the studios were constantly complaining to DP's that their dark photography would not play well in drive-ins, due to the lower screen brightness there.

Billy Fraker talks a little about this problem in the documentary "Visions of Light" (a must-see), how cinematographers like Gordon Willis went against the studios to do murky low-key photography like in "The Godfather."

Also, perceptions about what constitutes "realism" keep changing with every generation.

Before faster-than-100 ASA film stocks came along in 1981-82, DP's had to resort to all sorts of tricks to shoot in natural light. There are plenty of examples that pre-date "Days of Heaven", just that that movie was nearly wall-to-wall natural light -- however, any "lit" scenes used electric lighting, like the locust plague (lanterns with light bulbs powered by batteries), or the few night interiors. So even that movie had artificially-lit scenes -- they just look natural:

Posted Image

But a movie like "Barry Lyndon" (1975) has a lot of natural-looking day exteriors and the candlelight scenes were famous for only using real candles (three-wicked candles, but real candles nevertheless.)

Posted Image

And the Swedish movie "Elvira Madigan" (1967) was famous at the time for its use of beautiful day exterior light.

And Kubrick's 1960's movies, even though lit artificially, look pretty realistic, like "2001". Most of the light comes from the sources on the set.

You can also find some b&w movies that are pretty realistic in terms of use of light -- for example, "Battle of Algiers" (1966).

I'd say that natural-looking lighting in movies really got a big boost in 1968 when the first 100 ASA 35mm color neg stock (5254) came along. That allowed for a lot of low-light movies of the 1970's to get made ("French Connection", "The Godfather", "Taxi Driver", etc.)

"Days of Heaven" was part of a growing trend of using less artificial light, it wasn't something out of the blue. Nestor Almendros had already been experimenting with those techniques in the 1960's, which is one reason why Malick hired him probably. It's just an example of taking this to an extreme. But there are precedents, as in the Swedish movies like "Elvira Madigan".
  • 0

#3 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 25 June 2007 - 08:47 PM

A friend of mine in film school used to say that older movies looked overlit and underexposed and modern movies look underlit and overexposed, and there is some reason for that.

For interior scenes, you have to factor that the stock was only 25 ASA from 1952 to 1959, then only 50 ASA from 1959 to 1968, then only 100 ASA from 1968 to 1981.

That's a lot of light just to get a decent f-stop.

Also factor in that movies were shown in drive-ins until the 1980's and the studios were constantly complaining to DP's that their dark photography would not play well in drive-ins, due to the lower screen brightness there.

Billy Fraker talks a little about this problem in the documentary "Visions of Light" (a must-see), how cinematographers like Gordon Willis went against the studios to do murky low-key photography like in "The Godfather."

Also, perceptions about what constitutes "realism" keep changing with every generation.

Before faster-than-100 ASA film stocks came along in 1981-82, DP's had to resort to all sorts of tricks to shoot in natural light. There are plenty of examples that pre-date "Days of Heaven", just that that movie was nearly wall-to-wall natural light -- however, any "lit" scenes used electric lighting, like the locust plague (lanterns with light bulbs powered by batteries), or the few night interiors. So even that movie had artificially-lit scenes -- they just look natural:

Posted Image

But a movie like "Barry Lyndon" (1975) has a lot of natural-looking day exteriors and the candlelight scenes were famous for only using real candles (three-wicked candles, but real candles nevertheless.)

Posted Image

And the Swedish movie "Elvira Madigan" (1967) was famous at the time for its use of beautiful day exterior light.

And Kubrick's 1960's movies, even though lit artificially, look pretty realistic, like "2001". Most of the light comes from the sources on the set.

You can also find some b&w movies that are pretty realistic in terms of use of light -- for example, "Battle of Algiers" (1966).

I'd say that natural-looking lighting in movies really got a big boost in 1968 when the first 100 ASA 35mm color neg stock (5254) came along. That allowed for a lot of low-light movies of the 1970's to get made ("French Connection", "The Godfather", "Taxi Driver", etc.)

"Days of Heaven" was part of a growing trend of using less artificial light, it wasn't something out of the blue. Nestor Almendros had already been experimenting with those techniques in the 1960's, which is one reason why Malick hired him probably. It's just an example of taking this to an extreme. But there are precedents, as in the Swedish movies like "Elvira Madigan".


David, thanks so much for your reply. Someone on REDUSER also pointed out BARRY LYNDON, and I was in error to leave it out, because, as you say, it was far ahead of DAYS OF HEAVEN.

I literally worship the cinematography of LYNDON. It's so well done.

But David, do you hold the overlighting of movies like THE SEARCHERS and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA against the movie? Because frankly, I do. If you ask me what are the top 10 cinematography masterpieces, I have to admit that movies like Lawrence and The Searchers are overlit, while pictures like Apocalypse Now and The Thin Red Line are beautifully lit, with natural light.

Edited by Tom Lowe, 25 June 2007 - 08:49 PM.

  • 0

#4 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:01 PM

But David, do you hold the overlighting of movies like THE SEARCHERS and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA against the movie?


No more than I hold anything against a Gothic painter for not understanding perspective. Movies are of their time -- you can't expect them to have the aesthetic standards of future generations. That's not fair.

Someday you'll be an old man trying to convince some young filmmaker that "Days of Heaven" was well-photographed... The brat will say "But they were using film back then... you can see the grain in some scenes. And what's up with that day for night stuff? Couldn't they have shot under real moonlight like the digital cameras of today can?"

Also, realism in itself is not always the highest goal in art. And even in realistic movies, there are non-realistic moments, moods, more of a psychological state rather than a presentation of reality. "The Red Shoes" is a great movie, yet hardly realistic. Or Olivier's "Henry V". Or many b&w movies -- like "Night of the Hunter"... it's meant to capture some of the feeling of German Expressionism woodcuts.

Saying you only like Realism in art is a little like saying you only like Jazz in music, which is fine, but you're missing out on a lot of great stuff.

And usually realistic trends in art, once they reach their pinnacle, are followed by non-realistic trends and styles -- look at the French Academy Style versus Impressionism versus Post-Impressionism.
  • 0

#5 M Joel W

M Joel W
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 268 posts
  • Student

Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:06 PM

David, thanks so much for your reply. Someone on REDUSER also pointed out BARRY LYNDON, and I was in error to leave it out, because, as you say, it was far ahead of DAYS OF HEAVEN.

I literally worship the cinematography of LYNDON. It's so well done.

But David, do you hold the overlighting of movies like THE SEARCHERS and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA against the movie? Because frankly, I do. If you ask me what are the top 10 cinematography masterpieces, I have to admit that movies like Lawrence and The Searchers are overlit, while pictures like Apocalypse Now and The Thin Red Line are beautifully lit, with natural light.


I disagree. While DoH has some of my favorite cinematography ever, I generally dislike the use of only natural light. If you've got the ability to shape light however you want, why let it be shaped by chance? DoH has amazing lighting because it was shot primarily at magic hour with the sun smartly placed as a backlight, and the few lights that are used in it are used well. Most films I see without much lighting look either too flat or too harsh. Cinematography is about controlling light, and the idea that natural light is best because it's natural seems foolish to me. Using natural light isn't faster, either; if (like Malick) you wait until sunset to shoot everything, you've wasted most of your day. (Although in his films it's usually worth it.)

I think Lawrence of Arabia is a visual powerhouse, but I was so engrossed by the story that I ignored its cinematography, at least on a technical level... I agree about The Searchers and whatnot, but I think that this is because of the film stock, too. Technicolor and the like were very garish.

Certainly high speed stocks have facilitated natural lighting, but I hold that their greatest innovation is still in heavily-lit movies. As you noted, old movies look overlit because they don't use soft light and thus the lights scream out at you. Fast stocks allow for more filtration (from classic softs and nets on the lens, to diffusion on the lights). While soft light is a nice way of hiding one's ineptitude (I do this all the time), I think it's quite beautiful. IMO, the best cinematography today is being done by the likes of Richardson and Kaminski, who use very fast stocks (Minority Report had day exteriors shot at 800ISO!), lots of filtration and diffusion, but still tons of light (one scene in Minority Report (I just read ASC on it...) had nearly a million watts of HMIs, while Richardson is known to go four stops over (I think) on edge lights)...

So, yeah, fast stocks have allowed for natural lighting, but I think very few films shot with natural light actually look any good and when they do, it's not something special about the light but about the time of day, position of camera in relation to the sun, or filtration and processing (or DI). And (just my opinion here) the true masters are those who use natural light when necessary or desirable, but also make innovative use of artificial lighting. Again, just my opinion, but the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan alone clinhed the cinematography Oscar over The Thin Red Line, stunning though it may be.
  • 0

#6 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:13 PM

No more than I hold anything against a Gothic painter for not understanding perspective. Movies are of their time -- you can't expect them to have the aesthetic standards of future generations. That's not fair.

Someday you'll be an old man trying to convince some young filmmaker that "Days of Heaven" was well-photographed... The brat will say "But they were using film back then... you can see the grain in some scenes. And what's up with that day for night stuff? Couldn't they have shot under real moonlight like the digital cameras of today can?"

Also, realism in itself is not always the highest goal in art. And even in realistic movies, there are non-realistic moments, moods, more of a psychological state rather than a presentation of reality. "The Red Shoes" is a great movie, yet hardly realistic. Or Olivier's "Henry V". Or many b&w movies -- like "Night of the Hunter"... it's meant to capture some of the feeling of German Expressionism woodcuts.

Saying you only like Realism in art is a little like saying you only like Jazz in music, which is fine, but you're missing out on a lot of great stuff.

And usually realistic trends in art, once they reach their pinnacle, are followed by non-realistic trends and styles -- look at the French Academy Style versus Impressionism versus Post-Impressionism.


David, thanks so much for your reply, as always. You are right. For instance, I don't hold the melodramatic acting in Casablanca against the movie, because I realize it's a product of its time. But for some reason, I hold camera work to a more recent standard? I need to think about it.

I really don't focus only on natural-light cinematography, though. It does dominate my top 5, but WKW & Doyle's In the Mood for Love and 2046, also dominate my cinematography top 10. For me, those movies have such beautiful framing (composition) that it basically blows me out of the water. David, what do you think of their 1/8th style framing in those pictures?
  • 0

#7 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:15 PM

I disagree. While DoH has some of my favorite cinematography ever, I generally dislike the use of only natural light. If you've got the ability to shape light however you want, why let it be shaped by chance? DoH has amazing lighting because it was shot primarily at magic hour with the sun smartly placed as a backlight, and the few lights that are used in it are used well. Most films I see without much lighting look either too flat or too harsh. Cinematography is about controlling light, and the idea that natural light is best because it's natural seems foolish to me. Using natural light isn't faster, either; if (like Malick) you wait until sunset to shoot everything, you've wasted most of your day. (Although in his films it's usually worth it.)

I think Lawrence of Arabia is a visual powerhouse, but I was so engrossed by the story that I ignored its cinematography, at least on a technical level... I agree about The Searchers and whatnot, but I think that this is because of the film stock, too. Technicolor and the like were very garish.

Certainly high speed stocks have facilitated natural lighting, but I hold that their greatest innovation is still in heavily-lit movies. As you noted, old movies look overlit because they don't use soft light and thus the lights scream out at you. Fast stocks allow for more filtration (from classic softs and nets on the lens, to diffusion on the lights). While soft light is a nice way of hiding one's ineptitude (I do this all the time), I think it's quite beautiful. IMO, the best cinematography today is being done by the likes of Richardson and Kaminski, who use very fast stocks (Minority Report had day exteriors shot at 800ISO!), lots of filtration and diffusion, but still tons of light (one scene in Minority Report (I just read ASC on it...) had nearly a million watts of HMIs, while Richardson is known to go four stops over (I think) on edge lights)...

So, yeah, fast stocks have allowed for natural lighting, but I think very few films shot with natural light actually look any good and when they do, it's not something special about the light but about the time of day, position of camera in relation to the sun, or filtration and processing (or DI). And (just my opinion here) the true masters are those who use natural light when necessary or desirable, but also make innovative use of artificial lighting. Again, just my opinion, but the first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan alone clinhed the cinematography Oscar over The Thin Red Line, stunning though it may be.


Most certainly, if you are trying to shoot natural light, the time of day is VERY important.
  • 0

#8 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:24 PM

David, thanks so much for your reply. Someone on REDUSER also pointed out BARRY LYNDON, and I was in error to leave it out, because, as you say, it was far ahead of DAYS OF HEAVEN.

I literally worship the cinematography of LYNDON. It's so well done.

But David, do you hold the overlighting of movies like THE SEARCHERS and LAWRENCE OF ARABIA against the movie? Because frankly, I do. If you ask me what are the top 10 cinematography masterpieces, I have to admit that movies like Lawrence and The Searchers are overlit, while pictures like Apocalypse Now and The Thin Red Line are beautifully lit, with natural light.


An awful lot of techology changed between those movies. Lets see you light something on 12-16 speed stock (approximating technicolor), using a fairly deep stop as was costomary a lot of the time, and have it look overlit. There is also the convention of the day of lots of fill in general, eyes must be seen, the hair and costumes have to be seen since they were so expensive, et cetera.

Edited by Chris Keth, 25 June 2007 - 09:27 PM.

  • 0

#9 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 June 2007 - 09:38 PM

I remember reading how David Lean promoted Nicolas Roeg (who did the 2nd Unit photography of "Lawrence") to shoot "Doctor Zhivago" but Roeg found that Lean would not accept some modern photographic styles, particularly when it came to lighting.

Lean soon replaced Roeg with Freddie Young, who understood what Lean wanted, which was a romantic movie with gorgeous people in it, not necessarily a realistic movie.

Again, if you've ever tried to light an interior set to 50 ASA, even to just an f/2.8, you'd find yourself spotting 10K's on actor's faces, so naturalism is pretty hard unless you are very clever with using powerful lights yet softening them. You see this in the 1960's work of David Watkin and Ozzie Morris. Take a look at "Help!" for example and you'll see some scenes with a soft single-source look (not all, just some.)

"Taming of the Shrew" (Ozzie Morris) lit partly with soft space lights overhead:

Posted Image

"Jesus of Nazareth" (David Watkin) using soft light to simulate a painting:

Posted Image
  • 0

#10 Chris Keth

Chris Keth
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4427 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:10 PM

"Jesus of Nazareth" (David Watkin) using soft light to simulate a painting:

Posted Image


I really need to watch this movie now. I haven't seen it since I was a kid, but that still makes me want to see it. That's so close to being a renaissance painting.
  • 0

#11 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:22 PM

The fact that people were forced to do this or that in times before doesn't mean much to me.

In this day and age, you should shoot a movie to the full extent of your abilities.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 June 2007 - 10:42 PM

The fact that people were forced to do this or that in times before doesn't mean much to me.

In this day and age, you should shoot a movie to the full extent of your abilities.


I don't see that things are all that much different today. Every generation has its own restrictions to work under, technical, artistic, societal, financial, social. The details may change, one restriction replaced by another, but total artistic freedom is still rare unless your ideas are cheap to produce and don't require the participation of other human beings.

Also, there is an old saying that art is born from limitations. Total freedom doesn't necessarily produce better art -- sometimes it just produces self-indulgent art. You look at the horrible restrictions that Cocteau had to deal with while making "Beauty and the Beast" and then you see what he accomplished.

You asked about why an older movie looks the way it does so you can hardly now say that you don't care to hear the reasons!

Personally, I like knowing the history of moviemaking as a better way of understanding why filmmakers of the past made certain decisions. And it often makes what they accomplished seem all the more impressive when you know what they were dealing with. Look at "Rope" and its linked moving shots, giving the impression of a single take -- with a 3-strip Technicolor camera the size of a refridgerator.

If you go shoot a feature, you usually discover that you're not even coming close to shooting to the full extent of your abilities. There are days when all it seems you are doing is keeping your head above a rising tide of mini disasters. There are days when you feel you are just shooting crap. And every now and then, you get rewarded by being able to shoot a decent shot, capture a decent moment, before you go back to struggling against a tide of mediocrity, partly due to your own artistic limitations, partly due to others, and partly due to an Act of God. But every now and then, all the elements come together into your favor. You live for those moments.
  • 0

#13 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 26 June 2007 - 01:18 AM

I think you'll find that just as many films nowadays have quite unrealistic lighting. Not really "over-lighting", but definitely stylized to a commercial effect. Especially fantasy films or anything with a lot of greenscreen.
  • 0

#14 David Sweetman

David Sweetman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 757 posts
  • Student

Posted 26 June 2007 - 03:04 AM

The fact that people were forced to do this or that in times before doesn't mean much to me.

In this day and age, you should shoot a movie to the full extent of your abilities.

?! Interior at 50ASA? That didn't make you jump? I almost fell out of my chair!

One of my favorites is The Wild Bunch ('69) -- a film would never look like that today. Which is a bummer because I look at that and I think, that's exactly what I want. Just looking at those images makes me want to go hit somebody.
  • 0

#15 Matthew Buick

Matthew Buick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2345 posts
  • Student
  • Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.

Posted 26 June 2007 - 07:14 AM

?! Interior at 50ASA? That didn't make you jump?


No, it didn't. Interiors at 25ASA does, though.

I thought 'It's Always Fair Weather' (1955) had some very nice low light shots. Some interior, some exterior, all studio shot, though.
  • 0

#16 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 26 June 2007 - 12:09 PM

Interior 50ASA... lol! This must be why all the old school actors complain about how hot the lights used to be when they were shooting. A lot of autobiographies of movie stars from way back have this complaint about always getting cooked by the lighting.
  • 0

#17 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 26 June 2007 - 12:19 PM

when i started it was 25asa tungsten , 16 asa with 85 filter , Ektachrome 7255 , shot a medical film knee replacement long old lenses needed loads of light ,steam was comming off the blood ,yuk .
  • 0

#18 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 26 June 2007 - 12:26 PM

Interior 50ASA... lol! This must be why all the old school actors complain about how hot the lights used to be when they were shooting. A lot of autobiographies of movie stars from way back have this complaint about always getting cooked by the lighting.


There is a story about the DP shooting the first Technicolor movie of Shirley Temple; he wanted to underexpose the movie so that he could cut the light levels in half (early 3-strip Technicolor was around a 3 to 5 ASA, practically), but Technicolor and the studio refused until he took a producer and made him stand under the 2,000 footcandles or so needed to get an f/2.8 back then and the producer said "Damn! We can't put a kid under that!"

I saw a new restoration of the 1948 Ingrid Bergman "Joan of Arc" movie (3-strip Technicolor) and noticed that all her close-ups were underexposed (thin-looking with weak blacks) and the restorer (Robert Gitt) confirmed to me that all those shots were less exposed than the others. I can only assume that either the DP thought he could light her better if he used less light, or she complained about acting under really bright lights.
  • 0

#19 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 26 June 2007 - 02:01 PM

I think they shot Double X on "Paper Moon" with a red filter on the entire time. I remember watching the DVD extras for that and a quick story about Ryan O'Neill constantly complaining about the hot lights...and most the interiors were quite low key and not nearly overlit like the old Hollywood films.

I can only imagine what hell actors must have gone through back in the day.
  • 0

#20 Kieran Scannell

Kieran Scannell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Netherlands/Ireland

Posted 26 June 2007 - 02:25 PM

It was Orson Welles who suggested to Laszlo Kovacs that he use red filters to make the skies more dramatic
but it meant losing 3 stops on his exposure. Tatum O'Niel was only 8 when the film was shot imagine the footcandles
she must have endured!
  • 0


Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Willys Widgets

CineTape

The Slider

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

CineLab

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Glidecam

Abel Cine

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Aerial Filmworks

Rig Wheels Passport

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Paralinx LLC

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

Tai Audio