Game of Thrones Cinematographer Defends Episode 3’s Dark Battle Scenes, Blames Fans’ TV Settings

Game of Thrones Cinematographer Defends Episode 3’s Dark Battle Scenes, Blames Fans’ TV Settings

Source: TV Line  By  / 

Were you squinting to see what was happening during Game of Thrones‘ Battle of Winterfell? The episode’s cinematographer says you might just need to adjust your TV set.

Many fans complained that certain scenes in Sunday’s climactic episode of Throneswere too dark to make out, but the director of photography Fabian Wagner, who shot “The Long Night,” lays the blame instead on fans’ TV settings. “A lot of the problem is that a lot of people don’t know how to tune their TVs properly,” Wagner told Wired UK. “A lot of people also, unfortunately, watch it on small iPads, which in no way can do justice to a show like that anyway.”

Even the room a viewer watches it can have an impact on the visuals, Wagner adds: “Game of Thrones is a cinematic show, and therefore you have to watch it like you’re at a cinema: in a darkened room… if you watch a night scene in a brightly lit room, then that won’t help you see the image properly.”

Besides, the episode’s murky visual palette was a conscious choice…..Read more at

Comments from RG:  if you like me, were one of the 17 plus million viewers, of Episode 3 last week, it did not disappoint. Good explanation on the lighting ….Maybe a little dim sometimes but suspenseful every second. Can’t wait until tonight. 

The Retail Apocalypse Is Not as Bad as It Seems

The Retail Apocalypse Is Not as Bad as It Seems

Source: The Motley Fool  3.16.19 By Adam Levine-Weinberg

U.S. retailers have already announced about 5,000 store closures since the beginning of 2019, but the amount of space that is opening up is quite manageable.

It’s only mid-March, and U.S. retailers have already announced close to 5,000 store closures since the beginning of the year. That compares to 5,524 during all of 2018, according to Coresight Research.

This data point may make it seem like the retail apocalypse has taken a dramatic turn for the worse in 2019. That said, store closure announcements tend to be clustered near the beginning of the year, as retailers assess their position following the busy holiday shopping season.

Moreover, the total number of store closures is not necessarily the best metric for tracking the impact of the retail apocalypse on malls and shopping centers across the country. In fact, the pace of store closures in 2019 is very manageable compared to the demand for new space.

Not all store closures are created equal

In 2017 and 2018, the retail sector was rocked by a huge wave of department store closures. Macy’s and J.C. Penney (NYSE:JCP) closed more than 200 stores combined — accounting for more than 20 million square feet of space — as they tried to shore up their profitability. Bon-Ton Stores, which had 262 stores totaling 24 million square feet as of early 2017, went out of business in 2018, closing all of its stores.

Most notably, Sears Holdings shrank dramatically. In early 2017, the company had more than 1,400 Kmart and full-line Sears stores in the U.S. (including Puerto Rico). The small fragment of the company that survived a late-2018 bankruptcy filing will operate about 425 stores going forward. The roughly 1,000 stores that got the axe accounted for well over 100 million square feet of space.

By contrast, the vast majority of the stores closing in 2019 are “in-line” retailers that operate much smaller stores. Read the full article at

Comments by RG: Finally some positive news about the retail market and how other companies do have a good use for empty spaces.  News store openings by others and new, non-traditional, creative use of the retail spaces will help lessen the impact.



The gift that keeps giving: energy efficiency produces value year after year

The gift that keeps giving: energy efficiency produces value year after year

Source: ACEE    By Rachel Gold   2.20.19

An increasing number of states are finding new ways to track and value energy savings over time, according to research published today. Energy efficiency savings can accrue over many years, but most policies focus only on the first year. Our report, Energy Efficiency Over Time: Measuring and Valuing Lifetime Energy Savings in Policy and Planning, explores recent state efforts to take a longer view and the challenges they face when policies track only short-term savings.

Energy efficiency offers a family tree of options for customers, from the “grandparents” – investments in efficient new construction that can last more than 40 years – to more youthful air conditioning filter replacements that last just a few months. Because of this range in lifetimes, energy efficiency can provide varying values in resource planning, climate policy, and investment decisions.

(Typical lifetimes of savings from various measures installed or implemented in 2020.)

So far, policies have generally focused on first-year savings, because this approach makes it easier to describe, measure, and plan programs. These policies may unintentionally favor measures with high first-year savings, some of which may not continue to deliver savings over a long time. However, a focus on first-year savings does not easily translate to resource planning and climate investment, settings where long-term impacts are important.

The right mix of first-year and lifetime policies in cost-effectiveness testing, goals, incentives, and resource planning may vary from state to state based on other policy priorities like equity and bill impacts.

States are starting to experiment with new ways to value savings over time, and evaluators are providing better estimates of such savings. We see this emerging in two main areas: designing program administrator incentives and goal setting. Read more at

Comments by RG:  Great article as in regard to LED lighting, the cost happens once and then the savings repeat year after; Do you need a lifecycle cost analysis of your potential retrofit?  Contact me here on site for help.

Looking at Efficient Lighting Through a ‘Quality’ Lens

Looking at Efficient Lighting Through a ‘Quality’ Lens

Source: Energy Manager Today    By Christina Halfpenny, Executive Director of the DesignLights Consortium.    2.28.19 

(Article condensed; see link for the full article below)

Incredible as it may seem, Americans, on average, spend 90% of their time indoors, according to US EPA research. No doubt, we could use more time in the fresh air and sunlight. But, for better or worse, that’s a huge chunk of time living and working under artificial lights, and it argues for developing and promoting lighting products that help people feel and perform their best.

In January, the DesignLights Consortium (DLC) launched a new draft policy aimed at meeting that goal by providing transparency into the quality of light produced by products included on our Qualified Products List (QPL), a tool used by scores of utility companies across the US and Canada in designing incentive programs for commercial and industrial lighting customers.

Since the inception of our QPL in 2009, the DLC has raised the efficiency bar for LEDs three times, aiming to shrink the portion of electricity devoted to lighting in the commercial and industrial sector, and thereby lowering overall energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.  The newly-unveiled policy, dubbed Solid-State Lighting Technical Requirements V5.0, still prioritizes greater efficiency but also focuses on “quality of light”– defined as aspects of light that impact people’s productivity, performance, comfort, mood, safety, health, wellbeing and more. Once the policy is final next year, determining a product’s eligibility for the QPL will hinge increasingly on non-energy factors such as color and spectral quality, glare, flicker, and the ease with which lights can be dimmed and otherwise controlled to complement various settings and applications. Read the full article at

Comments by RG:  I believe this is great news for end users and all involved as goals of achieving energy efficiency will be met while also enhancing the quality of lighting systems. Reach out to me here or at if I can help you save energy and improve your lighting.

Overbed, Sconce, & Wall LED Lights

Overbed, Sconce, & Wall LED Lights

Looking for quality, cost-effective, energy efficient LED lights? I can help with a nice selection of overbed lights and many more types of attractive fixtures.  Can meet Local, Energy Star, and ADA codes as well.

Let me know what you have now and I can help with ideas as well as match up fixtures for best area rebates.  Better yet, make them part of the fixture family for your property upgrade. Here is the pdf for some of the bed lights: ASL Bed Lights. Reach out to me if you want more information, additional fixtures, spec sheets, or pricing at

Transition to New Technology

Transition to New Technology

Source:  Santa Fe New Mexican  By John Urbanowski      2.9.19

Comments:  No brainer reasons to upgrade but takeaway and the noted point is the $250-700 cost to relamp an outdoor fixture. Note this is including a typical charge for a bucket truck, man-hours, and service call; if the ballast needs replacing, the cost can surely climb to the higher number. Need assistance for your exterior? Read more below and see full article. 

The recent New Mexican news article (“Santa Fe streets going dark,” Jan. 27) and editorial (“Stop letting city’s street lights stay dark,” Our View, Jan. 27), about street lighting, was a revelation. It was surprising that our progressive city is not embracing a major element of 21st-century urbanism.

First, we should consider if we can afford to be spot re-lamping our street lights with 1960s technology. By far the most expensive part of changing that light bulb is the cost of labor and equipment: anywhere from $250-$700.

It sounds unbelievable, but consider the expensive truck that needs to be used, the skilled linemen who need to be paid for the work, the safety aspects, sometimes including a lane closure (disruption of traffic) and the travel time to the pole (and back) to change a $10-$15 light bulb that is now functionally obsolete — it’s a comparative energy hog (using at least two to three times as much energy) and a maintenance headache, failing four times as often as the latest technology. Add to this the poor light control of some of these dinosaur lighting fixtures that are disrupting our view of the night sky.

Second, ponder that with the same investment in labor and an additional 90 or so dollars, you have eliminated the burnout question for the next 20 years, improved the quality of lighting and protected our view of the stars. By the way, you would save at least 50 percent in energy, lowering our carbon footprint. If instead of changing that one light bulb, the bucket truck could be assigned to change that block of lighting fixtures, the cost of changing each fixture could be less than eventually changing their light bulbs, since they would not have to travel as far and they would already be mobilized. See complete article at