Killers of the Flower Moon

[Stephen Perera]

In our cinemas now worldwide...shot by Rodrigo Prieto on 35mm

 

 

[Mark Cohen]

Were some parts of it shot digitally? Not only the drone shots, but I noticed some sequences looked really clean compared to others.

[David Mullen ASC]

There might have been some shot here or there done with a digital camera (I don't know) but the "cleaner" day exterior sequences just looked like they switched to 50D stock.

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Mark Cohen said:

Were some parts of it shot digitally? Not only the drone shots, but I noticed some sequences looked really clean compared to others.

Yes, from watching the BTS footage, looks like quite a bit was shot on an Alexa. 

[David Mullen ASC]

Really, I just looked through five BTS videos on YouTube and cannot see a digital camera... Can you provide some examples?

[Tyler Purcell]

Just now, David Mullen ASC said:

Really, I just looked through five BTS videos on YouTube and cannot see a digital camera...

Yea friend of mine showed me a video on his phone, dismayed it was nearly all Alexa BTS footage, asking why it was shot on the Alexa when it says 35mm. I had to explain to him that they use Alexa for night scenes a lot these days. I have no idea what video he was watching sadly, been on a shoot for a month. 

[Stephen Perera]

Kodak have it on their website they would not put otherwise.....

[Robin R Probyn]

Wasn't it shot on an fx3 ?..  don't need no Alexa for night scenes ! 

[Stephen Perera]

from IMDB

 

[Deniz Zagra]

11 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

There might have been some shot here or there done with a digital camera

I believe the opening shot of oil gushing out was shot with a Phantom camera (at 700 fps I think) to achieve slow motion. I wonder why they didn't go for a 435 or even a Photosonics camera.

[Deniz Zagra]

They also got customized T-series anamorphics for a more vintage look, apparently. Why not go with the C-series?

https://www.indiewire.com/features/craft/killers-of-the-flower-moon-cinematography-lenses-panavision-1234918775/

 

[Raymond Zrike]

This looks like a Venice.

I think a lot of it that was shot on film has kind of a digital appearance because the grade is so aggressive. The daylight exteriors bothered me a lot in particular (saw it at a Dolby Cinema last week).

[Raymond Zrike]

Wow, Marty opted for an iPhone for this shot. Voilà, cinema.

[David Mullen ASC]

I didn't think the grade was aggressive, quite the opposite, it seemed like classic Vision-3 film for the most part. A few sequences are more stylized and the color saturation is modulated to match the mood of scenes.

[Raymond Zrike]

1 hour ago, David Mullen ASC said:

A few sequences are more stylized and the color saturation is modulated to match the mood of scenes.

Would the shot at 0:35 in the trailer posted above be a part of those more stylized sequences you are talking about? Because that shot is a good example of what I’m talking about. I'm mainly focused on skin tones—there’s no color in anybody’s face (except for the warm push that is over the whole image). I guess this shot could be evoking an old photograph considering the context of the moment, but it doesn't scream Vision3 to me, at least how most people grade it these days.

Also, pairing softer lenses (“‘We literally put optics from the 1950s inside the lens so it wouldn’t look so modern,’ Sasaki said”) with extremely low-grain stock like Vision3 50D, and then finishing with a DI, gives somewhat of a similar feeling of softness that you’d see with a poorly DNR’d scan. Very much my personal opinion, but softer lenses with grainier stock or sharper lenses with less grainy stock both work well while soft lenses with less grainy stock does not. Visible, well-resolved grain gives the appearance of a focused and sharp image. From the third row of the theater at which I saw Flower Moon, the daylight exteriors looked grainless and mushy.

[Stephen Perera]

14 hours ago, David Mullen ASC said:

I didn't think the grade was aggressive, quite the opposite, it seemed like classic Vision-3 film for the most part. A few sequences are more stylized and the color saturation is modulated to match the mood of scenes.

Totally agree....it had a very very particular and very different 'grade' to my eyes.....to my eyes, it changed the Kodak palette we expect from 50D etc and knocked back the vibrance and put more sepia into it.....prob alluding to the photography and prints of the era....

That being said, as a film, the acting was spectacular and the film didn't feel too long as have been debated.....and most importantly, I didn't feel these mega famous actors were playing dress up and I was engrossed in the film completely

There was ONE night scene with quite a few characters that definitely looked digital....super smooth faces and that thing digital has....

Edited October 25, 2023 by Stephen Perera

[Giovanni Louisor]

The majority of the movie was shot on 35mm, with some of the night sequences (mostly exterior, with a few interiors) and "dusk for night" scenes, shot on the Venice, due to it's low-light sensitivity. And the use of the Phantom camera for the oil gushing shots. However, I noticed that the majority of night interiors were still shot on 35mm.

And, yes, as Stephen says, a "particular" night scene was shot entirely on the Venice. Another day interior scene involving a home visit from the Shoun brothers (softer light) was also shot entirely on the Venice.

And after a certain moment in the movie, the color grade shifts to take on a higher contrast look, which is an emulation of ENR. It looks similar to the emulation that was used on "The Irishman"—where its use becomes especially apparent in the last 30 minutes of the movie.

Here's an interview about it with Rodrigo Prieto:
https://www.motionpictures.org/2023/10/killers-of-the-flower-moon-cinematographer-rodrigo-prieto-illuminates-martin-scorseses-twisted-tale/

Edited October 26, 2023 by Giovanni Louisor

[Stephen Perera]

Grazie Giovanni I will read the article!

[Stephen Perera]

On 10/24/2023 at 6:52 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

Yea friend of mine showed me a video on his phone, dismayed it was nearly all Alexa BTS footage, asking why it was shot on the Alexa when it says 35mm. I had to explain to him that they use Alexa for night scenes a lot these days. I have no idea what video he was watching sadly, been on a shoot for a month. 

deep fakes even for the digital v film war hahahah your friend and his Alexa story...dont believe anyone in the war we have on our hands Tyler haha

[Robin Phillips]

On 10/24/2023 at 9:05 AM, Deniz Zagra said:

I believe the opening shot of oil gushing out was shot with a Phantom camera (at 700 fps I think) to achieve slow motion. I wonder why they didn't go for a 435 or even a Photosonics camera.

435 maxes out at 150fps, finding photosonics cameras is problematic (the only operating 4ER I've seen available is in the UK, thats max 350fps IIRC). With their budget they could likely have found one, but its also possible schedule wise they needed the instant preview. 

[Deniz Zagra]

3 hours ago, Robin Phillips said:

finding photosonics cameras is problematic

What about the one that can go up to 2500fps?

 

9 hours ago, Giovanni Louisor said:

The majority of the movie was shot on 35mm, with some of the night sequences (mostly exterior, with a few interiors) and "dusk for night" scenes, shot on the Venice, due to it's low-light sensitivity.

I wish Kodak would develop a special made-to-order low light stock. One that has an iso of 2500 or 3200. I feel like a lot more people would prefer film then.

[Robin Phillips]

4 minutes ago, Deniz Zagra said:

What about the one that can go up to 2500fps?

 

I wish Kodak would develop a special made-to-order low light stock. One that has an iso of 2500 or 3200. I feel like a lot more people would prefer film then.

I havent seen an operational one available for rent for a long time. you can find them on ebay, if you know someone mechanically inclined enough. I dont know if Photosonics will even touch them anymore. they were primarily scientific cameras.

The idea of Kodak doing a low run of such a high ISO film is disconnected from the reality of the production and market for film. You'd have to buy a million feet or more, and the R&D may prove its simply not possible (or not possible without a massive effort that would make the material vastly more expensive than digital alternatives)

[David Mullen ASC]

Plus super high-speed stock, besides being very grainy, does not store well over time due to sensitivity to cosmic radiation, so it's not like Kodak could make a large batch and store it for a couple of years.

It's also a solution in search of a problem, the ability to mix digital and film into the same project just makes it easier to use digital.

On the other hand, considering the popularity of 500T stock, I think Kodak might do OK with a Vision 1000T. Twice as fast and twice as grainy seems to me the limit though.

[Stephen Perera]

High ASA film......not to mention the problems of sending film to labs in other countries and/or travelling with film and the new airport scanners etc......I would vouch it's the middle tier Kodak buyer that keeps it all flowing these days.....all the people doing music videos, shorts and independent films that I see so much of on film.....and then there's people like me at the bottom end doing 16mm projects and photographic work

[Mark Dunn]

13 hours ago, Deniz Zagra said:

What about the one that can go up to 2500fps?

 

 

That's a rotating prism camera- the resolution is quite a bit lower. It certainly wouldn't intercut with intermittent very well, and you need a vast amount of light.