Jump to content

Manu Delpech

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Manu Delpech last won the day on April 6

Manu Delpech had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

About Manu Delpech

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

9612 profile views
  1. OP, take a look at some of the best looking super 16 out there, One Tree Hill (on Hulu if you want to get optimal quality and then again it's compressed and still looks AMAZING), Steve Jobs (first act), The Newsroom (Aaron Sorkin's HBO show, the pilot is shot on super 16), that's the best 16mm I've ever seen. Then watch The Place Beyond The Pines or Silver Linings Playbook, The Fighter, American Hustle which are shot on 2 perf and very recent and same deal, some of the best 2 perf I've seen. The difference is HUGE there, the gain in clarity and resolution alone, the grain structure and look of it, the sharpness. Then let's not even talk about 3 perf and beyond.
  2. I like calling digitally shot films movies, and films shot on film films but I'm a snob.
  3. AH ah ah, that's a good one 😄
  4. Looks a completely different show which is awesome. The crane move following Aaron Paul on the bridge though, the motion felt like digital there?! Which is surprising considering the show has been 35mm film, I hope they somehow didn't switch to digital or maybe for some shots? The Youtube quality is too mediocre to be able to tell for sure.
  5. That's because they made the movie with Paramount, Paramount sold it to Netflix. However, Scorsese got to shoot The Irishman on film (50/50 it seems as the first half featuring deaging required digital, the rest is film).
  6. Yup, it's depressing but I'll also be depressed if my film looks like a glossy, flavorless, bland thing, it's our job to care really. How people consume things is not our problem. And there'll be a community of die hard film fans who will care and notice and appreciate.
  7. I personally loathe watching films with anyone else, it's a personal, sacred thing. Theaters have too many distractions, like people for example 😄 Most folks have no idea that they're watching something that's badly projected or that the image sucks though, that's the problem, so theaters don't care in return, it's a vicious circle. After being burned on Shazam ! (IMAX released cancelled here last second) and having to watch it in 2D in super dim, shitty, with darker scenes being completely mushy, I swore off seeing any movies at my local multiplex that aren't in laser IMAX. I've had it, it's frustrating to have to wait, but I'd rather wait, rent it on Itunes and I swear to God, that even with a highly compressed 3.5-5 gb file, it looks vastly better on my setup than it would at the movie theater.
  8. Well, what Cameron did on Alita Battle Angel (even though he didn't direct it) was to forbid theaters under 4.5 FL to show the film in 3D. That's one way to do it, then again, you'll rarely see instructions like these for films showing in 2D, even Tarantino and Nolan would only ensure that special presentations in IMAX or on film would be just right. But it's a crap shoot really, there's so many theaters all around, there's no earthly way to send someone for QC for every film, and check regularly to make sure the picture is up to snuff.
  9. The biggest problem but no one gives a poop, ugh.
  10. I vastly prefer watching films on my videoprojector than on my TV, obviously, the quality and size is vastly superior on the former for me, but the feel and look of it feels so much better. And the projection in cinemas is certainly NOT supposed to be dim. You'd have to know if your movie theater is actually showing movies the way they should be seen, too many theaters want to save a buck on the bulb and it just looks dim, completely faded, no contrast, no pop.
  11. Oh you are speaking the truth. I've been complaining several times to my local multiplex (which is a big chain here), the digital projection quality is UNACCEPTABLE, their laser IMAX theater is impeccable but everything else is DIM as hell, faded, washed out, I told myself I would never go back there to see a film that's not in IMAX, I bit the bullet for Shazam ! as there was no other choice and I was heartbroken at how lifeless the image, and kept thinking how furious the director and DP would be if they saw that crap. Unless it's a Dolby Cinema theater, or laser IMAX, there's just no QC, it appears no one gives a poop and most people don't know or care. Ugh.
  12. No excuse, even super low budget films shoot on film. I believe Ryan Coogler spoke of super 16 on Fruitvale Station as being his special effect and I couldn't put it any better. Film is more production value imo, it makes you stand out as well and it will definitely give you more notice (unless the film sucks) than if you are the ten thousandth movie shot on the Alexa. It's clear though that you don't have a point here and are left with your "content is king" bit. I don't give a **** if moviegoers know something was shot on film or not. What I know is what I'm looking at and what I want and I can't count how often, always really, I cringe at how clean 99% of the films and TV shows out there look. There are some rare examples where one film will look a certain way, even if shot digitally, and I'll love the look, but there's not one digitally shot film or TV show out there where I don't think, every time, "this looks great but I wish they'd shot on film".
  13. Even greatly manipulated digital footage does NOT look like film, it just doesn't. There are extremely rare films shot on film that are so squeaky clean that they possibly could be misconstrued for digital, but honestly, I can't think of any off the top of my head. Film is obviously not just grain, it's the way faces, colors are rendered, it's the life in the frame. Prashantt talks about Benoit Debie, Debie himself said on The Beach Bum that he CANNOT achieve the colors he wants to achieve with anything else but film. There are so many films that would gain something if shot on film, so many films that need the grit, but are too goddam squeaky clean and it works against the film, I'm sorry but it does. It made me smile when Rodrigo Prieto said in a video that he thought Sicario should have been shot on film because it needed that grit, Sicario is gorgeously shot but I agree. Linus Sandgren has professed his love for film, and continues to do so every single time and is adamant he can do so many things with film that he can't with digital, and many others say the same thing. Deakins not seeing the difference anymore is his problem really, but hey, as much as his work with the Alexa is gorgeous, I still think it doesn't come close to his best work on film (independent of the fact that every movie is different) and something is missing. That's just my two cents. We fundamentally disagree here, there IS a magical quality to film, and if you're not willing to take the word of tons of highly respected directors and DPs on this, I don't know what to tell you. I tell you what I see, story is story sure, shooting on film doesn"t mean you're going to make a good movie, only a clown would think this. But it MATTERS, do you understand? I always see the difference and I've spent years training my eye for it, scrutinizing footage, sometimes up close, and it's also what the format evokes, and I said what film evokes for me. Also, keep in mind that I see most films on a 90 inch plus screen with a great JVC videoprojector, I'm lucky enough to do so. Now, if you're watching something on a TV and you're sitting far away, or same in the movie theater, you're obviously not going to see the grain or the texture of film much, unless it's super 16 or it was push processed, that's common sense. Even then, you still have all the advantages and qualities of film, but I don't see the point of sitting far away, I want to see and FEEL the texture of the film. And here we go into another film vs digital "debate" despite my best intentions. Sorry OP.
  14. Go tell that to Spielberg, Nolan, Scorsese, Tarantino, PT Anderson, Snyder, Chazelle, JJ Abrams, Ponsoldt, Coen Brothers, Scott Cooper, Adam McKay, and so many others. This is ridiculous. It MATTERS, who cares if audiences know the difference (but they'll feel it), it's your intention, you, the filmmaker, and the DP, you want your film to look and feel a certain way. You might not miss it but plenty LOVE it because it looks and feels better, there is emotion with film, something happens, it's a quicker way to empathy than digital is imo, plenty will tell you the same, it can't be rationalized, it just is. It also looks more interesting and stands out. All my favorite films are shot on film, all of them, it's not a coincidence, it's not an internal trick, it just makes me feel in a way digital doesn't, independent of the emotion of the movie itself. Go ahead and call those master directors, or DPs like Linus Sandgren, or Masanobu Takayanagi, or Rodrigo Prieto and so many others that they're "tech hipsters". If you truly can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you, it's blatant, it's obvious.
  • Create New...