Manu Delpech

AH ah ah, that's a good one ?

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

The biggest problem but no one gives a poop, ugh.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

The abundant grain, especially on the Pro Res file, is brilliant. Taxi Driver, The King Of Comedy, some sweet references. I just love everything about the trailer, it's going to be a new obsession ? The way the camera moves, the feel, the mood, the look, Joaquin, it's a great cut too. The trailer has been seen 21 million times already on Youtube Greg, this plus the buzz on Twitter and Cinema Con, this is going to set the world on fire.

Youtube compression and quality is dreadful though. You're far better off watching the 1080p QT version on Apple Trailers

It's not just that though, you can't just throw a layer of film grain on or even use something like LiveGrain (which is more elaborate, but ends up looking not any different) and expect it to look like film. There's just a fundamental nature to film that is random, and the way faces are rendered, look and feel is so different.

I don't think many DPs like the digital look overall, so many articles in AC or British Cinematographer or whatever you can find where anamorphic lenses are super in demand for digital shows to break the image apart a little, or grain is added in post or the ASA setting is pushed in order to get some kind of texture. And digital just isn't special, that's the thing, so many things shot on the Alexa or Red and it just becomes this shapeless, homogenized blob, nothing or very few things stand out. And those who shoot on film stand out and it is special. But the labs coming back is just a great thing, and more and more things (still a tiny number) films, indie films and TV shows are being shot on film these days.

I just know that the digital equipment is far more expensive than a super 16 or 2 perf package, and then it depends on how much you shoot. If you're disciplined, film becomes less expensive. There are several indie films out there in the 1-10 million range that shot on film and were clear it worked out cheaper than digital. Fruitvale Station is in the 500 K range and is super 16, James Ponsoldt shot The Spectacular Now on ana 35mm on a 3.5 M budget, he had to give up one position I think on the crew but it worked out beautifully.

IT'S HERE, at last, the first teaser trailer for Todd Phillips' Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck, who becomes The Joker, yes, it is a DC film, a sort of Elseworlds tale, meaning it's separate, supposedly, from the continuity of the DCEU and is a what if kinda film, similar to The Killing Joke, those sorts of one off comics runs. $55 million budget, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Frances Conroy, Shea Whigham, Marc Maron and more join Phoenix. Martin Scorsese was attached as exec producer at some point, Emma Tillinger Koskoff, one of his usual producers, is on board though. The film will be a character study, a tragedy of sorts. Gregory Irwin worked on the film and gave me some technical details on the film, I don't know if I can share yet but I can at least say (as the info is on the official Alexa 65 website) that the film was shot on the Alexa 65 by Lawrence Sher, a Todd Phillips regular who shot The Hangover Trilogy, War Dogs and recently, Godzilla: King Of Monsters, another Alexa 65 show, which looks gorgeous too. Anyway, the film looks really special and gorgeous. https://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/joker/ I'm not including the YT link, it's just too compressed, doesn't do it justice.

Once again, Olivares was announced a long time ago but it turns out it was probably a misunderstanding as Olivares worked on the film as a camera operator and cinematography collaborator, which is a title I've never seen before but it's clear he was an important presence on the film but I'm not surprised that some are immediately doubting that Cuaron had anything to do with it, it's not as if he worked as a cinematographer early in his career...

UHD BD players for sure but BD players completely?

Zodiac has ONE shot if I'm not mistaken which is when Graysmith goes to see Paul Avery on his boat. It's a pan left to right, day time, smeary, then again, it was the Viper. There might be others but this one stuck with me. Otherwise, I haven't seen Gone Girl, TSN in a while but I don't think there was in those. We're not talking limitations of the sensors, either they didn't have enough light or it was another technical consideration. But trust me, it's there but most films I see that are shot digitally rarely have it. And there is, it's usually isolated to a handful of shots

No, it's not the way I'm viewing a trailer, the examples I've cited are real, in theaters and on Blu Ray. You can check it out yourself or maybe you somehow don't notice it.

Not necessarily poor lighting, Ben Is Back has a 13 million budget, maybe they couldn't afford as much equipment as they needed for some of the night stuff, I don't know?! Or it's a weird stylistic choice. There are quite a few times on modern movies (happens more on TV though, whether it's Red or Alexa) where that ugliness is present and I wonder why "were they lazy?", "stylistic choice?", "they didn't have time to light it?". Who knows. I NEVER called anyone incompetent. Also, yeah, Dryburgh is a great DP, doesn't mean everything he does is going to be great either. I'm thinking of examples and there are probably reasons for all of it: Life Of Pi exhibits that motion blur several times in daytime and night time situations, probably requirements because of 3D or certain technical aspects of the film. Mr Robot on TV has a handful of moments in the first episode if I remember correctly, daytime interior. (Red Dragon on that one), Birdman has it (night time exterior on the roof, Ed Norton and Emma Stone chatting), X-Men: Days Of Future Past has quite a bit of it, in daytime situations especially, Captain America: The First Avenger has it from time to time (but most of it is shot on the Genesis, so that makes sense), there are more examples everywhere but I'm too lazy to keep looking :D

Several films this year should have been nominated for Best Cinematography. I wish ASIB had taken it on this one.

Blackhat is shot on the Alexa and has the same type of smeary motion blur that Collateral and Miami Vice (and Public Enemies) have. But as Stuart says, it was obviously more of a limitation at the time. Maybe Mann likes it? Although he said he was probably coming back to film for his Enzo Ferrari film before he left the project (James Mangold directed instead). Ben Is Back is another example lately, I've just seen the trailer but the night stuff in the trailer looks horrendous and it's filled with it. Logan also has it when Charles is having his seizures, they used a 358 degree shutter angle for those scenes.