Manu Delpech

Are we talking about the digitally ugly smeary motion blur? Because I have rarely seen it on Alexa shot movies. Sometimes it works, when Mann does it on Collateral or Miami Vice or Blackhat for example, but it really takes me out otherwise when it happens. I mean, you know it's digital, but then some shots have it and it's unmistakable.

Is it okay to find the F55 ugly looking in everything I saw that was shot on it? I find it looks very videoey for some reason most of the time. Vinyl looked good but they used that special LiveGrain sauce to make it feel better. Ah and yes The Homesman's night sequences were F55 too, Prieto using it here before Vinyl. The F65 though, same deal, the only films that made it look really good are Cafe Society and Miranda's work with Joe Kosinski on Oblivion and Only The Brave. The F35 on Tron Legacy (Miranda and Kosinski once again) looked great, I think it had actually more flavor to it than most digital cameras these days. Miranda and Kosinski are working with the Venice on Top Gun 2, I don't know what it is but Miranda really does wonder with Sony cameras just like he did with the Viper on The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button or the Alexa on Life Of Pi.

Thank god, Soderbergh is returning to regular digital cameras for the Laundromat, don't remember where but I saw an article the other day where he says the film mixes several aspect ratios, styles, etc. High Flying Bird looks so ugly, I like the film and Soderbergh insists the film couldn't have been made the way it was, at the speed it was (12 days) any other way but it's still so distracting and electronic looking.

Shot on 2 perf 35mm for the film bits.

Which is pretty much the entire film from every info I could find about the cinematography (and watching the film obviously), the interviews are digital.

Bingo, I'm sure JJ will bring it home but I think TLJ is a masterpiece. There's nothing worse than your film being met with a collective shrug, sometimes, being bold and controversial pays off and is more interesting. I also think of certain superhero films that many people supposedly hate and yet keep talking about to this day, hem hem :D

Just got it on BD and it's like I'm rediscovering the film after seeing it on Itunes. It's super impressive how well the super 16 on this film holds up on the big screen, I've been surprised by 16mm before on things like One Tree Hill, Steve Jobs but I still am.

Cuarón on the Hollywood Reporter thing on YouTub talks about the waves shot after Spike Lee asks how he did that shot.....

 

 

...he tells Spike lee it was one shot......

I'll repost what I posted on the previous page.

Yeah I was gonna post this. Also, that beach scene? It's stitched together :D

Take the bravura extended tracking shot when the family's housekeeper, Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), watches the family's kids at the beach as they charge into the water, then rushes into the pounding waves when two of the smaller children appear to be struggling. Cuaron presents the sequence as if it is one uninterrupted shot. But to achieve that appearance, several shots had to be stitched together and the whole setting digitally manipulated. "We ended up extending the shot by putting in a new middle section from other takes," explains Griffiths, "enhancing the drama and danger."

In effect, Cuaron, who served as his own cinematographer, was following in the footsteps of his frequent cinematographer, Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki, who won an Oscar for shooting 2014's Birdman as if the entire movie were filmed in one continuous take. In that case, Lubezki was able to use doorways and backstage passages to disguise where some of the shots were stitched together. The challenge in Roma's beach scene was that all the shots of sea, sky and sand had to be flawlessly matched to make the manufactured tracking shot convincing.

Several different takes of Cleo rescuing the children were involved, and some takes of the children were repositioned. Certain views of the sky also were replaced. "The time of day was different, so we had to match up and grade the actual water and reflection — it was a tricky shot," acknowledges Griffiths. Cuaron also requested that the height of the water be adjusted so that it would look deeper. "So there was a lot of work to do in compositing in that section," he adds, "and then at the end of the shot, we cut back to the original take."

https://www.hollywoo...equence-1169264

The film is filled with VFX, still great though and flawless CG work

I am absolutely sure that a experienced director can do perfectly good job working as a dp as well especially if not needing to operate by himself.

 

It is the lighting part of the dp work where their role may start to fall apart.... Directors tend to have no idea about lighting because that would require lots of real dp experience though it would not matter that much if making only available natural light movies

Not to mention that Cuaron worked as a DP when he started

No, they don't "sponsor" because by definition, an "art" film would make choices artistically -- if the filmmaker were looking for money, they'd do product placement!

 

But manufacturers, rental houses, etc. do help some filmmakers out, I'm sure if ARRI heard that Cuaron wanted to shoot on the Alexa 65, they'd make sure he got one. But it's not like Cuaron puts Kodak and ARRI in a room and tells them that he'll use the product of whoever gives him the better deal.

 

Manufacturers nurture relationships that they think will help promote their product, and sometimes that coincides with what a cinematographer is trying to achieve for a project. But "sponsorship" is a bit more direct in terms of putting cash out.

 

I don't think ARRI really needs to "sell" the Alexa 65 on anyone, particularly since it is not for sale!

 

Of course, there are a few examples of manufacturers and cinematographers getting into a promotional scheme of some sort.

The irony is that the AC article says Cuaron & Chivo tested film cameras.

It's a great look, but aspiring S16 filmmakers should go and see S16-shot films in the cinema as soon as possible to get a clear picture of what they look like in the initial exhibition (if they perhaps aspire to cinema release productions in any way, shape or form). Because I think it's fair to say S16 films look grainier on the big screen than on tv screens and monitors. Unless measures are made to reduce grain. And if that's the look you want, grainy or less so, then that's good. You have a clearer vision of what it is you're trying to achieve. Which is the path an artist walks.

16mm these days holds surprisingly well on the big screen really. I expected to be shocked in a bad way by First Man in IMAX (biggest screen in the country here) and it held up so well, so well that I wondered if Linus and Natasha Leonett had applied some noise reduction

I think in film origination there's The Great Three that are right up there with keeping that 'real film look': Super 16, 2 perf, and 3 perf. Choose the one you're happiest working with. 4 perf Scope looks amazing too of course, though these days it's more difficult to tell even on the cinema screen if it's shot on film, or on an Alexa.

Some folks keep saying that but it's not true AT ALL. I can tell, always. Granted, I always sit up front, or am sitting like 10 feet away from the screen at home (on a 90 inch plus screen), but I can always tell. When you sit too far away, then yeah, you don't see the texture at much although you'll still get the other benefits and qualities of film.

Bad Times At The El Royale is another example lately, it's 4 perf anamorphic, I rented it on Itunes, so that alone is massively compressed but still solid quality, and the grain and texture is prominent. La La Land is the same on BR, you can feel the grain, no problem (that and Linus Sandgren likes to overexpose to bring out the grain more). mid90s, Itunes rental as well, unmistakably film, obviously with 16mm.

There are very rare instances of films shot on film that look quite clean and pristine but it's just that, rare. The only times that can be tricky is when you watch films on TV channels and the broadcast quality is such that it wipes out the grain.

Even in a highly compressed Itunes 1080p rental (3.6 gb file), mid90s looks fantastic. Phenomenal debut imo, the ratio (picked because it cut very well with the skating footage at the end of the film) is the right choice as well.

With that last sentence, I'm not sure there will be a debate to start honestly :D I guess 16mm is the most unique simply because the grain is so present and thick, the image so soft that you can't mistake it for anything else if you're someone who has trouble determining what the format on a movie is. 35mm film for me is what I'd call THE film look even though no matter which film format, it'll be there.

I quite like 16mm but I don't love it nearly the same way I do 35mm, I love the density, grain structure (whether 2 perf, 3 perf, 4 perf super 35, anamorphic 35mm (my favorite) ), and texture of 35mm. I dig 65mm a lot as well but it tends to be too clean at times for me. I want to feel the texture, the grain, that veneer. 16mm can also look a bit too homemade film if not done right.

haha yes, this is for me the 16mm v 35mm debate as a cinema goer, Im nowhere near anything other.....what Im saying is arri alexa footage gets thrown in with 35mm and 65mm in Christopher Robin for example and nobody other than people like David Mullen can tell the difference due to the grading etc but 16mm in my opinion is the most distinctive look out there that digital just can't match

 

Spec on Christopher Robin:

Arri Alexa SXT, Panavision C-, E- and G-Series Lenses

Panavision Panaflex Millennium XL2, Panavision C-, E- and G-Series Lenses

Panavision Panaflex System 65 Studio, Panavision APO Panatar and Sphero 65 Lenses

You could tell from the trailers alone that CR was a digital and film hybrid. I have it on BR and it's clear as day on a 90 inch + screen as well. Yes 16mm is the most OBVIOUS but 35mm is plenty obvious too unless you're sitting in the last few rows or something. 2 perf is super distinctive, even anamorphic can be plenty grainy. Some rare films these days look quite clean despite being shot on film but it's rare imo.

Why does it sound so surprising? James Wan is a strong director. The VFX work is astounding, we haven't seen this onscreen so far, it's a ton of fun, the third act is jaw dropping with some of the best action set pieces you'll ever see. If you're not a fan of superhero films though, I doubt this one will convince you if you're going in with your mind made up.

No one will make fun of Aquaman again after this film. Oh and it's already going to be hitting 500 M WW by this weekend.

Well I predicted disaster for Welcome to Marwen, sorry to say I was right. How on earth did this get green-lit? 1 million from 1, 911 locations? Ouch, big time....ouch.

 

Welcome to Marwen is an out-and-out dud after getting skewered by critics and earning a B- CinemaScore. It earned less than $1 million on Friday from 1,911 locations for a projected debut of $2.7 million.

It only cost 39 million. But yeah, I've really dug the trailers but it just smelled like a bomb especially with the market being saturated with Aquaman (which is fantastic), Mary Poppins Returns, Bumblebee, Spidey-Verse, etc

Yeah I was gonna post this. Also, that beach scene? It's stitched together :D

Take the bravura extended tracking shot when the family's housekeeper, Cleo (Yalitza Aparicio), watches the family's kids at the beach as they charge into the water, then rushes into the pounding waves when two of the smaller children appear to be struggling. Cuaron presents the sequence as if it is one uninterrupted shot. But to achieve that appearance, several shots had to be stitched together and the whole setting digitally manipulated. "We ended up extending the shot by putting in a new middle section from other takes," explains Griffiths, "enhancing the drama and danger."

In effect, Cuaron, who served as his own cinematographer, was following in the footsteps of his frequent cinematographer, Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki, who won an Oscar for shooting 2014's Birdman as if the entire movie were filmed in one continuous take. In that case, Lubezki was able to use doorways and backstage passages to disguise where some of the shots were stitched together. The challenge in Roma's beach scene was that all the shots of sea, sky and sand had to be flawlessly matched to make the manufactured tracking shot convincing.

Several different takes of Cleo rescuing the children were involved, and some takes of the children were repositioned. Certain views of the sky also were replaced. "The time of day was different, so we had to match up and grade the actual water and reflection — it was a tricky shot," acknowledges Griffiths. Cuaron also requested that the height of the water be adjusted so that it would look deeper. "So there was a lot of work to do in compositing in that section," he adds, "and then at the end of the shot, we cut back to the original take."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/how-romas-visual-effects-team-created-intense-ocean-sequence-1169264

Still great though

Mortal Engines looked like a bomb from the trailer alone. It seems the books have been mostly forgotten, there was zero buzz for it, the trailers failed to get people excited, add to that a novice director who seems more at ease (understandably so) with set pieces and action than characters and story, and boom.

If anyone else actually has some Roma related things to post ;-)

But this is Alfonso Cuaron, a highly visual director. He's said he's always been very involved (obviously) in the framing and composition on his films:

“In many ways, being my own cinematographer was a shortcut, because there were images springing directly out of my memory,” says Cuarón. “I’ve always been involved with the framing and composition for all of my films. It’s something that I design by the inch and discuss with Chivo. Sometimes when I was framing during the production of Roma, these memory smells would come to me and then I would know that I was going in the right direction!”

He also has this to say:

"The time you prepped this film informed me so much. I wanted to do the Academy format; you convinced me to go 65 and wide. That started to inform the whole thing. We started talking about lighting."

EL: You were setting up the camera, talking to the actors. When did you have time to do the lighting?

AC: That was fundamental. We’re going to be in the dining room. I knew roughly the shot. From the night before we start doing pre-lights, having extra crew working extra hours to start doing a pre-rig, then I would finish. It was a process. Embracing being a cinematographer forced me to be on the set all day long. When we work together, we work, I go away. Somehow I had to be there, that was triggering more details of the memory of the moment, it was very useful. I was there lighting, and composing. For me, it was: “What would Chivo do?”

EL: You tend not to follow the rules. With this one you are working with non-actors, using complex blocking. You are dealing with dancers who haven’t danced. Was this style developed during the writing, or found in situ?

AC: It was decided on the page, the script was densely described, including sounds. It has to do with stuff we’ve been doing together since “Y Tu Mama Tambien,” which changed my approach on foreground vs. background, character vs. social environment, and on “Children of Men,” we elaborated on that. On this one, I decided, “OK, I am going to trust that I already built that muscle and I’m not going to worry about it. I’m just going to make it happen.” When I would first describe to the crew the shot, they would think I was joking!

AC: First is to find the space, when I start lensing, to go through the whole thing. Timing was the most difficult thing. People ask always about the beach scene. What was more complicated was simple things like doing a round movement, a 380 inside the house. When Cleo is turning off the lights we have 45 different camera positions, the camera can’t be in one place and panning. It was a floor with lines everywhere. Even before bringing in the actors it was about sorting out the timings. But the actors had to have the flexibility to improvise. Something I learned from you was communicating with the dolly or the operator.

I have no idea where the Galo Olivares being the co-DP came from, I'm pretty sure it originated from The Film Stage (Indiewire just picked that up), but I never found much of anything else on the subject. Let's not forget that Indiewire and other websites were the ones spreading the lie that Roma was shot on 65mm film. I have no doubt that Olivares had a substantial role though.

Key crew members were gaffer Javier Enríquez, camera operator/cinematography collaborator Galo Olivares, first AC Francesco Cavazza, DIT Ernesto Joven, and Technicolor LA colourist Steve Scott.

"We would come weeks or months later to mark where the track would go or where the camera would pan from place to place. The art department knew exactly what we were going to see. We would have to make considerations. I’d discuss with Javier the lighting of each shot. I knew that the camera was going to be cornered on one side framing the whole house with foreground and background.”"

About Chivo on Gravity, Seresin actually shot 60% of the film as he revealed in an interview.

 

 

Although he's never Dop,ed a film before.. and he could produce this camera work and direct.. I mean come on.. due respect to the guy... its impossible that the other guy didn't do the lions share of the work..I read an article that credits Olivares as shooting it as an up and coming DoP..

 

https://www.indiewire.com/2017/03/alfonso-cuaron-roma-cinematographer-galo-olivares-1201793975/

Like I said, this is an old article. Galo Olivares was RUMORED to be shooting the film or at least being a co-DP on it. He was never mentioned since then. Cuaron said Chivo was a huge influence on the film anyway and went about it from a position of "what would Chivo do". Don't forget the film also had a 108 day schedule, shot chronologically. He had a lot of time on his hands.

I doubt you can direct and DP at that level (as Cary Fukunaga did on Beasts Of No Nation by the way) without some huge help for camera operators, gaffers, etc but it's clear from interviews, him describing the process, or how certain scenes were shot, that he was the DP as he is credited to be. There's also an article in the January AC issue which will be even more enlightening I assume.

Doubt it all you want, but don't take credit away from Cuaron. It's an incredible accomplishment

who is the actual dp on this movie?

Alfonso Cuaron as I said.

Also, Galo Olivares is not listed as a co-DP, it's just cinematography collaboration (whatever that is) and camera operator.

The story about Chivo is that Cuaron wanted more days of prep, more everything and Chivo had other commitments. It's clear that Alfonso Cuaron IS the DP, not Galo Olivares.

Not sure this was worthy of a thread, especially in this category. I feel bad for Christian Rivers, Peter Jackson's protégé, who was responsible for animatics and storyboards back on LOTR, shot some second unit on The Hobbit. Peter gave him this opportunity as his first film and it might be a while before he gets another gig

Agreed on everything. That gorgeous oner on the beach:

"Another complicated scene to shoot was the long take, using a horizontal camera move, when Cleo walks from a beach into the sea to save the children from drowning.

“The first challenge was to find an inland beach facing northwest in Tabasco where we were shooting,” explains Cuarón. “It also had to be a beach that had waves that were a specular and that was controllable in terms of people swimming. We had to build a pier so that the Technocrane would always be at the same level with the water and sand.

“The sweet spot for the light was 5:30pm to 6pm. I wanted to have six takes in the can before the sun disappeared to make sure that we had it. The day before we shot, there was a tropical storm that weakened the structure of the pier. The crane kept on derailing, not even reaching the moment where Cleo gets into the water. Rebuilding the pier and coming back again later was too expensive and unfeasible. We were able to achieve just one take. I said to my producers that I would have to live with the shot. I thought it was not so good. But, eventually, when I was in the cutting room I was like, ‘Wow. This is great!’”

https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/alfonso-cuaron-roma/

There's also an article in next month's AC magazine.

For the light, seemed to me like all available light really which seems to be what it was most of time they were outdoors really. The Alexa 65 shines on this, it wouldn't look nearly as good in color though. B&W can really make a lot of things that are boring in color really interesting. Not to deny the fact that Cuaron's work here is immaculate. Here's another conversation with Chivo:

https://www.indiewire.com/2018/12/roma-emmanuel-lubezki-alfonso-cuaron-cinematography-1202028167/

I think it's more ignorance. A lot of websites early on circulated the fact that it was shot on 65mm film because that's what most people (well, people who have some knowledge of film) associate 65mm with. Then, you had some people whining about a 65mm film being shown on Netflix. Then, I looked everywhere I could find info, landed on a rental website listing the film as using the Alexa 65 as main camera, then behind the scenes video where we clearly see an Alexa layout for playback, etc. Started correcting some articles stating otherwise. Then for a while, Netflix people were themselves saying "it was shot on 65mm", which is no big deal since many films are shot on the Alexa 65 these days.

Cuaron stated himself (there's a video on Arri Rental of him talking about it, others as well) that he shot this digitally on the Alexa 65 for a reason because he didn't want grain, he wanted it to be him in the present looking back at the past. But yet, he continues to tout the "shot on 65mm" bit (and asking for the film to be shown in 70mm shows that) and the ending credits stating this are very clear. A buddy of mine saw it in Rome, he's pretty much a nerd and he told me that the ending credits there did not have the "Shot entirely on 65mm" bit.

Anyway, doesn't really matter. Do watch the film folks and if you find yourself initially being perhaps bored or wondering what the big deal is with this film, keep pushing, I felt the same way at first.