Manu Delpech

It sounds very distracting?! Either the 16mm is going to stick out, or the 35mm. Is there that much of a difference btw super 16 & Ultra 16 because imo there's a world of difference btw super 16 & 2 perf. See films like Silver Linings Playbook, On The Road, American Hustle, The Place Beyond The Pines for an example of 2 perf in a major motion picture.

NCOM? these acronyms kill me! LOL

 

My favorite "digital" Deakins film is Skyfall. That night stuff at the end was just stellar.

 

Blade Runner also had a very "video" look in terms of it's motion blur in certain scenes. It wasn't a consistent problem, but it was there for sure.

 

Bradford Young "has" pulled off better immersive blacks, but they don't hold up on home video.

There is a 3rd act, everything does not have to be resolved or explained, you do still get to have some kind of mystery these days. The "digital" girlfriend, her name is Joi, is kind of an important character regarding the nonstop question (without spoiling) of humanity, what it is to be human, etc.

No video look, I would have noticed (especially in goddam IMAX). And yes, those immersive blacks as you call them, hold up on home video. Anything else?

I think you guys are getting too pixel peepy... "Samsara" was shot in 5-perf 65mm and digitally mastered and projected in 4K and it looked fantastic.

Amen

"You aren't seeing the movie", I give up, too much face palming at this nonsense. Well, I guess none of us are seeing any movie then since it's just an interpretation huh? Look, I get that guys like Tyler are hardcore purists who believe that only a film print has any value and the rest is dogs***, but this is getting ridiculous. So much cynicism.

Yeah guys, all the photochemical beauty is lost with a DI, why shoot on film amirite?! WHICH FILMS shot on film lately look like digital? Seriously? Sure, the stocks are better than they've ever been, which @fatih, explains why there is a textural difference btw films shot in the 80's, 90's or whatever and those shot now. I do wish they would bring back some of the older stocks, but the idea from some that those stocks are so clean that they sometimes look digitally, I just have to shake my head considering I've seen zero major film shot on celluloid look that way these last few years. Hell, just push it if you want more grain.

Disagree BR 2049 lacked contrast or punch, I wonder if that had to do with your projection maybe, never felt that way and I LOVE contrasty images. There's ONE shot I felt looked too overly bright, it's when K gets out of the spinner in Las Vegas and starts walking. Roger's finest work alongside NCOM for me, and I always felt his best work on digital didn't touch his best on film. I do miss the grain, the grit of the original, but like he said, he's not Jordan Cronenweth and could never do that, everything is obviously intentional.

For the low contrast look that is so lazy, I'd argue that Bradford Young is one of the only ones who can do this & pull it off completely, milky blacks can look interesting on isolated shots even though overall, there is nothing better imo than nice, dense, inky blacks. Inside Llewyn Davis was super low con, but that truly fit.

Such a masterpiece, gotta say it's a way different experience seeing Alexa footage (well, Deakins is only one of the few capable of making it look that way) blown up on a giant IMAX screen, looks as fabulous as can be expected, although yes, I do miss the ana 35mm texture. There was zero digital motion blur, so I don't know what that was about

Deadwood was shot on film, just saying, since someone said here it was digital?!

I think that paradoxically the biggest threat for film origination could actually be the SCREENWRITING more than technical or aesthetics...

because the script dictates the genre and locations and mood of the film quite a lot and if it calls for, for example, lots of remote locations, certain types of lighting conditions, long scenes with certain type of operating, etc. it may not be practical to shoot the movie on film for practical and economical reasons even if the film would otherwise benefit from film origination.

 

In recent years it has been especially difficult because global depression necessitates (again) transforming the movies more towards fantasy/scifi/action/comedy instead of period/drama/relationships related content and in current environment it is much more practical to shoot this type of content (fantasy/scifi/action/comedy) on digital (lots of vfx, lots of cameras, high speed shots, handheld, the need to make visually stunning crystal clear scenes for young audience, etc)

 

Certain types of movies benefit a lot from film origination but if other genres are more asked for because of the economical and political environment, then digital is used more and more...

I understand all of that, but I still think there are too many excuses. If they can shoot The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, Ep IX, MOS, BvS, WW, or JL on film for example, how can the producers or studio then justify "it'd be too complicated & costly on film, so we're shooting digitally". If those filmmakers really want to shoot film, even on projects shooting in multiple countries, multiple units, lots of logistics, than they make it happen, that's showing you're serious with it, and imo a bit more serious than just going the easy and shooting some tasteless digital thing. After all, the industry had been doing it for a hundred years plus, digital just made everything easier and some are content with it.

Film is also just more interesting visually, it makes thing come to life in a way that is completely flat digitally, it's imo so much more pleasant to the eye, on the skin, so many actors prefer film (Tom Cruise is an advocate of film, he said he doesn't like digital, I guess he mellowed since The Mummy had some digital portions, American Made is digital, and MI6 is digital).

I think even if audiences don't know or care, they'll still feel the difference & the celluloid origination subconsciously.

The Walking Dead is 16mm...

 

.....anyway personally nothing in digital I have seen has the colour palette of film.....Kodak Vision3 emulsions in my eyes as a cinema goer has the same palette I have seen using Kodak Portra 160 in photography......the skin tones...the greens...the reds....

 

For fun I always try and predict what is shot on film or not and then I check it on IMDB.....I'm right most in 90% of cases.....

 

I am petty good at identifying whats shot on Arri Alexa these days as it all looks the same more or less hahhaah...ironic

 

I like this page:

https://reelfilm.kodak.com/shot_on_film

Yup, forgot about it somehow.

It'll never kill film because it will never look like film, that's the reality of it. Chemical ----------> chip/sensor

I get what Alex means in the images not feeling right, I can rarely watch something shot digitally and first, not go "ugh", and second, "I wish this was shot on film, it'd look better". It's pretty distracting, but I love a ton of movies shot digitally even though that thought never goes away, but all my favorite films are shot on film, there's a reason for that.

I don't feel emotion with digital capture the way I do with film, some filmmakers said there's an inherent empathy & emotion to it, and I agree. And I'll admit that I take films shot on actual film a bit more seriously, not to hate on any film shooting digitally, IT & BR 2049 this year for example, those movies look fantastic.

I feel as if, if filmmakers CAN shoot film, and choose that over digital, they're a bit more disciplined, they want to make something special, no one is going to go "they shot on Alexa, so cool", now, some will definitely say "mmm they shot on 35mm film, that's something". I can confidently say that many of my favorite films (most from the 80's, 90's, some more modern) would definitely not feel the same, have the same charm & feel to them on digital.

The argument that "oh well it ends up as a DCP anyway", so who effin cares, it's still shot on film, and it makes a huge difference, a film print & photochemical finish would be best but does Lawrence Of Arabia, or Star Wars, or hell, The Godfather Part 1 look like digital on Blu Ray? NOPE. Even in theaters, with a dim, lifeless 2D projection, I still see the difference.

I'm at a loss with Deakins or a handful of others saying they don't see the difference in the movie theater or on BD (and hell, even highly compressed files allow you to see the difference unless it's a 2 GB file for a 2 hour movie, I sometimes rent some films on Itunes, it's usually btw 3 & 5 gb for a 1080p file, and trust me, the difference is blindingly obvious, I'd argue that being close to a computer screen, you can see the texture even more), I just do not get it, I guess it's true for them, but there are plenty of DPs (hell, tell that to Ed Lachman) & directors who do see the difference.

Take a look this year at films like Call Me By Your Name (director actually said shooting digitally is lazy, ouch), or mother! (even though I thought it looked ugly), Justice League, The Last Jedi (yes, there are a handful of digital shots in there), Wonderstruck (one scene shot digitally in low light situation, Lachman applied Live Grain but wasn't super satisfied it seems), Dunkirk, Battle Of The Sexes, The Florida Project, Good Time, Baby Driver, Murder On The Orient Express, The Book Of Henry, The Lost City Of Z, etc. It's there.

By the way, there's only three shows on TV shooting on film if I'm not mistaken: The Middle, Crashing (HBO) & Westworld. Another HBO show is shooting on film right now.

The film is an experience, it's deliberately so, characters don't have the time to sit around and talk, it's survival. I should mention that seeing it in 2.20, regular DCP, sitting further away, the impact wasn't nearly as big obviously as sitting up close in laser IMAX. I can't imagine watching this on a TV, it's going to feel so small.

There's no fighting to speak of (except the air sequences), it's really barebones in a way. I'd say it's both a strength & a weakness. Rewatching Saving Private Ryan (imo the superior film, very different though), it cemented my thought that those who level that criticism at the film, about there being no characters, no depth, no dvpt, are right in doing so. It's monumental filmmaking for sure but it feels more like Gravity for example in that sense. Something like SPR with a terrific script, great characters, actual dialogue, and a clear progression is much more to my liking.

I also feel, and some have talked about it, that the film, surprisingly for its budget, lacks scale, some have compared (silly I know) the 5 min one take of Dunkirk in Atonement, which feels, obviously since it's one scene, bigger than anything in Dunkirk. It is clearly a deliberate choice, but I didn't feel there were that many people on the beach, it all feels very contained.

I still think Dunkirk is great, but I'm wary of those who have already (and very quickly) proclaimed it a masterpiece. If I had to rank Nolan's films, it would be like this: Insomnia (weird maybe, I think it's his best) > Interstellar > Inception > The Dark Knight > The Prestige > Batman Begins > The Dark Knight Rises > Dunkirk > haven't seen Following.

Maybe it didn't cut it in your opinion in 15/70, from sitting in the fifth row (so, super duper close), in laser IMAX, the 65mm 5 perf footage looked fantastic, grainier for sure, clearly (for trained eyes, I doubt the GA notices) less sharp, clear & clean, but yeah. I've never seen an IMAX 70mm presentation, never will since there's no theaters here, but at least with laser IMAX, you get a consistent, super clean presentation, maybe it's preferable in some cases.

BWAH AHA AHAHAHA, thank the lord. Not a surprise for BR 2049, I can just imagine Deakins growing pale at the idea of it.

1.70 screen seemed weird to me, anyway, image was imo as good as it gets, 65mm 5 perf had a tiny letterbox bar on the bottom of the screen, very smooth AR change. About not using 65mm 15perf IMAX cam for all dialogue, if it could be done, I think Nolan would do it, this is after all his fourth experience with IMAX, since he hates looping, it's just the way it is, and Nolan doesn't work with long lenses as far as I know, sooooooooo

Ugh, Nolan is not a snob. He just probably doesn't deal or has to deal with crappy theaters, I'm sure he checks as many as possible to make sure the experience will be up to snuff though. The person who asked that question wanted to stir s*** up, that simple. Why would you ask Nolan, a guy who works with huge budgets, shoots on 65mm 15 perf, only works with film (ie, Netflix doesn't allow, supposedly, any of their Original content to be shot on film) ,values the theatrical experience on a huge screen more than anything, whether he would do something with Netflix? This is a moronic question to ask. "beats pretty much anything Nolan could dream of", let's stop the ridiculous hyperbole right here.

Netflix are stepping their game up lately with stuff like Death Note, Okja (60 million), or Bright (90 million), soon Scorsese with The Irishman, but Nolan works on a whole different scale, two very different models. Nolan is simply pissed at Netflix's model, their model is subscription based, that's what it is, they're not against showing their movies in theaters, theater chains are actively boycotting them, ie 90% + of South Korea's cinemas boycotted Okja, yet, the film was sold out at every theater showing the film, they have an exclusive partnership with Curzon cinemas in the UK, but overall, most movie theater chains actively disapprove of their decision to avoid a classic theatrical window which is what Amazon Studios does.

It's their model, it's their way they do things, and Nolan can disagree with that (and of course he would). He does his own thing and that's great, meanwhile directors such as Bong Joon-Ho, David Ayer, Marty Scorsese enjoy complete freedom at Netflix they couldn't have anywhere else, all their films will get (Okja did in a very very limited way) limited theatrical releases, The Irishman with an awards qualifying one, and yeah, it's not ideal thinking that most people will see a Martin Scorsese film on a TV, but at least, the film will exist.

Neither side is wrong or right here. Nolan is privileged sure, but this is his take on it. "For some reason", because no matter what you think of his films, the fact is that Nolan is one of the biggest & best directors working in Hollywood today, and WB gives him free reign on whatever he wants to make because he goddam deserves it.

Also, sidenote on the silver screens, the worst with those is the goddam ghosting of 2D images.

Hair is easily removable in post prod though.

Alexa 65 with IMAX logo slapped on there

The screen was 1.70.

None of that bothered me, considering the structure of the film, the minor lighting continuity issues were part of the charm of locating shooting imo. Very few out of focus shots I think, a handful, and sitting at the fifth row in a laser IMAX showing, it's unforgiving. 5 perf is clearly grainier, 15 perf much cleaner & clearer, astounding work all the way through, still like 35mm ana better though ^^

Thare's a lot of grain too in few scenes, but i think it was good for the movie.

Those are the 65mm 5 perf scenes. (the ones with the most dialogue & 2.20 AR)

IMAX 70mm (or 65mm 15 perf) has such a shallow DOF that it's a bitch to focus. There are a handful of out of focus shots here & there, but surprisingly little, praise the focus puller & operators.

Everyone should be careful about the sound mix on this one. My laser IMAX (which looked astonishing by the way, fifth row, and just tack sharp, 65mm 5 perf material stood out quite a bit, not in a bad way, 15 perf just that much cleaner & clearer) showing had insanely loud sound, I've read a lot of similar complaints, apparently, the mix is supposed to be that way, even DCPs seem to be as loud. I had to plug my ears a bit everytime there was a gun shot, a Spitfire flying, any kind of explosion, etc, you get it. Beware hearing loss cause this will do it, this prevented it from being the best experience possible because it was just TOO loud, even the dialogue was saturating, not to mention Zimmer's score which turned to mush from time to time.

Kinda wish Nolan would cool it on this aspect, but yeah it's his thing, I've heard the non IMAX mix is still clearer & more detailed.

By the way, saw the War For The Planet Of The Apes trailer and despite being a 2K release, it looked incredible, it's a much different feeling seeing the trailer on a 100 inch screen at home, in the movie theater and in the fifth row of a laser IMAX theater with a ginormous 1.70 screen, still has nothing on Dunkirk, but nice stuff.

Film's great by the way, not my fav because of the purely experiential aspect, not character or story driven, but what a rush.

On The Road, The Place Beyond The Pines, Too Late, Outlaws & Angels, Mississippi Grind, Kill The Messenger, etc are 2 perf and look **(obscenity removed)** awesome. The Wall looks crazy soft though, it's ana 16mm, but I've seen much sharper super 16 elsewhere (like One Tree Hill for example).

This is a bunch of nonsense Landon imo, some of the latter big films shot on film such as La La Land, Silence (for everything but low light) or Steve Jobs (first two acts), The Force Awakens, Baby Driver (not the handful of day Alexa shots (which are obvious by the way) or the last action scene in the parking structure on Alexa) ); BvS, Man Of Steel, The Lost City Of Z, Fences, Hidden Figures, Nocturnal Animals, Jackie, Gold (for the portions in Indonesia which stand out a lot from the digital stuff in the US (on purpose) ), Carol, etc etc.

Would you mistake them for digital? No. Who cares about the average consumer, general audience not caring, and not being able to tell the difference, I believe that people, who know nothing about that stuff (because they're not educated, they don't know the differences, etc), will still FEEL the difference on a subconscious level. But saying that the "reality" is that they care less, therefore, you imply that "hey why bother right?". DI, or no DI, or whatever, film is film, film doesn't stop being film or looking like film just because it goes through a DI. And film is not shot on "occasions", there is a sizable amount of films being shot on actual film these days, especially big ones. It MATTERS.

I don't know where this attitude comes from, is it because some are just used to shooting digital, don't get to shoot film, so there is some form of bitterness or rejection against film, with the usual "oh yes, Nolan, Spielberg, Scorsese, those guys are nostalgic, they shoot film for the nostalgia aspect, they're out of touch, they should face reality and embrace technology"

@Robin: of course a crap film is still crap whether shot digitally or not, but to me, if you've got a great movie, I believe being shot on film not only can enhance that, enhance the emotional aspect (if it's an emotional film), help with suspension of disbelief, make you feel MORE, maybe that's silly to some of you but that's my point of view. I feel it's also more special. So much stuff is being shot digitally that when someone shoots on film, does something good, it stands out, it has an added value. (and no, doesn't mean that whatever is shot digitally doesn't have any value ;-) )

@Tyler: The quote I had from Pana for a 2 perf package with a Gold GII was cheap as hell.

Just on the 2 perf stuff (and boy did we stray from SW :D ), I really disagree. There have been quite a few 2 perf shot films lately, and some of them (those I've seen) look spectacular on the big screen: On The Road, Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, The Fighter, The Place Beyond The Pines, Too Late, In A Valley Of Violence, Outlaws & Angels, Mississippi Grind, Digging For Fire, Kill The Messenger, etc. It's leaps & bounds beyond super 16, and barely more expensive. Sure, you're not going to cut 2 perf with 4 perf (why would you even do that unless you have different formats for narrative purposes), but it's still a great image & look for a low cost.

It's not as dense and as rich & detailed as 3 perf (and let's not talk about ana 35mm) but it's a great way to get that 35mm look.