Manu Delpech

So yeah, I get it, thanks for the explanations. But really, it comes down to what you are willing to do, ie you really want to shoot everythg on film, you find a way to make it happen within the constraints of the production, I just feel consistency is important, but when it's a handful of shots here & there that they match with 35mm, sometimes it's so fast, it's hard to say. I guess shooting 2 perf with 1000 feet mags could be a good solution unless you really need the resolution. We need bigger mags ^^

Makes sense, however, it's just that if Nolan does it on Dunkirk for example, where there is underwater work and of course a ton of aerials, why can't others do it? Or is more on the lines of the usual "digital more convenient than film" and "Nolan does it because he's frickin Nolan"? I guess it puzzles me because people have been doing it for decades, I guess having the option of doing specific shots digitally is really appealing, even to a gigantic production like The Last Jedi. I remember reading someone at ILM (when talking about Abrams & Mindel's decision to shoot ana 35mm on TFA) saying in the AC article that their favorite format to work with is anamorphic 35mm. So would film grain be that bothersome in VFX shots considering once again, that we've been working that way for years and years before digital even existed. I guess it's a case by case thing, ie some aerials shot on film depending on how long they need to shoot and the volume of footage to be shot, I mean, if an indie film like The Perks Of Being A Wallflower can afford to have a handful of aerial shots shot on 35mm like the rest of the film?! Low light work I think is fine although the difference btw clean digital low light/night work (ie Silence) and day work on film can be a bit jarring. And then again, on a film like Star Wars that is shooting on film, would they really need to shoot digitally for some very low light situations considering the budget they have? Then again, I'm a newbie, I'm going to discover that through experience very soon, but seems weird to me. I noticed the camera on a crane in the BHS, but so fast that I can't tell for sure.

Back to Star Wars. Was watching the behind the scenes featurette for The Last Jedi that they released yday at D23. Spied an IMAX film camera in one scene, but also, curiously, what was clearly an Alexa image playback of an underwater scene when the film is probably 99% shot on film. I know The Force Awakens had some Iceland aerial plates shot on Alexa, and Wonder Woman, another celluloid venture, had all its underwater scenes shot on the Alexa. Can someone explain this to me? I don't understand why they did this on TLJ (and others), I'm assuming that with film cameras being sturdier, and the HD IVS on Arri film cameras giving you crystal camera video assist, one would go for consistency, is it for some kind of practicality? Obviously, a handful of Alexa shots are easy to match with 99% 35mm, but still bothers me.

There have been reactions from critics and co on Twitter now that the social embargo is lifted, let's just say the reactions are incredible.

Superb as expected. Film looks gorgeous, although I wonder what it would have looked like on 35mm film. The Alexa 65 sure looks insanely clean & crisp.

The parts on 35 you talk about were simply scenes pulled from Fire Walk With Me or the original Twin Peaks. Other than that, it does look very flat like you say, I'm not sure many people will comment here, there's not much to say imo. Twin Peaks to me, watching it for the first time on Netflix, has a lovely look and it is jarring to switch to digital, but Twin Peaks The Return looks fairly pedestrian, seeing a lot of the stuff on Netflix right now like Dear White People, or Glow (especially with the 2:00 AR), or other shows like The Leftovers or Fargo, I'd say it's one of the least cinematic shows around, I'd argue that actually it very much looks like some of the middle of the road stuff we otherwise see on TV. It's probably sounding like I'm ripping into it, but imo The Return is the best Twin Peaks has ever been, and I don't think the visuals matter much here. I'm bummed Lynch didn't go for film, he said he would for this, had a change of heart.

What is this nonsense? Snyder's tragedy impacted Justice League, he lost one of his daughters back in March and Joss Whedon is coming in to complete post production and a handful of reshoots, get your facts straight instead of spouting BS. He was never supposed to direct Wonder Woman, not in any way shape or form (and I love Snyder), and trust we'd have heard about it from the rumor mill on Twitter if it did. Wonder Woman is the most critically loved superhero film since The Dark Knight for a good reason, it's going to be a touchstone for future generations, it's an excellent film, and yes, Patty Jenkins directed the hell out of it, not anyone else, she did, enough with the bullshit agenda here, let's not take away for her success, she's been working on the project since 2010 and finally got to do it, and she killed it. Second weekend drop domestically is the lowest of any modern superhero film (43 %), that should tell you something. Matthew Jensen, the DP & Patty admit Snyder's style influenced some of the photographic elements for an obvious reason, and Zack has a story by credit but this is very much Jenkins' baby, and taking away the credit when a female filmmaker delivers such a hit is really crappy. Anyway, Tyler has always been biased against blockbuster films, always predictably craps all over them, with only a handful of them from time to time finding some kind of grace in his eyes. Such cynicism....

JJ & Dan Mindel specifically talked at length in the AC article of how much they paid attention to make it look really in keeping with the OT and it does, and the Gareth Edwards directing circles around JJ bit made me smile, I have no idea why some people have a hard on for Rogue One, it's an opinion but not only does The Force Awakens' beautiful anamorphic 35mm lensing imo wipes the floor with Fraser's flat, low-contrast, jarring digital look (what a mistake for a film taking place right before ANH to shoot digitally), but TFA is also a far superior film whether in terms of direction (enough of that handheld aesthetic), craftsmanship, characterization (can you look at me with a straight face and tell me any of the characters in Rogue One are more memorable than Rey, Finn, Poe or Ren?), pretty much everything really. Rogue One being a spin off, I just cannot consider it in the same way as a film of the main trilogies, it's expandable, I'm curious about the Han Solo one since Phil Lord & Chris Miller are great, although it being shot digitally makes me groan once more, but yeah. I used to love the prequels as a kid, they're not as bad as some are making them out to be, but they're surely not anywhere near the level of the OT, ROTS can come close at times, TPM has some great moments, AOTC is flat out mediocre though.

Anecdotal, but The Wall (Doug Liman) that takes place entirely in the Iraqi desert, entirely shot on super 16 anamorphic with the Hawk V-Lite 1.3x and the 50D stock looks good although it is very soft, I actually found it softer than The Wrestler, or the super 16 portion in Steve Jobs or some of the best super 16 footage out there with a 2:40 extraction. Close-ups can look surprisingly good, and the 50D (blown up on a big screen) yields minimal grain but some medium close-ups and the wides really look soft.

If you know anything about Bong Joon-Ho, you'll know that this will be anything but generic. Also, I'd bet my left foot that Scorsese & Prieto are going to shoot on film as always for The Irishman, probably Alexa for low light situations as with Wolf & Silence. I doubt Netflix can force those two to shoot full digital. It is a BS policy on Netflix's part, I feel it might partly be ignorance and be more like "This was shot at 4K" as David said. It seems David is in the know though. I guess the way out is to basically have Netflix acquire your film later on, like with Win It All, shot on Super 16.

There's an article in the next AC next month, so maybe there'll be some explanation. Didn't notice anything in a regular screening, I never saw Exodus but the trailer clearly has some edge enhancement to it, which I thought was odd, and that was Red Epic, and Darius Wolski too. Maybe it's the IMAX DMR process that gives you that impression?

There was a malfunction with the curtain, film was screened normally after that, and reactions are excellent. I was stunned by Netflix forcing him to shoot digitally considering Win It All, Joe Swanberg's latest on Netflix, is super 16, same for The Meyerowitz Stories by Noam Baumbach, those two are acquisitions though. Even then, not sure they get that film is not a fixed resolution. I'm pretty sure Marty & Rodrigo are going to shoot film on The Irishman anyway.

Cool, thanks for the info John !

Sorry if anyone sees this and hopes for news :D Does anyone know where the lab is at in terms of progress? Compared to April, close to operational? not yet? an ETA? Didn't hear anything aside from here and Anne Hubbell at Kodak telling me early March it was going to be operational later March, which is not the case. Might shoot in the summer near NYC, on 35mm, and the lack of information is not great.

Roger confirmed on his forum that he timed the previous trailer & that one: "I timed this last trailer and the previous trailer as well. Of course, in a trailer you are timing the shots in a different order than in the final film so there will be differences. However, so much of the imagery was done in camera that it will all be pretty close to what was shot."

The new trailer, first in rotten Youtube quality: Then, in QT 1080p: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/uv99hmkivvcnhts/BLADE_RUNNER_2049_TRAILER_2-1080.mov Superb as always. Having just rewatched the Final Cut on BD yesterday, I do miss the texture of anamorphic 35mm, but yeah, Deakins is a god. There's one shot in the trailer (even though it's temp color timing) that I think looks too bright, high key, don't know if it's on purpose, or just not final.

I probably exaggerated the laziness bit, of course, it can come in handy to be able to not use big lights when you're on a tight budget, but I've seen a few times DPs talking about this, how it enabled them to just use nothing and go with available light and I think the end result can tend to look uninspired and far less interesting. But obviously, some will use it the right way, and others will just do like Tyler said and basically wanting to shoot on film but not committing to it completely. I see Giray talking about 5219, and Black Mass lately is an example (and Masanobu Takayanagi is incredible) of a film that has a ton of night scenes or low light situations, and it holds up beautifully. Also, not to start the debate again, but I just watched Gold shot by the awesome Robert Elswit, and they alternate between anamorphic digital for everything in the US, anamorphic 35mm for Indonesia, and spherical anamorphic for the present times scenes. Needless to say that everytime it jumped from digital to film (to be fair, they are in the jungle in Indonesia, lots of greens, daytime), you can just feel how much better film feels & looks, it's such a romantic thing, and a real feeling.

I'm one of those who think that digital definitely looks best in low light situations, or night stuff, it just looks far more interesting, and we do see multiple situations where films shoot on film for day, digital for low light, night, like Prieto & Scorsese did on Wolf & Silence. Day stuff though imo does not hold a candle to film in day situations. Then again, it sometimes strikes me a bit as laziness where you see DPs saying how great it is to be able to barely use any light & just shoot with existing light in low light situations. Now granted, sometimes, like on Silence, going from film to digital is not downright shocking, since they sometimes seem to be pushing the sensitivity, resulting in a grain-like noise pattern, but when you switch from grainy film to textureless, smooth clean digital, it can be jarring. I'd argue though that film still looks better in every way. Now, if you really want a clean, smooth image on low-light situations, that's your right, but if you really want to shoot film all the way, there's no excuse.

From this month's AC: "using Vision3 500T 5219 stock -- color-corrected in daylight with a Tiffen 812 Warming filter -- for the majority of the production, with some sequences capture on Vision3 200T 5123 & 50D 5203." It says Khondji considered shooting night exteriors in the jungle digitally, they tested firelight with the Alexa & 5219 film, pushing the stock up to 2 stops. "There was hardly any difference at first glance, but when we got closer on the skin we saw little things that we liked better on film." "Working with film feels more organic. I can push the negative, I can flash it like we did with The Immigrant -- and we took flashing much further this time." That's why it also looks that way. His film flasher of choice is Arri's VariCon, it uses a variable color and intensity light source to illuminate a glass filter that fogs the image, raising detail and sensitivity in the shadow areas without affecting the midrange or highlights. He knew a large portion of the film would be lit by warm firelight, and he used the VariCon for the film's night exteriors as well as day and night interiors to cool the shadows, giving the negative a blue record that colorist Yvan Lucas could later manipulate in the digital intermediate. Khondji also selected C-series lenses often wide open, he enjoys shooting with anamorphic between T2.5 and T2.8. For the underexposure in parts, he cites (along with Henri Rousseau's images d'épinal) Royal Geographic Society's photos from Fawcett's expeditions as inspiration to take an extreme approach to photographing the Colombian jungle: "There's a photo of the explorers sitting in a group in the middle of the trees, with beards and big hats, and they're covered in filth -- they look completely destroyed by nature," Khondji describes. "That made me think that in the jungle we should try to destroy the negative, to make it feel like they're in the s---,. I underexposed in some scenes, and overexposed up to 2 stops in others, so the grain starts to really blow up and you lose detail." Practically all the film was shot on dollies too, Khondji & producer Anthony Katagas attempted to convince Gray that a Steadicam would be easier in the jungle's uneven terrain & unpredictable weather, but Gray held firm to his commitment to dolly moves only. They also had a pretty small lighting package. The VariCon wasn't used for the final scenes, since the humidity was so high that the filters were fogging and the photo-black tape used to hold the filter pack together wouldn't stick. Khondji pushed the film 1 stop to boost its sensitivity instead.

Could be true considering Captain Philips & Jason Bourne. If it's a mix, Kodak would still have it on its Shot On Film page, hell, even American Honey, with its few shots on film has been advertised as such.

The long awaited first trailer for Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker, Point Break, Zero Dark Thirty) finally dropped last night. It is shot by Barry Ackroyd and the film centers on the following: "A police raid in Detroit in 1967 results in one of the largest citizen uprisings in the United States' history." Trailer in QT 1080p: http://www.hd-trailers.net/movie/detroit/ I'm about 95 % sure it's Alexa with some kind of post production voodoo to give it a super 16mm look, which would make sense considering the time period, and the fact that Bigelow shot The Hurt Locker on super 16mm with Ackroyd. Kodak would have advertised it, and the trailer looks too sharp in places, and the grain different from regular super 16 for it to be shot on film.

Those horrendous shots in The Hobbit: DOS make me cringe every time. I'm stunned that Peter Jackson let this fly, it's just the main example of why it's reviled, you got pristine Red Epic footage, and then all of a sudden, you cut to a crappy POV shot with that GoPro look that we all love so much, then back to Epic, and back to GoPro. Even in TWD, or plenty of other stuff, it's just misguided. WHY? Why the f would you use a GoPro to show some useless angle, or crash, or whatever, most of the time, the way it's used, it's just not needed, it's distracting, and ugly.

Well, this is a long shot from "lab will be operational late March". I'm pretty thankful I'm not gonna be shooting for a few more months, seems they still have a long way to go, and working out the kinks.

From what I gathered, film on most shows is like 300 K more, which is probably a good excuse for most producers to go "we won't bother with that", and 16mm sure isn't right for everything, I like it but it's still very raw and gritty, too soft imo, works well for some things, but 35mm is where it's at in terms of density, resolution, etc. Truth is, if you really really want to shoot film, then you'll probably find a way to make it happen.

Looking good, film makes such a huge difference, dare I say it adds production value too?!