Manu Delpech
-
Posts
670 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Manu Delpech
-
It came out here but it's in very few theaters, so yeah, waiting for the BD. I wholeheartedly agree with letting people look at the pictures, but I'm still stunned sometimes that most people don't see, or don't get the difference, it's always frustrating to defend film (let's not talk about Reddit :D ), you can tell most people it would look & feel completely different on film compared to digital, and they would still tell you "so what, who cares". Ugh.
-
I was told later this month, then again, Mrs Hubbell told me late Feb last month :D
-
I've actually found much much lower prices for 35mm Kodak stock, shortends but still.
-
Baby Driver just debuted at the SXSW festival for the lucky few who were there and got the chance to see it early (comes out wide on August 11). This is Edgar Wright's long awaited new film he's been wanting to do for 20 years. What makes this puppy extra special is that the titular character, named Baby (yes, really), played by Ansel Elgort, suffers from tinnitus, and constantly listens to music to drown it out. He's a getaway driver who excels at what he does, and the film is cut to the music he listens to. His boss played by Kevin Spacey promises him he'll be out after one more job. Rest of the cast is led by Lily James, Jon Hamm, Jamie Foxx, Flea, etc. The film is shot by the amazing Bill Pope (who also shot Wright's incredible Scott Pilgrim Vs The World) on 35mm anamorphic, G-series lenses according to set pics. I actually asked Edgar details on the formats as there is some Alexa seen in set pics, and there they are: "90 percent shot on 35mm anamorphic, some Alexa mini for running shots, some Alexa for night shots, one drone shot!" Domestic trailer in QT 1080p quality: http://www.hd-trailers.net/movie/baby-driver/ International trailer with tons of new footage and with a completely different feel, only available in awful YT quality so far: Very exciting
-
Not buying the film brand new. Some great prices out there with shortends or recans. I've had very very low prices for a 2 perf Gold GII at Panavision, that much is for sure. I'd be really surprised if they really "give" you a 3 or 4 perf body for practically nothing, if that's the case, might as well go 3 perf. I hear you on the rest, 16mm faster, camera bodies smaller too, but 16mm also feels lower budget to me, it's interesting that it really hasn't been used on big budget films (or for select scenes). I'm not a fan of the 1:66, or 1:78 or 1:85 aspect ratio, anamorphic super 16 can look excellent (instead of wasting the negative with cropping in 2:35) but still, super 16 is imo too soft on wides, I'd say it can look very very good in extreme close-ups. Sure, 2 perf ain't 4 perf, but it can still look great, just check out the examples I've given, 2 perf is no slouch, and the 50 % savings on transfer, processing and film stock is pretty substantial. Now of course, anamorphic 35mm is my favorite format by far, but it can't be cheap. Now, if you can really get great deals on 3 perf camera bodies, then 3 perf 35mm becomes a really good option, and it does look way denser than 2 perf.
-
Look at "I Am Not A Serial Killer", an indie horror film with Christopher Lloyd, and an all grown-up Max Records, it came out last year and it looks bangin'. I made cost comparisons between super 16 & 2 perf 35mm for this project of mine, and honestly, there's barely one, I thought super 16 would be much cheaper, it is not, so imo the choice is a no-brainer between the two formats. I like super 16, I don't love it nearly as much though. Unless the project calls for it for some reason (period like Jackie & Carol, grittiness ala The Wrestler, or sorta period for Steve Jobs), I feel the look is so specific, incredibly grainy, that it just makes more sense to go 35mm. Even 2 perf 35mm looks so much denser, grain is obviously infinitely more refined, definition, resolution, etc, take a look lately at The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, On The Road, etc, let's not even talk about 3 perf (Nocturnal Animals is a great example recently).
-
Mmmm, the description for April & May 2017 issues is up, no Logan anywhere
-
Yup yup. They kept it for the April issue.
-
Cool, I wanted to read something on the film and was surprised to see no article in the March issue, guess it's April. And what you guys are talking about, I assume is only the slow shutter as Tristan said, DOFP was full of it, Phil's answer though leads me to think it might be something else? Anyway, those sequences looked very cool, the smeary motion blur kept going sometimes for a few seconds, but nothing too bad.
-
La La Land is gorgeous, what the hell?
-
I was hoping he"d win, well deserved. In my opinion, most beautiful film of the year, and it's nice to see a film shot on actual anamorphic 35mm film winning the award. And yup, 2K DI, but the film was scanned at 6K (no idea why a 2K only finish though), should look superb. Actually, quite a few 2K DIs lately on UHD Blu Ray have been surprising upgrades.
-
I sure love your rebuttal of trolls with their filters on Twitter. But seriously, don't pay attention to him, he's all talk. BvS looks superb, and seriously guys, see the ultimate cut, this is the only version to see. Very excited about Kong: Skull Island as well & The Predator. p.s: Super 8 rocks.
-
To make sure people see the latest trailer in good quality instead of the usual horrendous YT one: http://www.hd-trailers.net/movie/the-lost-city-of-z/ Absolutely stunning. Also, @Alexandros, the leaked trailer was not even in 480p quality, it was an ugly sales trailer of some kind, I can't believe they actually put it online. Now, we have the real deal, even with a highly compressed 1080p QT file. Gray insisted in a Q&A at NYFF after showing the film projected in 35mm that the film couldn't look that way on digital, and it's obvious, I still don't understand people who say they shoot film next to digital on a project (for the producers obviously) and say that the difference is not big enough to justify it. You see that latest trailer, there's no way in hell you can mistake the beautiful softness and texture for digital, it also feels more legit & serious imo, especially with the subject matter. Gray actually mentioned they tested Alexa vs Red vs F65 (he said Sony, but I guess he meant that one) vs film (anamorphic), and that film looked much superior and that 35mm just looks better, "it's a fact", the producers were bummed about it :D He said it cost an additional 750 K on a 30 million budget, which is peanuts really, they did have trouble though with film being stuck in customs in Bolivia (sending it to London), and 2 days worth of dailies being badly damaged, but he said it's worth it. That color grading is something else too.
-
The top LG oled (E6 & G6) looks fantastic, so does the ZD9 by Sony. Enough with the bs. More 4K masters coming for UHD discs by the way, Silence is a 4K DI (might not get UHD though), Passengers is a 4K DI, etc. You just have to be careful about what you buy, even some 2K upscales end up looking better, not all of them though, and some companies have been very lazy. There are some great UHD discs out there.
-
If it's humor, it doesn't come through very well on an internet forum :D Actually, now that you say it, I just notice the "as Tyler made it abundantly clear", and I see what you mean. In that case, it's hilarious.
-
There is no way this is the real Larry Fong posting. Would he say the film he shot is horrible on an internet forum? Especially weird considering he often defended the film on Twitter with vehemence, even praising the ultimate cut. I know Larry posted a few times before to talk about his process, but that was a long time ago. This post out of the blue, reviving a thread that's 9 months old, is just shady. With all that said, the Ultimate Cut is a legit excellent film, the TC is a 5/10 in comparison.
-
The Town and Argo both had longer cuts on BD, The Town extended is like 30 min longer and a far superior film, I think we'll see the same thing happen here. Most reviews seem to agree on that same point, that it's rushed. About the look, I thought from a post on IMDB (yeah I know) saying they were prepping the film at Panavision at some point and it was a film/digital hybrid, it's all Alexa 65 after all.
-
The film is very good, not anywhere near TFA, but it has a nice gritty feel, and Edwards is really talented as he showed before on Monsters & Godzilla. Cool characters, solid script, early 20 min a bit messy pacing wise. Third act absolutely killer. Great reception by the audience & critics, so all good for BO. Greig Fraser is a great DP and the movie looks quite good, but I don't think digital suits SW, he said in an interview on DP/30 that he felt digital was right for this movie, saying that basically it would have been counterproductive to shoot on film, have the rushes go to London, etc, which to me sounds like a bogus excuse considering that they did it with EP VII, and are doing with EP VIII & IX (65mm film for the latter). Also, considering that it leads directly to ANH, I just do not understand why you would shoot RO on anything other than film. Anyway, still looks good. I would be curious to see though the 70mm film print of this, I've never seen a film print of a digitally shot movie, but be interesting. Otherwise, Tyler, as always, does not disappoint with his regular trashing of movies he doesn't find up to his standards, which is to say, about 99 % of movies released today. No surprise there. Also, since Tyler has no idea what he's talking about BO wise, a spin-off is never going to do what TFA did, and TFA was an absolute beast making 2.1 billion WW, making 936 million DOM alone, which is pure insanity. It was the first SW movie since 2005 and people were hungry, it was an event, a new trilogy. This being a spin-off, and knowing where it goes, while having new characters means that while doing very well (on track for a 150 million + opening this weekend DOM, and probably a billion WW), it will obviously not do anywhere near what TFA did, just look at The Hobbit, or Fantastic Beasts, that's how spin offs behave.
-
http://movietrailers.apple.com/movies/paramount/silence/silence-trailer-1_h1080p.mov Watch this instead of the shitty YT quality link.
-
It was The Last Temptation Of Christ, Passion is Mel Gibson.
-
According to IMDB: Arricam LT, Hawk V-Lite, V-Plus, V-Series, Zeiss Master Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses Arricam ST, Hawk V-Lite, V-Plus, V-Series, Zeiss Master Prime and Angenieux Optimo Lenses Which would make sense considering Prieto & Scorsese used the Hawk anamorphic lenses, Master Primes & Angenieux on The Wolf Of Wall Street. Looks fricking gorgeous.
-
IT IS HERE AT LAST Silence is Marty Scorsese's passion project he's been wanting to make for 27 years ever since he read in 1989 the book Silence written by Shūsaku Endō. It is set in the seventeenth century, it follows two young Portuguese Jesuit priests (Garfield, Driver) who face violence and persecution when they travel to Japan to locate their mentor (Neeson) and propagate Christianity. They shot for 8 months in Taiwan with a crew of 750 people for a budget of 48 million dollars. It opens on December 23rd as a limited release and in January wide. It is shot by Scorsese's new go-to cinematographer, ie the great Rodrigo Prieto who shot The Wolf Of Wall Street, and the pilot of Vinyl (HBO) with him. They shot on film for the day scenes and on the Alexa for night scenes, just as they did on Wolf. There's an article to come in the January issue of AC (which will be an issue featuring articles exclusively (except for Passengers shot by Prieto on the Alexa 65) of films shot on film).
-
Substituting 16mm film for digital
Manu Delpech replied to Matt Golding's topic in General Discussion
Take a look at what they did on Vinyl (HBO), Prieto & Scorsese wanted to shoot super 16, they did tests, Prieto was surprised to see how soft it looked, so he looked for a solution, ultimately, they found out about LiveGrain, which is a grain solution far more advanced than your typical film grain scan, with that, he found that they could shoot on the F55 (which they did) and mimic a super 16 look, but with more sharpness, Scorsese liked the look and they went with that.- 73 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Digital
- Crop factor
- (and 7 more)
-
Coming out in March 2017, directed by Jordan Vogt-Roberts (The Kings Of Summer) and shot by Larry Fong, Kong: Skull Island is NOT a remake, it takes place during the 70's, and involves a scientific expedition to an uncharted island awakening titanic forces of nature, a mission of discovery becomes an explosive war between monster & man. A-list cast on board, including John Goodman, Samuel L. Jackson, Brie Larson, Tom Hiddleston, Shea Wigham, Corey Hawkins, John C. Reilly, John Ortiz, etc, etc. First trailer from Comic Con, a few months back: QT 1080p link: http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbol/ww/movies/kongsdcc/KONG_TRAILER_1-1080.mov Second trailer out today, with a slightly different tone: QT 1080p link: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/64705418/k2/KONG_SKULL_ISLAND_TRAILER_3-1080.mov Shot on the Alexa anamorphically, looks like Panavision lenses to me, C-series or E I'd say. Gotta say, Fong always does great work on film, but I've never seen the Alexa look this good, the texture is quite nice, I wonder if they added some grain, it's also really vibrant & beautiful.
-
Twas excellent, very well shot as well, the 3D works well (ugh at the dimness in my theater though), quite a few pop out moments. It looks handsome, it's not flashy, relatively toned down, I can see why some are going to sigh, but the setting being completely different (New York during the twenties) from every single HP movie means different look as well, although you can tell it's the same world. There are some very cool, dizzying camera moves from time to time as well. Too bad there's no article anywhere talking about the cinematography, I'd like to know why they went digital, I hope somehow they can go back to film for the 4 sequels, it seems each setting from each sequel is going to be very different, probably giving us very different looks.
