Manu Delpech

Alexa is probably for aerial shots. 16 mm no idea what scene this could be for, the flashback scene with Bruce's parents is supposed to be IMAX.

I wouldn't believe IMDB technical info a lot of the time.

The question is: 2K or 4K DCP, it seems it's 4K.

Ouch, love what I read about it, but this sounds disappointing, working out the kinks probably as you say. They seem to have a great spirit and a great location though.

Bold thoughts but very much agreed. There's something about something physical, that you can hold in your hands that is really special. I love holding a comic book in my hands rather than reading a digital version of it, I love having an awesome Blu-Ray digipack with an awesome cover art rather than plugging the Ipad into the receiver and seeing it instantly, holding a piece of film in your hands, seeing the image imprinted on it.

Dude, that is LITERALLY where this quote comes from. Are you trolling? (and just you know, yeah, it's not like I have a subscription to American Cinematographer. Oh wait, I do). What makes me so sure? Well, my eyes + the fact that, lol, Spielberg only shoots on film (he insisted on it one more time in an interview a few weeks ago). I mean, just from the 1080p trailer, you couldn't tell it was shot on film? Wow, seriously, I don't know if you're kidding, but if you really had a doubt as to whether Bridge Of Spies had been shot on film, I'm not sure what your comments on this thread really mean.

What the hell is going on here? How could you think Bridge Of Spies was shot on Alexa? For Wolf, it's easy, "Thus, says Scorsese, “we took advantage of both worlds, shooting most of the movie on film, and then using the Alexa for night scenes, experiments with shutter speed, and greenscreen visual effects.”"

You're a piece of work, phew, and I do not have the patience for this.

Nah, it's just that mostly every post of yours is like one of those drive-by posts, setting fires left and right, mocking people, or making weird comments.

I don't know what your deal is Ari, if you're being ironic every time you post a message, but you've been really hostile on the forum ever since you got here. What gives?

@ Tye: I know about moving to Argentina, that doesn't make it by itself a VFX movie. I also know about Ex Machina, but I'm done with this. Enough. You're too excessive.

They didn't turn the movie into a "VFX" one because of the lack of snow, of course it's heavy on effects, hell, the AC article says there's plenty of rotoscoping around the faces throughout the movie to lift it up, that kind of thing (natural light is kind of a cheating term I'd say). Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about, to me, it's top notch work, I guess I have lower standards :D Anyway, I don't really want to comment on the rest because I just can't understand your stance on that whole thing.

Making a point with extremely low quality screencaps, we've hit a new low. What is this nonsense? I can tell you that the 1080p trailer looks ten thousand times better than that on my setup. I'm not sure you're reading what I wrote, I mean the general audience won't know or care if a movie is shot on film or digital, which is absolutely true, not everyone, most of them. Also, a thread calling the low light scenes in The Revenant "terrible looking", keep on sinking people.

To Freya, I meant it doesn't matter in the sense that YOU know that you shot on film. The idea though that because the general audience doesn't know, doesn't care and won't notice (although they'll feel it subconsciously) is one that I hate because it's like saying "well, let's all shoot digital so it can all look the same". Of course it matters in the sense that the director and DP chose to shoot on film for a reason. Anyway, this is going nowhere, it keeps coming back, there's no winner in this debate. I love film, I think it looks leagues better than digital, and that's it.

Well, I'd much rather see The New World or The Tree Of Life.

Lol Tye, did you do a 180 on The Revenant? You made that thread "The Revenant was an amazing experience", what the hell? Saying it's a bore visually is really pushing it, no CG in the film looks atrocious either, the bear is extremely impressive. The Revenant is not my cup of tea visually in the sense that it's not a look I love but it looks pretty beautiful, what they accomplished is pretty impressive, it couldn't look more digital if it tried and I wish the weather wasn't overcast, so bleak and white (well yeah duh, the snow) all the time, but Chivo is one hell of a DP. (duh) I think it's the hyperreal look of the film that does that. @Freya: it's a true story jesus, and it's not bears, it's A bear, he gets mauled and yeah, survives. They only shot 13 % of the film on Alexa 65 according to Chivo. For the people who can't tell the difference between film and digital for some movies, yeah, it is surprising, I think that's how you find yourself in situations where even big DPs and directors say they shot tests and couldnt see a difference between 35 mm and Alexa, everyone sees a different thing, it doesn't matter as long as you see the difference yourself.

Well of course compared to The Revenant, it's going to look basic, Masa and McCarthy said their approach to the subject dictated a relatively simple and unadorned visual approach, doesn't make it less worthy than The Revenant (even though I'm sure it's not what you're saying). It's an important movie, that's also why it won. Then again, Spotlight cleaned house in many other awards ceremonies, it's well deserved. If it hadn't won, I would have wanted The Big Short to win. And if Steve Jobs had been nominated (as it should have been), it'd have been my personal pick.

That's nice and everything but 99 % of the films out there do a DI, the photochemical finish is an awesome idea but from what I know about it, it seems it demands very consistent work as the possibilities for coloring are so basic. It's not faking the process, otherwise that's implying that all films shot on film and finished on a DI (which is practically all of them aside from Nolan's films or PT Anderson) are not representative of film? Film is film, whether you do a photochemical finish or a DI, sure, some will say and that's probably correct that the DI is still a translation but it being originated on film is not going to disappear because you do a DI.

I'm far from being a professional, I'm barely starting :D You and me are on the same page on what you're saying, that's exactly it. I disagree that the Vision 3 stocks look glossy though, depends on the movies, it's certainly cleaner than those old movies were for obvious reasons but most of those shot on 35 mm can still be very grainy, ie Man Of Steel, Out Of The Furnace, The Place Beyond The Pines, etc, that's off the top of my head because those are references of mine, but even stuff shot on anamorphic, the texture is everywhere. Obviously, 2 perf is the best I think for that extra thickness and grain, but I really don't find it to be glossy at all. Jurassic World looks squeaky clean but never in a million years would I think it's shot digitally, just like you wouldn't mistake the IMAX footage on Interstellar for digital. Even when minimizing the grain as much as possible (like Chivo does for example, his thing is to get as much low grain as possible for example on The Tree Of Life), you know it's film, it's not just the grain, it's the color rendition, it's the depth of the image, I find most digital to be really flat, but that's due to the nature of the film image, Carl on the forum explained this much better than I can in almost scientific terms. Cool for your feature, and I don't think we can really look at what Nolan did 20 years ago and try to replicate that, the costs weren't the same, Jeff Nichols (Mud, Take Shelter, Midnight Special, etc) did his first film Shotgun Stories 15 years ago or something for 50 grand on anamorphic 35 mm, David Gordon Green did the same for the same budget on George Washington, I don't think that'd be possible today even though the camera rental prices are surprisingly cheap and there are alternatives to get cheap Kodak film stock. I know that I budgeted for a low budget short I'm directing this summer for 35 mm 2 perf, and it's much much cheaper than shooting on Alexa for example. Shooting an entire feature on 10 grand though today, even on super 16, unless you got a two person crew and nobody gets paid and you have like one or two actors, I don't see how that can be achieved.

You say not yet another film vs digital debate but that's exactly what's going to happen. Digital has not upstaged film, it never will. Mad Max Fury Road & The Revenant look great, so what? Sicario looks incredible as well, so does Straight Outta Compton, etc. The Revenant might not have been possible the way it's done on film, Chivo said that, digital is great for certain things when they fit your need (even though let's be honest, plenty of movies are planning to shoot film until the producers go "uh, nuh huh"), whether it is ease of use, how tiny the cameras can be, etc, etc. I still feel like whatever they say (and Chivo said that too if I'm not mistaken), digital still hasn't film's dynamic range, sure, it's "better" in low light, in resolution (except for IMAX 70mm and 65), but there's nothing much to say here. I love The Revenant, it looks astounding, but to me, there's so much more life (even though the film feels so realistic) in Chivo's work on The New World for example. To me, it's very simple, celluloid is emotion, it hooks me in right away when a digital image doesn't, now, it can hook me in differently but not the way celluloid does. I feel like it also gives me that film,cinema feeling, that I'm watching a film, there's that separation, it's so much more pleasant to my eyes and also it has so much more personality (even though some people would take offense to that, but it's true for me), and is more interesting. Digital has that immediacy, realism, and real life feel to it overall that bothers me a lot, only a handful of stuff shot digitally I really dig. But no, digital is not better, it's different, I'd be tempted to say like Nolan that film IS better though but it's not like it's a fact or can be proven, I'd say it feels better and looks better, but then again, the guy who likes his image squeaky clean, sharp from top to bottom will think it looks better.

All three Greg I'd say, it's a fantastic film. Cool photo too ^^

Hey Kalle, Dang, that seems really cheap, nice deal you got ! Good advice. Kodak is doing well enough that I read they might actually turn in a profit soon.

Well yeah, I meant from what you can get online, WB also releases those insanely big Pro Res files that are like 2 gb for a 2:30 min trailer (even though there's really not that big of a difference with the 1080p regular QT file, the grain is more finely resolved and tiny bit more detail) Although Carol looks soft for super 16, but that's the look of the film. I was blown away by the sharpness of Steve Jobs' first act on super 16 when watching it on BR, granted my JVC projector has the 4K eshift activated (not pushing it too much), but it kinda blew me away, especially considering they shot the whole first on the 7219 stock. But yeah, when you switch to the 35 mm 3 perf, it's something else. Super 16 looks awesome but to me, I still take the resolution, detail and grain of 35 mm, anamorphic being the best, 3 perf great and 2 perf lovely for that extra texture.

Can't judge super 16 via a satellite feed. Blu Ray is really the way to go, although I've seen "It eats you up", that super 16 short film that came out a week ago and has been promoted by Kodak on their FB page on Vimeo, original file, and it looks great. Even 35 mm suffers on YT in 1080p, goddam compression destroys the texture, nothing better than a good ole QT 1080p file for trailers.

Arri 416, fantastic, was it expensive to buy (if that's okay for me to ask?)?