Manu Delpech

Yeah that's true David, forgot about it. But that's weird. I remember The Newsroom pilot being super 16, shot by Barry Ackroyd, it looked really great and they switched to Alexa for the rest, I don't get it.

About Vinyl, Prieto said in the AC article this month that HBO told them that whether they shot 16 mm, 35 mm or digital on the pilot, the rest of the show would have to be digital ! What a weird decision.... I guess that's it for shows shot on film on HBO.

Nice one ^^ Cool tidbits.

@Ari: what happened with that episode of LOST? Never heard about it ^^ I'm sure there must be f*** ups sometimes but I don't really think about it, too many people shoot film without any problem for it to really be a thing. I think that in a way, since there are so few labs now, they kinda have to have their stuff together, like Fotokem.

I'm shooting in NOLA this summer and it's a pain that Cineworks closed their lab, hadn't I inquired first whether they were still open (they processed 12 Years a slave, etc), I wouldn't have known. I'm going to have the film developed at Crawford up in Atlanta, they take care of The Walking Dead, so you know they are trustworthy. That + they obviously shoot TWD over there and have for 6 years now. There has been talk that Kodak would bring back a few labs, notably that one in NYC that Ed Lachman (DP on Carol) bought if I'm not mistaken. There's also Alpha Lab's mobile film lab that's a great idea, they used it on Colin Trevorrow's Book Of Henry, but it's back to the UK now.

Desperate scripting? You obviously haven't read Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, and there is a very logical reason (but ya know, gotta watch the movie) for the reason they're "fighting" each other. See Robin, be sure you know what you're talking about before saying something like that. Anyway, the film has Argo's Chris Terrio writing it, Ben Affleck as Batman (who after being derided by so many is, funny enough and predictably so, lauded as probably the best Batman/Bruce Wayne), Zack Snyder directing. Ben Affleck is slated to direct and write a solo Batman film after that, Justice League is shooting this April. This is not clutching at straws, it's not because Marvel did it before, that anything DC tries next is an affront or not valuable in comparison. Anyway, this ain't the thread to discuss comic book films, you don't like them much, we get it, no need to deride the superhero genre.

Carl nails it once again. It matters, sure, before deciding to shoot film, get the script right, get the cast right, sure, but saying the kind of stuff Robin is implying to a guy like Chris Nolan would probably have him burst out laughing. At least watch the Sundance panel this year (on YT) with Chris Nolan, Colin Trevorrow, Rachel Morrison (DP on Fruitvale Station, Dope, etc) and Alex Ross Perry (Listen Up Philip), then you'll understand why it matters so much to "some" of us. Like Carl says it, some of the implications of this type of thinking (that the audience doesn't know or care (the general audience, I'll give you that one) ) are definitely bothersome. Use the tools how you want to use them, I can't really imagine The Revenant on film (although I kinda wish they could have shot it on 65 mm like they were intending, and Alexa), like I can't imagine Steve Jobs all digital (brilliant use of film as a story device by Alwin Kucher & Danny Boyle), or Breaking Bad on digital, or Lord Of The Rings on digital or whatever. Digital can look gorgeous, but I'm still personally in love, like others, with film at the end of the day because it gives me something digital doesn't, it's not a surprise to me that all my favorite films are shot on film, maybe because I feel more connected to film, and I don't watch a film for it to feel like real life with everything being super sharp and clean, I want that separation, but doesn't mean I don't feel anything when watching something digital, it's just completely different.

Finally saw it 3 hours ago (just came out here) and it's certainly super interesting. I was down on the trailers from the get go but for about 30 min, I was unsure, I didn't really feel it and it's a really important thing for me to feel the movie and for the movie to have a nice feel to it, if that makes sense. It's not really the type of cinematography that I usually like, the use of wide angle lenses for the film really works for this, but it is a bold look that probably won't work for everyone. Gradually as the movie progressed, it progressively clicked but overall, I'd definitely say that I felt like the film kept me at a distance emotionally overall, although I was invested in Hugh's quest, in his relationship with his son (good addition by Inarritu, even though THE moment didn't have a lot of impact I'd say because we don't get to spend a lot of time with them, it still packs an impact obviously, but not as big as could have been) I think it's the hyper reality of the film, it looks so realistic, it feels so realistic, the natural light definitely gives it that feel, and it looks digital (not that it's a bad thing here, it embraces it), that gave me this feeling. I thought the fogging with Leo's breath was really distracting, I'm not sure if you could avoid it really. It kinda blew my mind how insanely close to Leo the camera was sometimes, Chivo said the mattebox sometimes touched Leo's cheek ! A couple of those close-ups (notably at the very end) are absolutely stunning. I came into the film hoping to be able to notice which parts were Alexa 65 but I honestly have no idea, it intercut really well, I'm guessing they used them mainly for the big vistas shots (like this wide shot of Leo walking in the snow between the range of mountains) and a couple of those close-ups where the detail really pops. So, I didn't feel as connected as I was with other films this year, it feels a bit cold to me even though it is beautiful, Leo is obviously incredible and it does seem that he is finally going to win this year but he should have won already for other more interesting performances, I kinda wish he had more dialogue here to be honest :D but the story being what it is, he fully commits and it's something else. Tom Hardy is also great, so were Domnhall Gleeson and Will Poulter. When I think about it, I think the cinematography is the star of the film and I'm not sure if that's positive, Leo and the cinematography are the stars, and the visuals sometimes feel very self aware to me, I kept thinking how impressive it was, how much of an achievement it is, and not necessarily how poetic it is, but yeah, Chivo is a god, kudos to the 1st AC and camera operators too. Very strong movie overall, not sure yet if I want to rewatch it because it's quite demanding.

Never saw the movie, but Falling Down, no? ^^

I'm not more concerned about the grain or look of a film is digital or film because I know. How is that spoiling the film for me? Which movie are we talking about? If it's All Is Lost, it is a good film but whatever. Using the "99.9 % of the audience will not know the difference" is an overused excuse, hey, you know what, let's all shoot digital and not care about it, hey, Chris Nolan, you gotta go Alexa man, you know, because most of the audience has no idea that you shoot on film. Puhleaseeeeeeeeeeeee, many have no idea but subconsciously can tell, or feel it, yes, of course, script, acting, composition, etc, all those things, being shot on film or digital doesn't make something good. You think I don't know that? I love plenty of stuff shot digitally, I love Creed, and I love Room, and I love Straight Outta Compton, and I love plenty of TV shows shot digitally (oh my goodness !), and digital can look great as proven on those examples I gave, I was just talking about a misconception. And keep your worries to yourself, how can you be worried about the state of modern cinema when you get the quality of filmmaking we've had this year. Endless comic book films? Ouch, oh yeah, it's not like Marvel Studios doesn't put out quality film after quality film these days (that is of course if you don't have a total aversion to the superhero genre, and you're not one of those snobby "oh no, ugh, comic book superhero films are killing this industry, they're so silly and unrepresentative of film as an art, bla bla"), the "death" of mid/low budget films? What are we talking about here? Which 250 million dollar films? What are we even talking about here? Where? Transformers? Something else?

And yet Scorsese shot film on Silence and chose film over Alexa (except for night scenes) on Wolf Of Wall Street. What bothers me with these grain simulations is that some think it looks like film. I triple dare you to compare say (I did that) a film like The Place Beyond The Pines shot on 2 perf (so smaller negative, but still very good, and thicker grain) to digital, even if adding grain to digital and saying it looks virtually indistinguishable (especially using screengrabs). The nature of film itself, ie it being random in the way it behaves and being an actual chemical reaction means that digital will never, ever be able to replicate the feeling it gives. I hate repeating myself and feel like I always end up doing that, and I guess if some see what they see, it's a fool's errand to try and convince them otherwise but I hate this. Now, I don't understand how some big DPs (even though most of them know the difference and many would choose film over digital any time of the day if they were given the option) and some directors can tell with a straight face "well, we did some comparisons between Alexa, 35 mm, anamorphic, etc, whatever, and we couldn't tell the difference". The live grain thing David talks about sounds very interesting but, yeah, it is an emulation, like Carl's been talking about it, mimicking a feeling, but not it being the real thing, just an approximation that might fool a couple of people when projected on a giant screen because god knows that on that kind of surface, film grain is imo much harder to see (that's why I like seeing films on a smaller screen, so I can get a better feel of the texture), but it is not at all, anywhere close to film. I like the analogy Gregg used, it's exactly it, and I know myself that I have a completely different visceral and emotional reaction to something shot on digital and something shot on film, I'm probably biased and I'm such a technical nut that I know beforehand what it was shot on, but still, that's why films like Carol, Interstellar, The Master, Steve Jobs, etc are shot on film for the emotional impact it has, for that warmth, that warm embrace, the connection is there, I get that for some, that feeling and that connection are not there or are not as important, but that's what it is. But even Roger Deakins said to me on his forum that when he saw JC Chandor's All Is Lost (shot on the Alexa), he thought it was film when (imho), it looks nothing like film in any way, so I don't know how, or why, but it's certainly interesting. Anyway, if the tools work for what you want to do, great, but it matters, not to everyone, but to quite a few.

Yeah I saw about the rigging too in the AC article ! Seriously, top notch job from everyone involved, Mad Max Fury Road getting nominated for best cinematography (full disclosure: I love the film, but so much of it digitally manipulated to hell & back) and not this kinda blows my mind. And yes, the film is wonderful, I can see why it bombed, but what a rich and layered film.

Mmmmmm, it doesn't look like film though, at least, not to me, that's the problem with saying things like that. There's a completely different feel to both, and I still feel, like many, that film does things that digital cannot replicate. Anyway, it's interesting to see that some people are fooled and can't really tell the difference once film grain is added (although it does not replicate at all the look imo).

Oh yeah, Vinyl looks awesome. It's shot on the Sony F55, Rodrigo Prieto talked about it on the Sony website, they tested super 16, 35 mm, etc, he said the super 16 was mushy and soft on the big screen (weird, considering super 16 can be really sharp (considering it's super 16 of course) as seen in Steve Jobs), so they tested also other digital cameras, and Marty Scorsese liked the look of the Sony F55, and they added film grain to it, and Prieto felt it was really interesting, having some form of analog quality but with a much sharper image. I don't get why they didn't shoot 35 mm, Prieto just mentioned the super 16, anyway, it looks very very good.

Those who have Hulu (or you can find it somewhere else) should watch 11.22.63, adapted from Stephen King's book and produced by JJ Abrams, starring James Franco. Shot on the Red Dragon with anamorphic Hawk lenses, it looks absolutely great, very distinct look, with a 2:1 aspect ratio as well adding to the look, the lighting is gorgeous, and it looks and really feels like the 60's, obviously, it'd be better to shoot period stuff on film, but the production values are off the charts here.

Rewatched it on BR and I'm kind of blown away this didn't get nominated for best cinematography, such a gorgeous film. The super 16 footage is the best I've ever seen, so sharp ! I even wondered if the scene where Steve & Woz step outside the building to walk around in daylight was 35 mm, I found the grain to really be non intrusive especially considering that the whole first act is shot on the 7219 stock. Seriously, it's stunning, and then, stepping into the 2nd act with the elegance and richness of 3 perf 35 mm, phew. I'm kinda glad Fincher didn't do the film, we would never have had that brilliant 16 mm, 35 mm and Alexa structure. Wonderful job to all involved, you killed it, Alwin Kuchler, you've been robbed.

Awesome Tye !

I personally like seeing 2:35 on a 1:85 screen, I'm really used to the black bars, although I also love seeing it on a proper 2:35, :40 screen, it's a different feel. 1:85 on a 2:35 screen is definitely not super pleasant, and I feel like (or it comes from the configuration of my movie theater) the blacks are way too polluted. I hate that the trailers only occupy a small portion of the screen.

Something like that maybe, although I doubt it'd get anyone fired, I mean, come on ^^

He didn't directly speak of it but here's what Roger said on this forum when we were talking about film: "I have said this before but I have often, and I do mean often, been wrong about whether a film has originated on film or the Alexa. The first time I was watching 'All is Lost' because I was about to do a film which would involve some very high contrast day exteriors. I was absolutely convinced that film must have been shot on film but no, Alexa 2.8 RAW with a 2K finish. I have also said in interviews, although this is rarely quoted as the 'demise of film' line is more provocative, that I wish we were all still shooting on film. I wish the infrastructure was still there. I wish there was a variety of film stocks. I wish Fuji and Agfa still existed. I even, sometimes, wish digital capture had never been invented!! But the facts are very different. I hope Kodak and the few labs that still exist can remain viable into the future but unless they maintain their technical standards that will prove hard." See that ! What he says here hasn't been reported anywhere, because that's probably not as interesting as saying "Deakins thinks film is OVER". I'm really surprised as seeing All Is Lost for example, I could never have mistaken that for film, even someone like Deakins can't sometimes tell if something was shot on film, that's interesting, some will see it right on the spot, and others won't.

Oh come on now, he just made a comment about lab problems, he's not talking about every single lab out there, he's just used to a digital workflow and let's not forget he hadn't shot film for a while. Makes sense he'd need some time to get back into it.

Ask him the question on his forum, there's a thread for the post on Hail Caesar.

Reading the ICG article, Deakins says about the film: "I liked the grain and texture of the film image for this particular show. As Ethan said, this is a film about film, so it made sense for the Coens that we went this route, even though initially I felt the Alexa might be the better choice. Since digital took over the major part of the market, there seems to be a little less back-up market for shooting film, which can create some problems." They say that digging up some of the equipment to shoot film wasn't as easy as in past years (!), first AC Andrew Harris "Some of this stuff had gotten pushed pretty far back on the shelf. Roger got his favorite camera back to shoot this one. Otto Nemenz had tried to give it to him a few years back, but he thought that was jumping the gun, and I guess this proves he was right." "Deakins has relied on the ARRI 535-B since the camera debuted. "I like this camera better than the newer Arriflex but recently they had been considering having it shipped to the ASC camera museum. Seriously !" "After the Coens finished their cut (Using Adobe's Premiere Pro CC), Deakins relied on EFILM supervising digital colorist Mitch Paulson for his DI. "I like to get as close as I can with the negative." Deakins reveals "and try to limit corrections, though sometimes one can use windows or tweak the contrast just a bit in the DI. I find the most difficult thing can be the timing of effects shots so that everything fits together." Paulson says "He is the only client who is always there from day one, starting with dailies grade and going through the whole film every day alongside me. He genuinely enjoys seeing what we can accomplish during the DI process. Deakins who is currently prepping a Blade Runner sequel for Denis Villeneuve, says the Coens' enormous amount of preplanning sets them apart from the "fix it in post" mentality."

:D I live somewhere on this planet.

Reminds me when my first showing of The Avengers was cropped to 2:35, all heads were cut off, I told one of the main guys over there at the end, and he told me the projectionist told him it was 2:35 scope, I was like "yeah well bro, the trailers are 1:85 and all heads are cut off", don't know if it was fixed but I'd just say it's plain incompetence, which is scary.