Manu Delpech

I know. Nor am I in the UK.

2K digital on a big screen is not soft, come on. Softer than 4K sure, but I have never thought going to my movie theater, seeing 2K movies shot on film and digital that they looked soft. I agree that 2K is not enough and that even a blockbuster like The Force Awakens is a 2K DCP (which is still weird because the AC article mentions at some point 2K scans, and then 4K scans) is astounding. Can't fight the economics here.

True, but I like the idea of the onboard monitor and the ease of use of it. @ Freya: cool, didn't know that. I have two super 8 cameras lying around, but they're old, and not in working condition I think. Curious to see what will be done with it.

I agree, I know that when I think super 8, it's not a format that appeals to me, since I only think of it as "it's good to use when the main character is like a 40 to 50 y old guy and find sold super 8 films from his childhood and plays them, or super 8 film as a piece of evidence in a case", that kind of thing, but then again, super 8 is super 8, I'll get one of those cameras (hoping the price of the camera is somewhere between 400 & 700 bucks tops, but maybe I'm deluding myself) but I kinda wish they'do that kind of thing for a super 16 camera for example, and maybe later 35mm. I'd be stunned if someone used the camera to do like a feature length super 8 film, then there's the aspect ratio, the softness of it, the grain, I don't know.

Dude, I already made a thread about it, it's right there in the General Discussion section...........

https://youtu.be/wr6NdyP4y-k?t=30m Start at 30 min or a little before that (should be there already) and enjoy. Poetry to my ears. They also mention the motion smoothing on TVs as default, film exhibition, ........... "A super 16 tap into a monitor looks like scrambled pornography from the 80's" Best quote ever from Alex Ross Perry.

I'm not in the US, so that's never ever gonna happen :D . I have a top notch projector, so that helps too.

Man, the Lawrence Of Arabia Blu Ray originated from the 4K master is a sight to behold. That's 70 mm done right.

Awesome interview from DP/30's David Poland with Roger for Sicario, he pretty much says that he loves film but could do without the mystery of film ie happy accidents or not knowing exactly if he got it right. Talks a tiny bit about Hail Caesar too, saying he was on the fence about shooting film, but since the Coen brothers want to shoot film and the film takes place in the 50's, it makes sense for him, he also talks about the grainy texture that he likes (although he says "it's fine" a lot ^^).

As Roger says it: " I wouldn’t say it’s easier shooting digital, but it is much more reassuring when you can actually see what you’re doing on your DIT’s monitor. With film, it doesn’t matter how much experience you have, you’re still judging it by your eye. I still like to judge it by eye when I shoot digitally — that’s why I use an ALEXA Studio, because I like having the optical viewfinder — but it’s very reassuring when I go over to see the image on the DIT’s calibrated monitor."

I'd be surprised that all producers would even know who Roger Deakins is. But yeah, but then again, he can afford to say that considering the stellar work he's doing on the Alexa (except for Unbroken IMO), but I have to admit when watching the first trailer for Hail Caesar that I smiled and said out loud "well, film is something else, no way around it"

Pretty much, Roger never implies he doesn't like film, more like digital gives him some peace of mind and comfort in knowing what he has on the spot, but once again, he's probably the only one with Chivo who makes the Alexa sing the way he does. So when you have that going for you, by all means.

I guess so, it'd be more of a problem for Deakins himself than it would be for anyone else. He likes to keep things simple and working as he's used to.

Well, those films who use those horrid Gopro shots make the switch from 35 mm to Gopro or from Alexa to Gopro really jarring actually. I get what you mean though, good looking frame by the way. Absolutely for what you're saying about DSLR, but that's if you make that choice and it is necessary or better for the material, that's it. @John: Oh I've definitely thought about that kind of stuff before when deciding whether to shoot film but for me the get is so worth it. Plus, how often are there issues? Sending film via Fedex and getting the dailies back the next day has been done forever, there are procedures in place, I just wonder how often does the bad stuff happen? Obviously, the mobile film lab is an amazing solution and needs to be widely available, it costs a lot though, but I think Alpha Lab said they were making a second one, having the lab right on the parking lot would alleviate some of those fears. I still somewhat fear that but I figure if I have a great crew, who know what they're doing, and do everything right, nothing will go wrong.

Disagree with you aapo, I see where you're coming from, but would you really shoot ONE scene digitally while shooting the rest on 35 mm just because it could help the actors deliver a "better" performance? I'm going for consistence, if I shoot a film, I'm shooting on film the whole way (unless you need the high framerate for specific slow mo sequences) because of the look, because of the emotional response, because it feels right, I'm biased like we all are, one just looks better to me than the other. I'd argue that shooting on film and having mag changes and all of that not only requires more discipline and has everyone more focused but also provides some downtime and helps the actors breathe instead of letting it run just because you can although guys like David O. Russell will just let the mag run till the end sometimes. Now, if you shoot digital and you use different digital formats as there is a reason for it like found footage, or some kind of immersive thingy, yeah, why not, but why would you shoot on something inferior like a DSLR if you shoot the rest on film, it just doesn't make sense to me. Well, I guess we'll agree to disagree.

You have a point about the grain aapo, I remember him saying during an Alexa conference or something that he kinda hated grain when discussing whether he added grain to digital. But I still think at the risk of sounding like a broken record that Sicario, or Skyfall, or Prisoners do not come close to the depth, dimension and texture of film on films like Jesse James or No Country For Old Men or True Grit, I know some will tell me that he would have achieved the same look on the Alexa, but I don't think so. Agree that sometimes digital is right for something, kinda like End Of Watch which mixed all those digital formats and looks awesome. Deakins never shied away from the fact that knowing what he has right on set, having more freedom and being able to sleep at night are big pros of shooting digital for him. But then again, he doesn't even look at other cameras like he says on his forum, he just shoots on the Alexa because he likes it and doesn't feel the need to look at other systems or etc, he also has one single LUT he's used on every digital show he's done, he likes to keep things simple clearly. But pro digital and pro film people really take it at heart, like I do, but that's also because it's really important to me to shoot on film, not just because of the look, but also because I take it more seriously, it stands out, it's more special and for me, I get an immediate emotional reaction to film compared to digital, not that I don't have one with digital but it's completely different. I feel like a lot of stuff becomes flat when shot digitally, even a simple shot of a day light exterior would look much different on film. @Mark: the ones we read about are a select few compared to the hundreds of other ones shot on film without a problem. I understand not shooting film if you can't get dailies before two or three days, I'd freak out, but unless you're in another country, it's not really a problem. I think if you want to shoot film, and REALLY really want it and put in the effort, then you make it work. There are labs in France, the UK, Belgium, etc, not a lot but still. Of course it's not much compared to before, but Kodak is striking back, just look at their partnership with Sundance, striking 35 mm prints for the movies shot on film shot over there, making discounts on film to encourage filmmakers to shoot film. I'd say the format is in really top shape right now. I feel like Roger should elaborate on those problems because it doesn't make sense for me, it's a Coen brothers film and shot in LA.

I think it's disappointing personally because he shoots digital mainly because he likes that he can see what he gets and doesn't have to sweat it, he has said on his forum that he's not a very technical person, and it's not like he's touting the wonderful technical specs of the Alexa or whatever. What is the problem with the lack of support infrastructure as you say? This ain't some small production, you got Fotokem which is the last big one okay, but a few other smaller ones, and plenty of other movies shot on film lately (and a couple at Sundance right now) have had no problem. Kodak is also bringing back a couple of labs soon and there's Alpha Lab's mobile film lab that's up and coming, don't know which productions have used it but more of those would make shooting on film a no brainer. Fact is, I haven't heard any complaints about the infrastructure anywhere else, unless you're shooting in another country and it'd take a couple of days before getting the dailies as it happens on a few films such as Big Eyes or Spotlight, etc. I also don't think we need those kinds of damning comments on film, film is soaring lately and to have someone like Deakins, a legend, say that is a bit disconcerting.

DELETED THREAD PLEASE

I made the same thread, but mine should be deleted. More info in this one. Otherwise, his comments stun me. As far as I know, he shot the whole film on Vision 3 stocks, ya know, like everyone else. It sounds to me more like he's pro digital now and very biased, and him talking of stock problems (how? what problems? Plenty of people shoot film without any problems whatsoever) and infrastructure, what is he talking about? Problems with availability? If so, it's the first time I hear of it. It all sounds like he's trying to justify not shooting on film anymore and exaggerates the "problems" he's had to support his point of view. I find it really surprising, and I still maintain that his best work on digital pales in comparison to his best work on film, yeah, it's Deakins, whatever he does looks great (although not a fan of Unbroken, and I think Skyfall's cinematography is overrated), but digital lacks the depth of film, as well as the texture obviously. We know he's in love with the convenience and ease of use of digital, the simplicity of it all, and for him, to go back on film, even if he says it's no problem (well, yeah, it's the Coens, of course it's no problem), is like a step back. I pray that the Coens never shoot digitally, they thought about it at some point indeed but never gave in, hope they never ever do.

Variety did an article with a Roger Deakins interview regarding Hail Caesar and his return to film. I'm kinda stunned by what he said. "So regarding shooting film, did the old anxiety come back, worrying about whether you got the shots while waiting on the lab reports and whatnot? Well, you know, it’s like they say riding a bike. I can’t ride a bike myself, but I’m sure it’s the same. It’s fine. We did have some problems. We had some stock issues and stuff like that, which was really disconcerting. And I’ve heard that’s happened to a lot of people lately, you know, stock and lab problems. That’s unnerving. I mean I never really remember having those kind of problems before. But it makes me nervous now. I don’t want to do that again, frankly. I don’t think the infrastructure’s there." Do you ever find yourself trying to convince the Coens to go digital? I think they were. I don’t really know, but apparently Ethan at some point was talking about shooting the next film digitally. And then it turned around. They’re really debating it. I was in Albuquerque shooting “Sicario” and they were talking about it and they said, “I don’t know how you feel about it, but I think we want to go on film.” And I said, you know, “I don’t mind. I’ll shoot it on a cell phone if you like. I don’t mind. I really don’t.” Maybe one of these days they’ll go that route. Oh, I think they will. As I say, just the technical problems with film, I’m sorry, it’s over. I don't get it, what are those problems with film stocks is he even talking about, availability or something?! (I think I read him commenting on that somewhere before that). Quite a few projects lately are being shot on film without any problem whatsoever, hell, there are a few of them in Sundance right now. I don't know, it kinda sounds to me like he just got used to digital and that going back to film for him feels like a step back, he does sound really biased to me and blaming the infrastructure (once again which seems to be working just fine for many folks) to justify not shooting on film anymore.

Oh oh can't wait for it and Loving.

Oh god, I'm such a massive fan of Jeff Nichols, this is so awesome. Great reel, I want moar !

Damn Tye, you're being so insulting here. So, I switch off my brain when I watch Fury Road and love it? Trust me, my brain is fully on, and I'm enjoying every minute of it. 91 wins and 135 nominations: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392190/awards?ref_=tt_awd Best reviewed film of the year on Rotten with an insane average rating. Really? Sure, you can not like the film, but really, all the critics who loved the film, all the awards it got, the Critics Choice sweep, all of us who love the film are basically retards, that's it?! Goddam, this blows my mind, I just cannot condone this.

Well it brings up the whole dead family thing. Anyway, saw it again two days ago and Fury Road still blows my mind, oh well. :D

@Jay: I definitely get that, I'm going to be directing my first thing with a real crew very soon, and from the very beginning, I've made it a point to shoot on 2 perf, but I do get those moments where I'm like "I'd probably feel much more comfortable shooting on the Alexa, knowing what I'm getting straight away, and not having to stress out about anything, especially since I'm very new to all this", especially since there's no lab in NOLA, but there's Crawford up in Atlanta, so in my mind, I'm thinking that the lab is only an hour and 30 min away via plane and it makes it a bit more reassuring, but I get it and it is scary. That's why I'm trying to find a DP with great references who has quite a bit of experience with celluloid, that way, I know I can trust him with that, I think you need that reassurance, unless you're making all those big projects and have enough experience to know not to be afraid. The ease of use and convenience of digital is certainly very very attractive. However, if you could benefit from having Alpha Lab's mobile film lab right there onsite next to your locations, then it's really a no brainer to shoot film.