Manu Delpech

It's not gonna be a problem. The mobile film lab is a great idea and will be replicated, Kodak is reopening a couple of labs, they might even turn in a profit in the near future.

Tye is right about Scott. Hell, he said on the latest Hollywood Reporter roundtable that there was no difficulty on The Martian, that it was basically easy (he used the word), and yeah, he keeps churning those out, I love Prometheus but it's been divisive to say the least, The Counselor is horrible, still haven't seen Exodus but it's been trashed. He's very hit and miss and I think he's just effective enough and visual enough (see him talking how he would draw the storyboards for Prometheus every morning going to set, and essentially it was all there). Scott is just more miss lately than hit, Scorsese is putting out some of his best films lately imo, Silence will probably be a knockout, Howard has been very hit and miss. Spielberg and Scorsese are in another category entirely I believe.

Pretty much man, I've said it before, I love Deakins' work on digital (although I don't care for Unbroken and Skyfall didn't impress me that much when I saw it again) but it doesn't come close to his work on film, like No Country or Jesse James for example.

I can't with this conversation. Jesus, becoming more and more ridiculous by the minute.

Not to mention that Fury Road is the best reviewed movie of the year, I guess we're all crazies ya know ^^ Agree with David, it doesn't have heart or depth but it's one hell of a spectacle.

Terminator 2 is probably the best action movie ever made. I just disagree on the entire thing though. I simply used T2 to talk about directing action. Sure, I'll put movies like Room, Creed, Steve Jobs, Spotlight, Star Wars, The Big Short, etc above Mad Max this year because they have far more depth, but I don't believe that here it matters. There is a story, sure, it's minimal, but there's a LOT that is packed in there through visuals, but then again, if you don't enjoy the film, I doubt you'll care enough to see that. Once again Tye, you talk about real filmmaking, but these are the times we are in. It's not because it is "easier" to make films nowadays that it makes them of lesser value. While we're on the subject, why don't you harp on Cameron with Avatar? (I love that movie by the way) I mean, with his virtual camera and all of that. We use the tools we have at our disposition. Simple as that. Films are more disposable today I guess, but that's also because the classics are mostly behind us and have had the TIME to become what they are. It's far too early to speak of such things with recent movies.

I think you either get Mad Max Fury Road or you don't, and that's not me being condescending. The story is the visuals, the visuals are the story, simple as that, there wasn't a script, there was a storyboard, what Miller does with Fury Road is tell a story completely through visuals, the mythology, the worldbuilding, there's SO MUCH and it's all told visually using cinema purely as a visual medium which it kind of is. It's a monumental technical achievement and an incredible action movie, you can not like it but don't be jaded to the point of ignoring what it accomplishes. It's loud, it's heavy, it's not subtle and so what? Few people aside from McTiernan and Cameron on T2 directed action the way Miller does with Fury Road, it's an incredible spectacle on many respects, I really don't think some people realize the skill at display here, or fully appreciate it. The fact also that so much of it was done practically (and yes there's still a ton of CG, so what?) is part of the reason why it's loved so much overall. And guys, come on, a film like this going all the way, gathering Best Picture and Best Director nominations, that does not happen if you've made an okay film, the fact that a big blockbuster like this is getting so much recognition should tell you something, regardless of what you think about the Oscars or whatever. "Renting the DVD", "watching on cable?" You couldn't be more obvious if you tried. Otherwise, The Hateful Eight wasted Ultra Panavision 70, sure, it looks good, but this is the movie that gets to be shot on this format? They did because they could and because Bob Richardson saw those lenses by chance and knew Quentin would go for them. Django on this format would have been a marvel.

How many DPs get to operate the camera on big budget blockbusters like this one anyway?

Well, Maryse Alberti on Creed.

Bob Richardson did say on the Hollywood Reporters roundtable that there should be separate category for CG heavy movies like Life Of Pi, or Gravity, he specifically talked about Gravity but those movies that are like 90 % CG (even moreso for Gravity), what part of it is the VFX artists' work, and which part is the DP's?

That's exactly what Seale said in that 1h + interview he gave. That's it.

I've watched that interview David linked to and yeah, I'm not seeing what Tye is talking about, he talks about the DIT guy checking the exposure and telling him so he could make sure he was exposing the Alexa correctly but that's about it. About Mad Max, it's getting all the acclaim it's getting for good reasons, it's astonishing work. Beasts Of No Nation is great but it just had zero momentum in the awards conversation aside from Idris Elba and Abraham Attah, it's just not a film for Oscar voters either, but that's another problem having to do with diversity. And like Satsuki says, Seale was clearly joking a lot of the time, just watch when he talks about the "DIT guy".

I watched the test in the best quality possible and yeah, what does it say really? I'd say film and Alexa in this, carefully planned, test are almost virtually indistinguishable but Steve knows what he's doing, I've seen the LUT he's designed on Danny Collins and it still looks like digital. I just don't buy it, just those films this year shot on film like Bridge Of Spies, Steve Jobs, Carol (even though super 16 is an even more different thing), Love & Mercy, The Big Short, Joy, The Hateful Eight, The End Of The Tour, Star Wars The Force Awakens, could they be replicated on digital?! No, I don't care how much work goes into an emulation of film, film cannot be emulated as it is a chemical reaction, it's unpredictable, it's alive, how can you account for that? When I watch something like Joy or The Hateful Eight, or Interstellar, or The Dark Knight, or Lord Of The Rings, and then I watch something like The Social Network, or Sicario, or Her, or Nightcrawler or whatever, does it feel the same?! No, and those DPs don't shoot digital on those movies trying to make it look like film, they shoot the format for what it is. Anyway, I'm already starting another film vs digital debate which this thread is bound to spark anyway, but Steve Yedlin's theory is just flawed, a couple of carefully tuned tests don't prove anything (not that he's trying to prove anything, so he says). Yes, so what?

Yeah I found the 1080p version and it looks real sharp. 2 perf done right. I made it through 15 min of To The Wonder before turning it off, it works really well here as a short though.

Phil, why won't you just leave this forum if you're going to have this kind of attitude and then just post childish comments after realizing that you messed up. Are you 12?

Tread carefully Phil. You're starting to get very arrogant and nobody here likes that kind of attitude. Yes, you made a 35 mm feature, fantastic for you, keep that head from swelling.

Here is a 1080p version:

Hey guys, I found a write-up about this in the Incamera Kodak magazine about this short film shot on 2 perf 35 mm and I just have to share it here because I think it's really superb and probably one of those very few shorts that leaves an impression on me.

Cool to know ^^

Looks good ! But my god, the Vimeo compression is an abomination, it really struggles with 16 mm, it's okay watching in a tiny window, but once you blow it up to full screen, it's just unwatchable. Take a look around but I think there are some recommended settings you can use to make it better, but then again, YT and Vimeo, same fight, compression just has a tough time with grain, either it completely vanishes on YT or it turns into blocky patches on Vimeo. It also has to do with the B&W, B&W is so much grainier to my eyes and plays even less nicely with compression.

Congratulations Greg, well deserved !

Yeah, weird, Chivo says in the AC article that 13 % was shot on Alexa 65 (which is a ridiculously accurate number to give) but Inarritu just said in a DGA session with Michael Mann that they shot 40 % of the film on this, he also said he wanted to shoot on 65 mm film but says with the conditions, it wasn't the way to go (that + the problems they've had according to the AC article).

Mmmmmm, I see it as throwing in the towel, they've been moving around the date all the time. On one hand, the roadshow version made a ton of dough, on the other hand, there have been quite a few f*** ups.

It would be very surprising to me for TFA to be a 2K finish. I've read in several places it was a 4K DCP, wait and see in february with the AC Star Wars special issue.

Surprising considering there's a 4K DCP.