Manu Delpech

This season has been widely acclaimed, it's not like i'm the only one feeling this way. It's okay for you not to like it, I just thought that you kind of isolated my opinion in a way that I don't really like.

Disastrous 70 mm press projection at the Crest Theatre yesterday, saw that on Twitter, half the movie was projected out of focus, and they switched to the DCP for the second half :D Drew McWeeny wrote an article about it: http://www.hitfix.com/motion-captured/what-one-bad-screening-of-the-hateful-eight-means-for-the-future-of-film This is the kind of stuff that makes film look bad. Sigh. Like he says, Tarantino is going to go apesh*t when he finds out about it.

The Grand Rex in Paris (where I've seen The Amazing Spider-Man 2 premiere, great room, way too small of a screen considering the capacity) was supposed to have a premiere on December 11th, or 12th, which was obviously cancelled, it's now private. However, since it comes out here (in France) on January 6th, I'm not sure if they'd be showing the premiere only in 70 mm. The french distributor said there should be a "few" (whatever that means) 70 mm equipped theaters which makes me wonder if those equipped will have upgraded their screens. I can't imagine that every single theater showing it in 70 mm will have switched their screens for the aspect ratio. Anyway, this is probably a once in a lifetime opportunity, I'm making the trip to see it in 70 mm if need be.

There was probably a good chunk of CG involved in that. JJ is even darker than Daredevil (for real, although I don't mean visually)

Nobody else but a total nerd would notice these things, if it really takes you out of it, I think it's more telling of the person who's watching. I've always disliked over-analyzing movies or tv shows, not that doing so is a terrible thing, but it means you're not in it, you're not enjoying it fully, some people are like that, too busy nitpicking everything. Like JD says: Suspension of disbelief, tons of movies shoot in places as substitutes for other places, do you ever think about it while watching the movie? I guess if you live in those places, and notice that a few details are off, maybe, but I just cannot imagine thinking this way. To each his own I guess. Going back to the main topic at hand, Jessica Jones looks pretty good, it has a very different flavor to it obviously compared to Daredevil as it's not even a superhero show, it's a 100 % film noir, detective story that happens to have three characters with superhuman abilities at the heart of it.

I don't know if you're basing your opinion on the first season or not?! Season 1 was excellent if you were into it, but season 2 is on a whole other level, the new setting and fact that it's completely original as they exhausted all the content from the book really freed Lindelof.

Master Of None is really damn good, love the aspect ratio, adds a lot to it. The best show on TV right now however by far is The Leftovers, if you're not watching it, you have no idea what you're missing + it's beautifully shot, unlike anything I've ever seen on the Alexa. About Narcos and other Netflix original shows, they're all shot on the Red Dragon as Netflix asks for 4K deliverables. Daredevil looks fantastic, so does Jessica Jones. Other great shows on TV: The Walking Dead (obviously), The Affair, The Last Man On Earth, Ash Vs Evil Dead, etc

Oh yeah, I mean, Blu Rays are fine, no problem on that. I think that saying that film is superior really has to do with your personal taste, guys like Pfister and Nolan clearly say that it is I think in the sense that it looks better, I think it'd be hard to argue otherwise, unless you really don't like grain or the texture of a film image for some reason. And quite a few DPs like Pfister simply also feel that film is more reliable, allows them to execute their vision exactly as they see fit (which is what Wally said in the AC article on Transcendence). It's a matter of taste and we can't force that on anyone but it is very clear by how many movies are being shot on film lately and guys like Michael Mann of all people who's a digital afficionado, saying that he's going to go back to film on his Enzo Ferrari project that film holds an emotional place that digital does not. But then again, hundreds of years of celluloid means that's what we're used to, some directors don't care about that, but it's hard not to care.

Exactly, to put it simply, I just think that the ease of use of digital, the fact that it's so immediate, that the Alexa is so amazing in low-light, that you can use less lights has led to lesser quality work, guys like Deakins do wonderful things with it, but I think there's less discipline (and no, I'm not saying that there's no hard work involved or anything), and it being easier and more accessible leads to that.

You got that right indeed. Spectre is a pure moneygrabbing affair which could make sense considering that Sony is going to lose the rights to the franchise after this one and the marketing was practically non-existent, the film is the very definition of soulless entertainment. And Sam Mendes is a great director, but I wonder how much of an input he really has on anything that's not related to story and characters, ie the action, reminds me of Marvel where they have a lot of the times the big set pieces already pre-vized before the director is even picked. Thing is, Spectre is still making a ton of money and it works. I also agree with Tyler that the craft is much lazier today because of how much you can tinker with things, there's less discipline overall, it's only the masters like Scorsese, Tarantino, Nolan, PT Anderson, Spielberg, Cameron, Coen bros, etc, etc (many more to pick from) who are on top because they're storytellers foremost, using the technology to enhance, rather than relying on it and letting it take over. There are still many great movies being made though.

Oh yeah Dion Beebe overdid it on Gangster Squad. But most regular audiences don't care, what matters is that we do. @David: The thing is, could a film like Interstellar shot digitally look anywhere close to what it does on film? No. I'm sure some will say it's a stupid example, but I stand by it. The way the emulsion on film works, with that fuzziness, that organic grain is so completely different than what a digital sensor does. I can buy that in certain controlled situations (like the ones you wrote down), it could be hard to see the difference, but my favorite movies shot on film would not look the way they do if shot digitally, I am 100 % convinced of that. You see that the absence of grain was the only clue, but that's HUGE for me, that's why many people don't like digital, because of the clean look. And when shooting on film, you do want the grain right? It's part of the construct of the image itself, I mean, seeing that dancing grain for me gets me all fuzzy inside, it lives, it has a soul. But hell, I'm doing it again, going into the old film vs digital conversation, and I don't want to spark another "useless" debate. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've found that quite a few filmmakers whether it is in American Cinematographer or else, say for example that they tested Alexa next to 35 mm to do comparisons and that the difference is minimal at best, and I find that disturbing. I've no doubt that some DPs will truly believe that, but it doesn't make sense to me when watching that thing they're talking about and going "but the Alexa looks nothing like film, it just doesn't" (although I gotta say that the Triple 9 second trailer shot on Alexa with super 16 grain is a convincing approximation). Now, films like The Lone Ranger or Nightcrawler, or The Hangover that shoot film for day sequences and Alexa for night scenes, I'd argue that the two intercut well as long as you're immersed in the film. It's like Argo where Prieto used the Alexa for the Turkey sequence because of the low light capabilities, but compare those scenes to the rest of the film and you go from a textured image with personality to suddenly a completely clean, flat image. It's really telling how many AC articles I read where the DPs talk of using old glass like Panavision C-series or Cooke Panchro, or uncoated Super Speed (like Hoyte did so wonderfully on Her) to take the "digital edge off", essentially shooting digital but with the intention of degrading the image. But let's not go back into a film vs digital debate, been there, done that. (and yes, that ugly motion blur at night is the dead giveaway of digital ^^)

Cooke Panchro S2 yes, the movie has an article in the December issue of AC.

Ah yes the trademark extra wide Chivo look, you love it or hate it I think, I love it because it is so distinct and vivid and visceral.

It was clearly the intent though, I assume Hoyte was here for the DI (doesn't say so in the AC article), so he got the look he wanted, it's just not going to work for everyone. I did like the handheld stuff actually, you don't see that usually in a Bond film. On another subject, it seems to me like they not only used the Alexa 65 for the river boat scene but also on the following scene on the bridge, it looked good here although digital, it intercuts just fine though and it wasn't really long enough to make any kind of big judgement. The Revenant's second trailer on the big screen was absolutely gorgeous though.

Just saw it, I'm going to echo everyone else's thoughts, it was meh. Casino Royale remains king in every way. What surprised me was how bland (dare I say poor?) the movie looked?! Seeing some of the other comments here, it seems it's not a crazy thought to say out loud. I can't understand it, Hoyte did an amazing job on Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Her & Interstellar (I'm a big fan of the last two), absolutely amazing work. Here? It looks flat, the only sequence with any flair to it for me was the meeting at Rome with you know who, and the car chase following. It seems like anyone could have shot this, and it pains me to say that because I love Hoyte. Maybe it's what Mendes wanted? Hoyte speaks in the AC article of wanting to go back to a retro feel, maybe that's the reason for it? The grain was very minimal, might have to do with the 4K DI, and I like to feel the grain when I'm watching a movie shot on film, even though, obviously, you feel it much more when standing up close to a big monitor then you do on the big screen in my opinion, I was very close to the screen as well. The color schemes felt really uninspired, with a murky, brownish tone for a good chunk of it (Tinker had a lot of brown in it, but it was something else), I kept thinking during the movie how bland, flat, boring it looked, like so many of those scenes should POP, the colors more intense, don't get me wrong, I do like subdued stuff when used right, but this feels like a waste to me. I didn't want to see the movie that much, Casino Royale is the best, QOS was dreadful, Skyfall is good (Deakins' cinematography is really the best thing in it), and this is barely above QOS for me. I thought that the set pieces though were good, but it's very "been there, done that". I don't think Mendes is the right guy for the franchise, but he's not gonna be doing another, so there's that.

Fotokem gave me those prices for 8000 feet of film: .22/ft normal develop = $1,760. .24/ft push/pull $50./lab roll – 10 rolls x $50. = $500. Transfer to HD tapes = $250/hr – 12 hours = $3,000. Digitize = $200 x 3 hours = $600. I'm just going to say that those prices seem okay to me, but at least two of those costs are non existent in this other lab I've been talking to. I don't know if they'd be willing to negotiate more, and I don't know if as an indie project, they'll take care of you as well as a smaller lab would.

I'm guessing most of the 7219 is on The Walking Dead ^^

I'm well aware of that Luke :-) Actually, many festivals accept up to 50 min (like Sundance), even though, of course, the shorter the better for programming it. However, it is meant to be this long and cannot be shorter, plenty of short movies that have been made into features were in the 20 min realm by the way. If the movie's really good, it will be seen.

I have all the calculations ^^ 5:1 ratio is where I'm going. Let's go through PM for the rest of the info ;)

Hey Tyler, I just got an answer, they can offer 30 % off the listed price, but since the listed price for a 400 ft roll is 316 $, it is still REALLY really expensive. I'd probably be shooting 8400 feet in 3 perf for a 25 min short film.

Done :-) they have good prices indeed. Thx for the suggestion. I sent an email to the Kodak contact they have on their website like 4 days ago, nothing yet. We'll see if they can help. Thx.

Sorry for bringing this thread back from the dead, but Tyler saying you can negotiate with Kodak has me interested even though 0.56 $/ft for 35 mm stock is still really expensive, I see 400 feet rolls of Vision 3 at 150 $ a pop on the net, and it's fresh stock. Is there a way for a small production (skeleton crew, most of the money going into film stock, processing, telecine, scan, etc) to get even better prices than what Kodak is offering?!

It's a 4K DCP actually.

I was surprised by how cheap film cameras can be though after seeing with Panavision for rental.