Jump to content

Manu Delpech

Basic Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    670

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Manu Delpech

  1. Manu Delpech
    Except that's not true, I thought the same thing, but 4K on a decently sized tv screen, like 50 inches, there's a huge difference, HUGE. Unless you sit like 5 meters away from the screen or something, what's staggering is seeing how close you can get to the screen and it still being incredibly detailed, whereas the classic 1080p screens next to it looked like mush compared to the 4K Sonys & Panasonics.
  2. Manu Delpech
    Except that grain isn't noise.
  3. Manu Delpech
    I'm saying grain is an inherent part of FILM, like film film, 16 mm, 35 mm, not A film. Film has a more dreamlike quality I'd say. And grain is not silly, not by a long shot, it's very desirable for many filmmakers wishing to shoot on film, grain is part of the structure & texture of the image shot on film. If you're a DNR aficionado & fan of clean looking images, then great for you. What I'm seeing is that you are clearly a digital fellow, biased towards film & not understanding my point of view or hell why a director would choose to shoot film, you know, with all that "silly" grain.
  4. Manu Delpech
    You don't get it, it's not about quality necessarily (if you're talking purely sharpness, resolution, dynamic range, etc), but it's about the look, it can also be about the simplicity of it as Pfister says, it's about eliciting different emotions, or a different response, or it being more authentic for certain subject matters, or just having this love & fidelity for film. Pfister, Nolan, Zack Snyder, Ben Affleck, Jeff Nichols, PTA, Bennett Miller, Derek Cianfrance, James Ponsoldt (The Spectacular Now, etc), David O'Russell, Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart, Out Of The Furnace, Black Mass), etc don't shoot film for the KICKS, they shoot it because they love it, they love film & the look of it. "My eyesight doesn't have grain" has got to be one of the most mindblowingly silly comments I've read on the subject, grain is an inherent part of the texture of film, it's organic, it lives in a way, you remind me of those kids who, when watching movies shot on film that can be quite grainy at times, are saying "what is this? I like it when it's all smooth & sharp & clean". Anyway, I'm not sure your english is good enough for you to articulate your ideas correctly, and I just feel you don't understand the approach of someone loving film, or even the concept of it.
  5. Manu Delpech
    @Giray: nailed it. So many movies or shows shooting digital are shot with the intention of getting it to look as close to film as possible, when it's not even close. If we're talking technically, then yeah, digital is going to (if not already) surpass film on that aspect, but I personally do not give a f*** about 6K resolution, or having the sharpest image possible, which is pretty much one of the issues Delbonnel has about digital when he talked about it in this Hollywood Reporter roundtable, it's just too sharp, too hyper real, where's the magic? where's the emotion? Agreed on film being richer, having better, or more pleasant colors. The Amazing Spider-Man 1 looks really good, but TASM2 going back to film with the great Dan Mindel is something else, it's so much more pleasing to the eye. About Deakins, Skyfall still looks fantastic, so does Prisoners, but yeah, I do miss his work on film, there's just no comparison in my opinion. Wally Pfister has been pretty vocal on the subject & while he sounds cartoonish sometimes, I totally get his point of view when he says: "I am not going to trade my oil paints for a set of crayons" It's over the top for sure, but I get it.
  6. Manu Delpech
    What does seeing a movie shot on film in a digital projection has anything to do with it losing its organic or magical quality? It doesn't, do movies shot on film lose their texture & grain when mastered on Blu Rays? No, they don't. I don't see the point, same with Walter Mitty, it has a lot of CG in it, yes, of course, so do all the other big movies shot on film, what does that have to do with anything? I'm talking about the look itself, it may be simplistic but if you don't understand what I mean, I can"t explain it any other way. There are so many flat & boring looking movies or tv shows shot digitally these days, bad lighting & everything, you got all those movies & tv shows shot on the Alexa that all look the same, of course, you can get stuff shot on film that looks like crap, but it just bothers me. The clean, smooth, hyper precise look of digital, whether it is Epic, Dragon, F65, or Alexa, it just does not provoke the same emotion for me than film does. Lately, I've seen great looking movies shot on the Alexa, like Godzilla for example, but I wish it had been shot on film, it would have looked better on film. I'm not biased since I love both digital & film, but would a show like True Detective, or Breaking Bad, or movies such as The Dark Knight, or Interstellar, or The Place Beyond The Pines, or Mud, or whatever look as good were they shot digitally? No, clearly not, not by a long shot.
  7. Manu Delpech
    Your posts are kind of confusing to be honest. Film will be around as long as people keep shooting it, hopefully for a very long time, but it's like you're saying that none of it matters or won't matter in a few years. How has film improved aside from the stocks getting better ? You can't talk about film improving in the same way you're talking about digital improving. If I had to use one word to describe the difference btw the two, aside from organic, it'd be soul. Film has a soul, digital does not, I don't know if that's a bold or arrogant statement, but you guys will understand what I mean by that. It's like vinyls vs cds in a way, you can't beat that analog feel.
  8. Manu Delpech
    Honestly, I don't think it is, depending on what part exactly you're talking about. I don't think anyone's going to argue against the fact that film is organic & has a magic that digital will never have.
  9. Manu Delpech
    I love digital but film wins every single time. Digital may be more convenient & cost effective in the long run (then again, film is not that much more expensive depending on your project, I'm shooting my short on 35 mm), but I'll take the texture of film, the grain, the more pleasing colors & that organic feel every single time over the hyper smooth, precise, clean look of digital, now some movies shot on Alexa look more cinematic than others & have a texture to them, but in no way does it come close to film. Just lately, movies like Warrior, Out Of The Furnace, The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty, Mud, The Spectacular Now, none of those movies for me would have the same impact if they had been shot digitally, there's so much more emotion there, and I find it sad & infuriating that so many movies & tv shows go the digital way, even for economic reasons. Speaking of TV, have you seen a better looking show than True Detective or Breaking Bad? both shot on film, and what a difference it makes. With film, something happens, something more, it comes alive, it's not pixels, 1's & 0's like digital, with a layer of grain added on top of it. Kudos to Nolan, Cooper, Abrams, Nichols, PTA, Miller & many others who continue to shoot film. Could you imagine a movie like Interstellar shot digitally? Hell no.
  10. Manu Delpech
    It's all cool to talk about quality 35 mm projection, but I've been to other theaters that showed 35 mm (which was a while ago, and not in the US) and it just doesn't compare to digital projection (at least from what I've experienced). I'm guessing film projection depends on so many factors to actually look good whereas digital is just much simpler, and it IS more stable by far. Plus, the digital copy is not going to wear off as time goes by. The ONLY good 35 mm projection I saw was one of the lasts before my theater switched to all digital in its 12 movie theaters, it was The Hangover Part II, it wasn't as sharp as digital, clearly, but it did have a different quality to it. Film projection should be the same everywhere and not "Oh I saw a good projection someplace". @Freya: are you comparing 4K digital projection on a massive screen to 4K TVs? I saw only one film projected in 4K: Skyfall, and there was indeed a big difference, but of course, it's going to look less spectacular on a gigantic screen.
  11. Manu Delpech
    You still don't really answer my question. Unless you saw the movie in a movie theater, projected on a terrible digital projector (if there's such a thing since there are certain standards to be met), I still don't get your remark.
  12. Manu Delpech
    What does seeing it digitally have to do with anything? You do realize 99 % of us will see it digitally and how does digital projection makes everything look bland? If anything, it's a godsend, perfectly stable, sharp image, not that crappy, unstable, blurry 35 mm projection (which has been gone for years anyway, so I don't get what you're talking about here). I saw one decent 35 mm projection in like hundreds of them.
  13. Manu Delpech
    Hell, it's not even in HD on Netflix, my mind was blown when I didn't see the HD icon on the player, like, what?
  14. Manu Delpech
    To each his own, I think it's one of the most beautifully shot movies on 35 mm in the last few years.
  15. Manu Delpech
    Sorry for bringing this thread back from the dead kinda, but if you wanna really see what Vision 3 50D looks like, just watch Mud on Blu Ray, they shot the day beach scenes (except the ones under the tree canopy on the island where they used 250D 5207 ) on 50D (and I'm guessing, the rest of the day exterior scenes). Needless to say, the whole movie is gorgeous.
  16. Manu Delpech
    Oh boy Chris, thx for the info ! Very excited for Black Mass, should be a stunner with Scott Cooper helming it & dat cast. I was watching some of the behind the scenes on Out Of The Furnace, and it was the usual crappy video feedback. I just wish Masanobu could get a real article or I don't know maybe an article on Black Mass in the American Cinematographer, he's only had a tiny interview on Kodak and that's it, I'd love to hear about his approach to it. He's just really underrated I believe, that Out Of The Furnace or The Grey got so little notice on their visuals, it's just wrong. Without a doubt, my favorite DP.
  17. Manu Delpech
    Damn, I never saw your answer :D Yeah I watched all that I could find ^^ Thx anyway
  18. Manu Delpech
    @Adrian: I think most definitely, I know for myself that there's also a feeling of "so many short movies or even movies are shot on Alexa, they all tend to look the same, shooting on 35 mm would equal more production value, more personality & standing out more". Resolution is gonna keep going up though & lots of directors will probably go along, but film is safe I hope, with guys like Jeff Nichols, Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart, Out Of The Furnace, soon to come Black Mass), or Chris Nolan, it's not going anywhere & it's just so comforting. NOTHING, just nothing beats 35 mm film (I like super 16 mm but it tends to be a bit mushy & soft to me), those colors, those skin tones, that delicate texture, that grain being part of the texture, that beautiful emulsion taking place, not some 35 mm film stock you can just slap on digital footage & expect it to look like "film". Ain't nothing more beautiful. Even on super low budgets, just check out (if you haven't already but they're kind of "old" now) George Washington, David Gordon Green's first movie, shot on anamorphic 35 mm & a $50.000 budget, or Shotgun Stories, Jeff Nichols' first movie in anamorphic 35 mm once more & a $50.000-60.000 budget.
  19. Manu Delpech
    It really seems to me that a good majority of the movies out there are shot on Alexa & that shooting 35 mm film is really rarer than shooting digital. There's just no contest overall, I've pushed to shoot my first pro short in 35 mm 2 perf and it's going to happen, and I just couldn't imagine shooting on the Alexa or else, there's just no soul to it, and although there are movies or some tv shows shot on Alexa that look great, the super clean & smooth look is just not my thing. There's just so much texture with film, so many of those beautiful movies shot on 35 mm (lately, I'm thinking The Spectacular Now, Mud, Out Of The Furnace, The Secret Life Of Walter Mitty, Moneyball, Warrior, Inside Llewyn Davis, etc) would lose so much being shot digitally.
  20. Manu Delpech
    Season 4 trailer is out, and sadly, it's clearly shot on the Alexa, I'm bummed they decided to drop 35 mm film for the last season on Netflix.
  21. Manu Delpech
    Okay, this is probably going to sound really stupid but. I always assumed that there was no playback on 35 mm cameras (don't know, don't see how that works in this situation) compared to digital, and yet, I see from time to time in BTS features some of the actors checking out some of the takes on movies shot on film. I assumed you have to pre-visualize everything but is there some form of playback or does it depend on the film camera? Once again, sorry if I look like an idiot here, I just thought I should know that for sure ^^
  22. Manu Delpech
    Thx for the answers ! If I'm shooting film, it's definitely 35 mm 2 perf, plus I just love the look of 2 perf on The Place Beyond The Pines or Silver Linings Playbook, you can feel the texture so much. And it's perfect since I want the 2:35 aspect ratio. For Frame24, I've contacted them a few times, they're very interesting, I felt more like shooting Kodak, but Fuji would be fine. Thx Adrian & Chris, comforts me with my choice. For the look of the movie, I'm very influenced by Mud by Jeff Nichols (and shot by Adam Stone), but that's 4 perf anamorphic 35 mm if I'm not mistaken, so the grain is tighter and the overall image sharper (and you got the aberrations of anamorphic as well), otherwise, my two references considering that I'm probably going to shoot 35 mm 2 perf would be The Place Beyond The Pines & Silver Linings Playbook, something naturalistic but slick at the same time, contrasty image as well. I had The Spectacular Now like main visual reference at first but that's shot anamorphic like Mud, so it can give me a reference for the overall look, but probably not something I can really replicate.
  23. Manu Delpech
    Hey, I've got a question here. Still want to shoot on film but I was wondering, it seems obvious to me but, how fast is it to work on 35 mm instead of digital like say the Alexa for example? It'd seem to me that digital would be much faster. I'm wondering because I might have a lot of setups even though it's a 20 min short movie, a lot of shots in there, and a lot of locations for a short movie. I was surprised to read sometimes that film can actually be faster to shoot with & more forgiving.
  24. Manu Delpech
    Thanks a lot for all this advice, will check all of that, and I know I'm the director and ultimately, I make the decision, and with the right DP, it can be done.
  25. Manu Delpech
    Well, you're right, I kind of calculated overall what it would cost, although of course, for the lighting package, I'm not a DP, so I'm trying to get as close as I can, but that's obviously as you say a discussion I'll be having with the DP. The producer can have great deals all around it seems, but for sure, a DP like Zack for example with his own camera would be a godsend. Right away, I'm thinking a lot of the discussion on costs, etc, which is logical since my producer is making a temp budget shall we say, is kind of very hypothetical because as you're saying it, maybe the DP will agree with me on the fact that this can be done for less, but it should be 10 days shooting minimum I think. I think the main cost will be all the logistics, moving the equipment around, paying some salaries, food, housing, etc, etc. But then again, I have a lot of daytime action, some exterior (I mean, a skeleton crew, some bounce and we're good to go, at least, that's what I can observe on many behind the scenes videos and on American Cinematographer for example), some interior, a bit of night exterior, interior (more logistics here, but still, 25 people?). Anyway, I like having advice from you guys because it gives me a different perspective, I just hope to find a really good DP, experienced with 35 mm, who I can totally trust and prove that at least that part of the budget is not set in stone. I'm just kind of careful not to protest or contradict the producer too much because I want it to go well, and I'm still young & inexperienced, but at the same time, I have this clear vision that I want to achieve the best way possible. What was also difficult was justifying shooting film rather than digital, I think I did it to the best of my abilities, I just think he's kind of wary because I'm trying a lot of things here, and it's kind of on a bigger scale than what they are used to do.
×
×
  • Create New...