Manu Delpech

Yeah, ever since Marty partially shot The Irishman on film, I guess it opened the door to other directors being able to demand it also ?

So Karim, are you against anamorphic lenses then? ^^

Who cares, this is Spielberg, he's wanted to make this for a long time. It's going to be very distinct. 

It won't disneyfied in any way as it was made by Spielberg and Fox, Disney just happens to inherit the film. It's been pushed back a whole year to December 2021 alas. It's going to be glorious and lavish (100 million budget).

I'd be very curious to know, if you can share Jarin (I doubt you can), how it feels to shoot in Covid times and how you guys are handling crowd scenes (aside from VFX and low tech solutions). 

Congrats David ! Woot !

Good point, I see Arri posted about it on their FB page. 

This looks fantastic. Tons of new footage from The Tattoo as well ^^ I want to see the whole thing.  And congrats on college ! 

Checked it out in Pro Res quality and I do wish there was more texture to it. The Batman (Greig Fraser too) has a ton of it, this doesn't nearly as much. 

A 2 perf 35mm gem. 

The reaction seems universally bad to this. The thing is, many films still qualify by satisfying only two of those standards. And many will just comply with the two standards with behind the scenes diversity. 

QT 1080p quality: http://www.hd-trailers.net/movie/dune/

Shot on the Alexa LF with Ultra Vista lenses (which is a combo Fraser used on The Mandalorian already, and on The Batman (along with other lenses there) ). The film will have sequences opening up to 1.43 in IMAX, but no idea what spherical lenses were used for those.

Excited about this. I have no doubt we'll be seeing some complaints about the look of it. It's gorgeously shot and really feels like Greig Fraser but having no exposure to the source material, I do wonder if there'll be some variety to the environments. Although if it's on a sandy planet, things are bound to look a certain way. 

Seeing quite a few people appreciating this way more on a second viewing. Seems like the first one could be overwhelming. 

By the way, this is its own separate thing, in its own universe. DC is going hard with the multiverse angle, so everything is canon so to speak. Zack Snyder's Justice League will be its own thing and possibly lead to more. A Gotham PD show written by Terence Winter (Wolf Of Wall Street, The Sopranos) is also coming on HBO Max, taking place in Reeves' Batman universe, year one (this is year two). 

Fraser is also using the tech he uses on The Mandalorian on this film in some capacity. 

Here's the glorious teaser for Matt Reeves' The Batman that dropped on Dc FanDome. Matt himself uploaded a 4K version on his Vimeo account:

They only shot 25% of the film so far, so pretty astounding they have that much footage, and so coherently edited, to show yet. Production resuming in September at Leavesden (they cancelled the other planned shooting on location in the UK, so some have wondered whether there'd be a noticeable change visually from shooting on location to on set, or studio lots, I doubt it with Fraser and Reeves).

Fraser is shooting this on the Alexa LF paired with Ultra Vista and H Series anamorphic glass. The first Batman film shot digitally, which I was worried about but this, being Fraser and Reeves, looks so low key and ravishing, there's such a sense of mood and atmosphere, I really dig the texture too, I suspect they shot a lot of this on 1280 or 1600 ISO.

Matt Reeves said in his DC FanDome panel that his inspirations for this go from Chinatown to Batman Ego (in terms of comics) to Taxi Driver, those really gritty, in the streets 70s films. 

So spectacular. 

The Phantom Menace alas has a yucky transfer on Blu Ray (and now on 4K Blu Ray) which is a DNR mess. I guess George wanted to make it look more like digital, such a shame. ROTS looks great though (and is apparently a real looker in 4K), big step up from AOTC (which looks fine). 

2 perf looks so fantastic and distinctly different from 3 perf. Great examples of 2 perf are Silver Linings Playbook, The Place Beyond The Pines, First Man, American Hustle, On The Road, I Know This Much Is True (where they cropped to 2:1 and got a texture between 16mm and 2 perf, really cool).

Shot on film of course. 

"The days have been numbered for film" since 2012. I remember, and it's always funny to watch interviews from back then of directors or DPs saying the same thing (though they loved film already back then), and it's more alive than ever. And thank god it is. 

Then again, I'm never sure when Robin is being serious, if ever. 

@Giray Izcan I'm surprised by you saying most folks want to shoot digital? I so often read about this or that film where the DP and director had planned to shoot film and a producer shot it down or whatnot and there are so many big time DPs who are very clear that they prefer film by far. Several big time advocates (though they are open to digital of course and know they can do great work digitally as well) are Prieto, Sandgren, Van Hoytema, Kaminski, Elswit, Mindel, and more. 

15 hours ago, Mark Kenfield said:

Huh? Which version of their podcast have you been listening to? ? A different one than me I guess. 
 

Their episode with Bev Wood they did basically nothing other than wax lyrical on film and its process. Indeed that episode is one of the most in-depth discussions of the analog process that I’ve ever heard anywhere. 
 

The only thing I’ve heard them steer away from is the “Film vs. Digital” debate, which they seem pretty sick of talking about. 
 

They’ve also made it pretty clear that their hesitancy around shooting film these days, relates to serious problems they’ve had with some of the processing on their more recent film jobs. And not with shooting film itself. 
 

 

Roger seems to say (if I remember correctly) that he actually rarely had issues with processing actually. 

18 hours ago, Stephen Perera said:

The Eddy - laughable at how ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT episodes 1 an 2 look to the rest of the episodes......like night and day....and in my opinion....how 'amateur' the other episodes look in comparison

Not add to the debate but I find that film USUALLY, most of the time, adds so much production value. I always cringe when certain TV series switch from film to digital, the difference is glaring and it just immediately looks cheaper. 

12 hours ago, Satsuki Murashige said:

Was listening to Roger and James Deakins’s podcast yesterday, and on a recent episode with Greig Fraser, Mr. Fraser mentioned how his young 2nd Unit DP on a recent project was raving about film. He watched some of her celluloid-based projects, and said they ‘looked like crap.’ He went on the clarify that the images were grainy, underexposed, and generally rough looking. 

Now, I’m sure he didn’t mean anything personal by it and he seems like a pretty decent fellow, but I was a bit taken aback. He called her out by name. I happen to know this DP as we were camera assisting around the same time, and I find her work inspiring. It is rough and wild, in a Chris Doyle sort of way. That’s what’s beautiful about it to me. 

This episode sort of made me realize why some older DPs don’t like film. When there was no choice in formats, they were trying to avoid grain, flares, underexposed shots, accidents and surprises of any kind, etc. What they really wanted was a clean, safe, digital alternative, whether they knew it or not. That’s what the Alexa gave them. 

But that’s not what many of us liked about their work when we were film students in school.

We liked Harris Savides’s scratched up negative in the title sequence of ‘Se7en.’

We liked Chris Doyle pushing his Fuji film stock and shooting handheld chase sequences at 6fps in ‘Chungking Express.’

We liked Janusz Kaminski sucking the color out of his film stock with ENR and de-coated lenses and throwing his shutter out of sync on ‘Saving Private Ryan.’

We liked Matthew Libatique shooting pushed reversal 16mm black and white to a Seurat-like grain level in ‘Pi’ and Paul Cameron’s cross-processed hand-cranked footage in ‘Man on Fire.’

And yes, we liked handsomely shot films like John Toll’s ‘The Thin Red Line’ and Deakins’s ‘Shawshank Redemption’ too.

Those films all had balls. The images were sensory and impressionistic. They felt like dreams. And that is mostly missing nowadays. I think that’s what most people itching to shoot on film are looking for.

Anyway, here’s the episode: https://teamdeakins.libsyn.com/greig-fraser-cinematographer

That's the best post of this thread. Yes, imperfection, soul, life, personality, dream like. 

"When the majority of moviegoers won't even care" Such a weak and uninspired argument. Why make this or that film when the majority of people won't care? Why shoot anamorphic when the majority won't care? Why do anything? I do it for the film, for myself,  I don't care if the majority have no idea it's shot on film, I know, and it matters to me. And I think it looks better, and it makes me feel in a way that digital doesn't, and so on and so on.