Manu Delpech

Everyone needs to watch Succession on HBO, it's been phenomenal since season 1 but somehow this season is even better. Shot on 35mm too, it's first class all the way.

Much appreciated Bruce !

I think I asked someone about this here but I can't find a trace of it. Basically, I'm going to have a big scene in a film involving rain at night in like a residential street. I've tried to find as much as I could about it but I figured I'd ask here and might gleam some good advice from folks who have experience with that. I plan to shoot the whole film very wide, long shots, few cuts. Which I guess will be a plus since there will be no use of any cranes, it'll be a lot of dolly work. So I don't plan to frame the action above a certain height, let's say a little above the height of a pick up truck. This means we probably won't need super high water towers. Now, what should I absolutely know or be aware of before shooting a scene like this?

So this won the Golden Lion at Venice, which is HUGE. Kudos to everyone involved, the risk paid off !

The reviews are truly excellent, the film is obviously raising controversy already for truly silly reasons having to do with the state of US society right now but I've seen mostly raves truly. And the cinematography is also being constantly singled out.

Yeah, I have the Pro Res version, spectacular. I also saw the first trailer in laser IMAX, and it looked glorious. There's only the Alexa 65 that rivals 35mm and 65mm in terms of image quality. (although I think film is the best looking format in IMAX). All the industry buzz in addition to all the festivals Joker is in are clear signs of the quality of the film.

Second stunning trailer. I don't think the Alexa 65 has looked better yet than it does here. http://www.hd-trailers.net/movie/joker/ (QT 1080p inside)

Glad someone made a thread about it. Spectacular work. Rogue One is very well shot but I don't think digital worked on that film and was the wrong format for it, just felt too glossy and clinical. For some reason, it feels right here. Shot on the Alexa LF with Panavision Ultra Vista lenses (2.76 ratio normally). Watching it in QT 1080p quality (and on Pro Res), I really dig the look of the Alexa LF, it has a nice texture to it. Would have looked better on film obviously but still great. 15 million per episode will get you that kind of production value too ? Kind of astounding. Pro Res version or regular 1080p here: https://vidd.pro/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=195&sid=d1714a4e12a92a9088a0204803e43c1d (there are a couple of annoying pop up ads that lead you to different pages when trying to download the file though and for some reason, Kaspersky blocked some of those, be warned)

I'll stand by that. If a film looks really visually unappealing, it personally makes me really icky on the prospect of seeing it. And it's NOT because it's shot digitally. All my favorite films are shot on film, not a coincidence but I also love numerous films shot digitally even though there's not one time watching those where I don't think "god, would look so much better on film". That's just me. But Robin, it's not the first time you praise digital like that, it does feel sometimes that you like digital better than film and that's fine.

If anyone says they don't see a difference, they either are sitting far, far away from the screen or their eyesight is in question, honestly. There ARE some very rare examples of super clean 35mm, but yeah, otherwise, it's plain as day. 16mm and 2 perf are of course either more blatant. But hell, even anamorphic 35mm these days can be plenty grainy. I love it when DPs push process and really aren't scared of grain.

If you're serious about it, you surely know to watch trailers on Apple Trailers or in Pro Res quality if you wish to. The problem with digital and compression really is that digital has some kind of texture, that I often don't care for personally but you need to see the trailer in Pro Res quality and be really close to the screen to get it. Film not only looks like film duh (REGARDLESS Robin of the finishing, films shot on film with a DI still look like film, Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood certainly is a prime example to quote a recent film, it looks GORGEOUS in laser IMAX, and trust me, you wouldn't mistake it for anything other than film) but the texture is there regardless of the quality. Obviously, forget about YouTube or any trash like that, it doesn't play nice with film grain but the texture is still there, even in a mega compressed file. If you're going to try to make digital look like film (very few really convincing examples, and even then, doesn't look like it), you really need to make the grain really pop and make it coarse and heavy, otherwise it won't read for example. Anyway, A Hidden Life looks the same on Apple Trailers, I don't know if it's the Red itself. I tend to find Red cameras more videoey BUT in the right hands (and the DXL and DXL2 look great too on certain things), they look fantastic. I don't know, Knight Of Cups felt the same to me (it had some stuff shot on film but super minor). I understand the "it takes me out of it" bit. One obviously has to be super careful with digital because it takes a lot more work to make it look interesting.

Perhaps but if the film itself doesn't look visually appealing, that's all it takes. Let's not go into the old debate, digital can look fantastic. I'm not sure what it is but it's just something I've noticed.

Malick is an acquired taste but I find that since he switched to digital, his films tend to feel quite cheap? I don't know, this one especially feels cheap to me.

Like I said, one of Scorsese's usual producers, Emma Tillinger Koskoff, said all the deaged stuff had to be shot digitally. Prieto was also apparently on stage when they premiered the trailer that the actors had to get used to the multiple cameras being on set and there are set photos where the rig with Red cameras, etc is visible.

It's actually a very special show. Confirmation by Kodak liking a tweet referring to Euphoria that they indeed shot the segments I mentioned on film !

Interesting, that changed. I can't find any info from Kodak about it which is surprising because the show is very popular and there are some extensive film (supposedly) segments in several episodes.

I'm sure most of you have seen this beauty by now. Dropped out of nowhere yesterday and set the entire Internet ablaze. First of all, do yourselves a favor and avoid watching the trailer on YouTube or any other source than Netflix itself obviously. The trailer is apparently in 4K on the platform, I watched it on a big screen and it's obviously much less compressed and much more representative. The deaging can be seen from the opening of the trailer with Pesci and De Niro and at the end of it. Looks pretty darn impressive when viewed properly on Netflix. De Niro's skin looks a bit smooth on more compressed versions, it does not on Netflix itself. Otherwise, I've been checking out a bunch of set photos to determine how much was film and digital. The producer Emma Tillinger Koskoff pulled some numbers a while ago which were incorrect for some reason, ie 30% of the film being shot on 35mm, and that everything involving the deaging required shooting digitally. However, Thelma Schoonmaker said half of the film has them deaged. So that means half Alexa (as listed on IMDB) and half 35mm film. IMDB lists the following info: Arri Alexa Mini, Zeiss Master Prime and Cooke Panchro/i Classics Lenses Arricam LT, Zeiss Master Prime and Cooke Panchro/i Classics Lenses I don't know if anyone here knows Prieto or someone else involved with the film and can provide maybe more technical info? I also saw that Prieto tested some special rigs consisting of multiple cameras at a rental house. And you can see one of the rigs on the set photos, seemed like several Red cameras which are presumably there to capture facial data for the deaging. And the Alexa which is now being regularly used by Prieto and Scorsese for low light work (Wolf, Silence). Gorgeous work as expected and a film that's been in the works for a decade, Schoonmaker and others close to the project have said it's a different animal than Goodfellas and Casino despite the obvious initial similarities. The film is opening at NYFF late September too, presumably released in November on Netflix, Scorsese has been said to make a push for a wide release of sorts with possibly an exclusive theatrical window of a few weeks.

It's a bummer the trailer is only available on YouTube for now, that darn compression doesn't do it justice. A24 doesn't release many trailers on Apple Trailers as well.

Super special show. Shot on the Alexa 65 with DNA lenses, looks great. There are segments made to look like film with a different ratio. Watching it on broadcast with the compression, I think those sections are film but I won't commit to it. They're made to look like super 16 (you even have hair in the gate, and it's not a fixed pattern) but somehow it seems maybe too sharp to be 16mm? So I guess those sections are a great DI trick.

https://www.kodak.com/GB/en/motion/Blog/Blog_Post/?ContentId=4295013233

@Adam Frisch FSF Did you hear this about Top Gun 2? They're using it as the main camera, so I figure Miranda would have caught the chip issue.

Hillbilly Elegy I assume? Digital too? (it being Netflix and Howard not having shot on film in a while).

None ?

OP, take a look at some of the best looking super 16 out there, One Tree Hill (on Hulu if you want to get optimal quality and then again it's compressed and still looks AMAZING), Steve Jobs (first act), The Newsroom (Aaron Sorkin's HBO show, the pilot is shot on super 16), that's the best 16mm I've ever seen. Then watch The Place Beyond The Pines or Silver Linings Playbook, The Fighter, American Hustle which are shot on 2 perf and very recent and same deal, some of the best 2 perf I've seen. The difference is HUGE there, the gain in clarity and resolution alone, the grain structure and look of it, the sharpness. Then let's not even talk about 3 perf and beyond.

I like calling digitally shot films movies, and films shot on film films but I'm a snob.