Jump to content

Dylan Gill

Basic Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Dylan Gill

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
  • Location
    Los Angeles

Recent Profile Visitors

853 profile views
  1. For whatever it's worth, it was one of the best looking films I've seen all year, also a great story, I wouldn't have changed a thing-- saw it on a big IMAX screen
  2. I wouldn't go that far, but the current lighting trends are getting boring
  3. Martin Scorsese? I think he does half and half, no? Film daytime, Alexa night time? I love film but the lack of infrastructure is frightening, along with the fact everyone my age came up on digi. How easy is it to adapt from digital to film? I can see myself switching to 35 if I get a chance and budget, but all my DP collabs are digital only at the moment
  4. Agreed 100%, though I prefer 35mm over 16 and 65mm look. But you're right, you aren't fooling anyone. I went through two colorists, and both used film emulator lut's which I thought was pointless, since, like you said, we aren't fooling anyone. The first guy sucked and had to fire him, the second guy was so good and finished it on a tight schedule that I didn't mind the LUT, however I told both no phony film grain. I know, though this was through a rental house or a private owner-- still a good deal, better then other guys in this thread are getting for Alexa Mini's. I'm a big single camera snob, but you would have to have a B body ready to go on a big show for sure. This was a very small show, but we kind of rolled out surprisingly big guns at times (crane, underwater housing, etc). Lot of people commented that it was the most professional set they had been on which was mind blowing for me to hear, since it was a personal project. We had to do A LOT of this. My favorite thing about film is the way it renders skin. Arguably the most important part of a cinematic image. At my station I just can't justify film yet. Amazing taste Tyler. I have yet to hear digital match tape, only albums that come close were late 70's early 80's records that were recorded on digital tape and high budgets. I'm thinking Billy Joel's "Nylon Curtain" and Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms". At my studio we worked with a 24 track at 15 ips IEC, which is a european curve that has the bass density of NAB 15 ips with a clearer top end of 30. That said I've always preferred 30 ips. I think a lot to do with it is the lack of budget though. Albums make no money so they can't put a lot in, so you get a lot of software instruments, beat correction and auto tune. I have recorded with good musicians on digi with none of that and it still lacks punch. It was the wrong field for me though, I'm a much better filmmaker. Just PS, you're much more experienced than me so I hope nothing I wrote came off as "I know everything" because i don't, not even close haha. You also helped me months ago with the upscale question I had about finishing the short. Turned out none of the guys could do it, so I had the DCP house do the upscale and print me out a prores 4444 archival version at 3996x2160.
  5. The last project I shot we rented an Alexa Mini for $300 for the weekend. Not sure how this worked out, part of the reason I hired a producer to not worry about it. After I paid the insurance I was forwarded a rental list. Even though several people involved owned Red's I wanted to shoot Alexa, so 300 for the weekend was a no brainer. If you're on the small scale I'm sure there's places to rent an Alexa for a reasonable price, or you need to have a line producer with good connections. My hard drives costed more then the camera rental and we got the lenses (Zeiss Super Speeds) comped because they made a mistake. On a big show the rental budget won't make that big of a difference. However I had toyed around with the idea of shooting that project on 35mm (3 perf) and the film stock with a connection at Kodak came out to something like $5,000 for the amount I needed for my high shooting ratio. That was half the budget of the short, not worth it (even though the camera would have likely costed close to nothing) I've very pleased with the way it turned out, and we even we're able to do a 4K DI. It was cheaper than film for sure. I hope my work will be good enough someday to be worth taking care of it's archival but that's pretty unlikely. I worked in a recording studio most of my 20's and was a tape operator. People came to record to tape, then after the guys in their 60's got their kicks, most people came in and wanted to lay it down on Pro Tools. Tape has all the same archival advantages as film does, but to me it's a bigger gap in quality then cinema, tape sounds like thunder where digi just kind of falls flat. Probably due to lousy musicians using every crutch they have. I got tired of fighting the analog battle and losing. When I noticed digital footage started getting really good, I tried to tell myself not to get to luddite about it if I make it. Unless I get a 100m dollar budget someday I'll probably shoot Alexa and then do a film out if the movie turns out to be worth a damn. I'm not concerned about my foot print after I'm dead though, I realize that's uncommon though
  6. Couldn't you always make a film out for archiving? I like both film and digital, so I don't have a horse in the race
  7. Maybe I haven't seen Rouge One since it came out, will have to take another look. It seems like we have a similar feeling but in reverse. I do think it can look phenomenal though. I've had defocus vignette's added to both shorts so far. It's crazy what you can do these days. Everyone also wants to emulate film too. Both colorists on the most recent project used them. By the way, what the hell is Flame works? I keep hearing about this but have no idea what it actually does?
  8. No, that's not what I'm saying, obviously they are used a lot to soften the image up. Hard to explain, kind of like how analog tape can take a really hot signal that distorts in a (sometimes) pleasant way, where if you recorded the same to digital, it would just break up. The anamorphic look still looks good on digital, but since it was inspired by using the entirety of a film negative vs a digital sensor, it seems like the whole image breathes in an organic way on film (and sometimes digital too) where the background and foreground are almost glued together. I notice a much clearer distinction on digital anamorphic films, almost a spherical look until a insert where you get the classic dof, then it snaps back to a very clean picture when you are on a more balanced shot. Hard to explain because the differences I'm seeing aren't scientific and I can't define them. I just think it looks tremendously different, while still carrying the same artifacts.
  9. Hi all. I will start this opinion off with the preface that I know next to nothing about cinematography, I just know when I like what I see. I was watching the film Annihilation, and there was something about the images that I've noticed in other digital 2x ana films. There were flares and other characteristics but the inherent creamy yet sharp of anamorphic 35mm was replaced with an intense sharpness that I find kind of off putting, especially on faces. Films with this ultra sharp look would be Annihilation, Chappaquiddick, The Equalizer 2, John Wick/Atomic Blonde. Films that seem to get the old look closer, just on my eyes are Three Billboards and A Star Is Born. The former owing a lot to Panavision glass I would reckon. And then of course there are hybrid ones like Scorsese's films with Rodrigo Prieto, where he mixes anamorphic film and digital extremely well (Wolf of Wall Street, Silence) where I only know which scene was which due to interviews, or some things like night scenes in Wolf where it is obviously spherical/digital/green screen. Is digital more of a spherical format? It seems it 'take better' to digital sensors, and anamorphic seems to really take to 35mm film. Or am I totally off my rocker?
  10. I actually have been thinking about this. Are digital cameras like Alexa and Red really video? Video to me harkens back to tape, which was poor quality. Preferences aside, I think digital looks pretty good, a lot of the time (though I still prefer 35mm) it seems like 'shooting digital' is more apropos than 'shooting video'? Either way, I'd just say filming for the process, movie/picture for the final result. I've been a pedant for most my life in audio and it was miserable.
  11. Thank god. Also talked to the people who will make the DCP, they say all they need is the native 3840 file and they'll do the upscale themselves. Potentially saving me and my extremely hard working editor time if that goes well.
  12. Hi guys, emergency question! TIFF deadline is this week, and I hated the color grade from artist one, so hired a new guy, but it seems that the provided files (XML, EDL, and reference video) aren't giving him the easy ability to upscale to 4K/1.85. I told him to color it in 3840x2160 and then my editor and I will take care of the crop and upscale. Is this easily done in Premiere?
  • Create New...