Dylan Gill

Hi David, sorry for the late reply. I meant I took a liking to 1.85 after maybe being too dogmatic about scope/anamorphic. As you said, the difference between 1.85/1.78 is nearly indistinguishable. That was just a screenshot, new laptop I don't remember where I put my color correction stills, so I did quick grab.

Barry Lyndon is such a beautifully shot film. Might be my favorite Kubrick. I'm a nobody so not sure what my opinion is good for. But I really LOVE 1.85, it crosses between intimate and widescreen really well. 2.2/2.35:1 is you have something truly epic to shoot. I'd probably default to 1.85 until I had something with true 'scope' to make. I as neurotic and had this exported to 1.85 opposed to 16:9, even though we filmed it 16:9 safe

Hope so. I usually like to have a few beers out especially when I'm writing to not go insane. Canned beer doesn't really replicate having a cold one out so I just didn't bother buying any. Plus I don't want to divert any attention away from fighting illness, even small amounts of alcohol take priority in the liver. Between that and all the cardio I do, I figure i'll be in good enough shape to fight it if i get it

I've actually not been drinking since the lockdown happened and I've already lost five pounds

I'm not actually a fan of shallow dof, is there a way to counter act this on the LF given it'll probably be the more popular capture device going forward?

Good point I'm going to need a source on this. I just asked both parents and they said of course there will be an immune response/short lived immunity. That's all you will need for herd immunity

That's a hard call for anyone to make, had this looked like the SARS 1 outbreak I would understand not taking it as seriously as we are now, which it kind of did until Italy

Didn't know about that, that's pretty bonkers. I have doubts that there would have been government response before it happened regardless

It's insane that politics are coming into this at all aside from establishing a safety net for the people who are indefinitely out of work. If they can bail out banks and airlines, they sure as hell need to bail out their people who they've demanded stop living life. I'm not sure how it's racist to tell an oppressive government that treats its people inhumanly to stop creating massive global problems. It's not a judgment on the people, but it's total intellectual dishonesty to pretend like there isn't a government to hold to account for this. Maybe if we weren't addicted to iphone's we wouldn't fellate them so much. I don't know about that, I do think it needs to be taken seriously for the time being because some people simply can't fight back against it. I honestly have no idea why it's causing so much respiratory failure, it makes very little sense. It bothers me to not be able to think around it. I think there's a balance between freaking out and thinking the sky is falling and being totally unconcerned. I think we should all be concerned for the time being. Who said I wouldn't self isolate if I were ill? I would probably err on the side of caution an not leave my house for a month if I contracted it. I've already been alone for 10 days now and it's slowly driving me insane, but I'm doing it. I don't disagree with you. 12 to 18 months is an unreasonable wait time though. There's no reason why we wouldn't develop immune response to this virus. Even if reinfected (how many times have you had influenza?) your body would know the intruder and start getting to work, turning it from a novel virus with possible complications to the common cold, that's the whole point. It defies basic science to say that we won't build up some immunity to it just because it's scary right now. Then why were you there? I'm kidding you were there for the same reason everyone else was, to get fresh air and to curb the boredom and fear of the current situation by getting fresh air. You can know it's ok to go to the park, but not the mall or movie theater, right? Even then, everyone still needs to make grocery runs. The outdoors isn't easy to pass the virus unless we are talking coachella level crowds. I went hiking last week and there were plenty of people, but no one got in my face, that's all you need to do outside. It doesn't matter if it has more than one strain, a vaccine will do kind of what getting ill from it will do (and surviving) it'll wake up your immune system to what it needs to be looking for. Flu vaccines are basically just guesses what the dominant strain is going to be. Apart from the H1N1 vaccine in 2009 I almost never get them because they almost never guess right, and the flu is the easiest illness I've ever had. Four days with a headache, fever, and fatigue. I'll take that over food poisoning any day. Get a basic SARS-Co-2 vaccine and get it to as many people as possible and it'll stop spreading like it is. Just like flu vaccines, which are just guesses. It's the same theory, and it seemingly works. This is concerning. The way it attacks some and not all, is odd, and doesn't make sense. I hope these measures slow the spread so as little people as possible have to go through it, and we get a better understanding of how to fight it. Hell now there's the hydroxychloroquine + z pack treatment, that might stop the SARS part of the infection. I agree whole heartedly Not sure how it's our president's fault and not the Chinese government's (who didn't restrict travel during the onset and suppressed information, more than likely still is)? I'd imagine he'd get severe backlash for having done either of those actions because it would be deemed racist.

You went outside and other people were there? Stop the presses, it's almost like it's safe to go on a walk or hike because it's not a effective way to transfer a virus from person to person. I've noticed something very different I live in Toluca Lake and I drove up to the costco on Sherman Way and Tujunga early saturday morning and the streets were empty aside from a bum peeing right onto lankershim, and police cars were in most parking lots, looked plenty locked down to me. I don't want to risk arrogance but the majority of people who get this virus will be just fine, in fact a lot will probably barely feel sick. Is it worth the massive hit to the economy? Honestly not sure, but the California lock down commitment until the end of April, that should be worth a short, and if it's not, well poop, I'm already doing everything I'm supposed to. The major problem is obviously hospital capacity and access to ventilators. A vaccine is probably coming sooner than 18 months, while they typically do take a long time to develop, this will more likely be expedited due to the massive **(obscenity removed)** the entire world is taking. While the vast majority of people will be fine, it can just bull doze old people and those with underlying health conditions. Here's a tip, if you aren't 80, if you get it, stay out of a hospital unless you have a hard time breathing. What they don't tell you is pneumonia is probably going to be caused by the bacteria factories that are hospitals. Same reason so many people get a bad case of MERSA after going to the hospital for something else. It is serious, all novel viruses are, and this one just seems to want to spread like wildfire, and yes I know some young people have died, I can't say anyone has a read on this virus quite yet, but whether the economy resumes soon, or effect treatments start (a good one is already being toyed with, it's off label medication, but anyone who knows dick about medicine knows how it all starts, AZT was a cancer drug before used for AIDS) this is something we will eventually have to face, it will not be contained. At the end of the day it's a novel cold virus, it'll kill some people, but we will all have to get it and let it become part of the seasonal cold from here on out. Maybe we should sanction China after this, after SARS 1, H1N1, Bird Flu, and now SARS 2 - Corona Virus, maybe all wildlife meat sales should be curbed (can extended elsewhere, we can thank people eating monkeys for AIDS, I frankly don't give a poop if it's insensitive, unleashing viruses that cripple the entire world is far worse) Before you say 'bro you don't know what you're talking about' both my parents are oncologists, I've grown up around doctors my whole life. Both of them are taking this serious, and I only am because I don't want to pass it on to them and risk them having a serious response to it. If it weren't for that, I'd frankly rather just get it, gather the antibodies, and get back to living life again, because living like this until July or August frankly sounds worse than a healthy person's response to covid-19. I'm thinking about everyone out of work right now, I hope we bounce back soon, you're all in my thoughts

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

I won't lie, 35mm with Panavision anamorphic lenses and a 4K DI

I wouldn't go that far, but the current lighting trends are getting boring

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

I laughed

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.

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

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

So... digital?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?