Dylan Gill

Before getting into film I used to work in a boutique studio that did 2" analog recording. I loved the way it sounded, and sometimes we even ran 30 ips which chewed through the tape in double the time. But like you said you can re use it (i never personally would, but you can) and it's not tremendously expensive. I thank god that I like the look of Alexa footage because the uphill battle of analog vs digital today is too tiring. Film and digi are both good looking, unlike the gap between digital vs 2" tape based music (all my opinion of course). In hypothetical world, I would entertain shooting film if the budget was big enough, but even then it seems like why not shoot it on an Alexa with amazing glass and put that money elsewhere?

Good to know! Thank you. Prores 4444 XQ ok? That's what we shot with, have no idea what the difference is, but would be nice if we could keep it the same. Just learned an hour ago the colorist is doing the online from my editor. Trying to get this finished is driving me insane

Copy, how hard/how long would it take to load a 4K tiff sequence into Premiere for the online edit? My editor is out of town until tomorrow and we have to finish this today because my colorist is leaving town tomorrow haha

We are in color now, the project is in DCI 4K 1.85:1, now that it's almost finished, my colorist was going to export TIFF's but I asked him to do prores instead for my conform editor. Was this a mistake?

What I wonder, as an newbie, is how strong is film's infrastructure after you're done shooting? How many labs can process it well outside of fotokem? You even have people like Deakins saying the stock itself isn't what it used to be. At what point does it just not make sense to shoot film?

I think if you are going to go for a Mini you should pony up for the 4:3 and ARRIRAW license. I rented a Mini for my last short that didn't have either, the 4:3 being okay since we were spherical, but the lack of raw was a bummer. I just think having both options in the back pocket means you have a camera that can do whatever anyone wants, versus saving money on the license. Makes it a much more attractive rental, even if those features aren't used, it's a small uptick on an incredibly expensive camera anyway, if you can buy a mini you can buy the arriraw/4:3 license.

I'd get an Alexa Mini if I were in your position. I'm trying to pool together with my partners for one.

I think so, yes. You should care about craft and exhibition. I haven't seen Green Book yet (though I plan too) but I saw Beale Street this week which is also 2:1 at the Arclight, tiny letterbox on a 1.85 screen. Didn't bother me. When I saw Hereditary, they lowered the frame to get rid of the bottom bar, but kept the top letterbox bar, which I thought was interesting. Either way, perfectly viewable

I think he's referring to the vertical video people often take

Good to know, thank you. This site is really a wealth of knowledge. I had moviepass for a little while last year and saw a scope movie at a cinemark on 1.85 screen with no masking. This is seemingly getting more common. Seems incredibly lazy to me to not at least mask it if you are going to do a constant width screen.

I too love anamorphic 35mm, and I grew up in the 90's with the end of the film presentation era, I remember the side curtains moving and being very excited as well, though to be honest it wasn't until I got very into film that I knew the difference between widescreen ratios. I kind of like the look of anamorphic on film more than digital, but I like it when it's well done either way. I was wondering (pardon my ignorance, like I said, green) do you get more height and width with anamorphic lenses, than you would doing a 2.40 crop? Seems like you can get an entire face and the environment in the shot with anamorphic, while cropped spherical feels much more cramped. Or am I just imagining things?

I'm extremely green, having only made two short films. The first was 2.40 spherical, and the newest one which is still being edited was in 1.85 for that very reason. However, I found myself falling in love with the compositional elements of 1.85 on set. I am a big anamorphic fan however. I have noticed even at the Arclight in Sherman Oaks (my go-to theater) the biggest auditoriums are constant width. Disappointing. I have a friend who works for a famous director, they were testing cameras for the iphone ratio for a media company. Luckily, the director told them it wouldn't work, and to just aim for 16:9, people will tilt their phones. Made me sad to hear about the tests, but happy about the conclusion.

Now that TV's are just a hair away from 1.85:1, do you think in the future it'll turn into the out-dated, squarish ratio, or do you think it's compositional perks, and the lack of mass market interest in scope tv's, will give it longevity?

Interesting, thanks for the heads up, sounds pretty straightforward then

We had 16:9 view, with 1.85 framelines. Never heard of working with 17:9 before, however I am a novice

I'm going to get a dcp made by a post house- simple dcp in LA. I'm more concerned about getting to cine 4K (why waste the 3.8K footage we already have?) while protecting the framing. I reached out to the colorist, but he hasn't responded yet. I'm guessing the head room in the 16:9 negative will be the picture information thrown away in the scaling? That's ok with me, but when it starts effecting what happened in the framelines, I get a little worried.

Thank you, I will talk to my colorist about this.

I'm going for a "FLAT" 1.85:1 dcp

Hi all, I recently shot a short film on an Alexa Mini w/ Zeiss Superspeeds, using the UHD ProRes 4444 XQ in lieu of ARRIRAW, since our camera rental didn't have it. We framed for 1.85:1, and have a 16:9 'negative'. I would like to uprez it to cine 4K so I could create a 4K dcp, but have no idea how to do a marginal uprez, most youtube videos address HD or 2K to UHD. How can I get this to the 4096 (and what vertical resolution?), so then I can crop to 3996x2160? Or would it be easier just to do the DI at 2K, as it would be easy to render the colored files at 1998x1080? Thank you for your help.

PTA is my favorite modern director, I think he balances story, acting, and incredible images really well. I got to see this at a press screening in November 2017 at the Arya Fine Arts Theater. I held a sign saying 'plus one?' outside the theater, the people from focus features let me in, even though I had no claim to be there. It was an early Christmas for me. It was shown on 35mm, really cool experience. Didn't get to meet PTA, though I heard he had been to that theater a couple times for the pre release screenings. Also saw it on 70m at the Arclight, and DCP too. I thought all presentations held up well.