Jump to content


Manu Delpech

Member Since 07 Mar 2014
Offline Last Active Dec 24 2017 05:04 AM
-----

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Come on, Star Wars

20 December 2017 - 07:21 AM

Pretty much every review out there has praised the cinematography, I don't know what some of you want. It's the best looking SW film so far imo, next to TFA & ESB, they took some pointers from ESB but ultimately Rian wanted to make what he felt was Star Wars-y to him. Production design is fantastic as well. So many memorable moments, compositions & scenery, whether on Ahch-To (Skellig Island), Crait (shot in Bolivia), etc. To qualify this as run of the mill ordinary stuff is mindblowing. 


In Topic: The Last Jedi

20 December 2017 - 06:10 AM

Ok, Tyler, once again, you're off the mark. Rian Johnson has said the film is 80-85 % shot on 35mm film anamorphic, 10-15 % is Alexa for specialty shots, some low light situations, an elaborate Steadicam shot, a bit of Alexa 65 probably for aerials. THAT'S IT. Film was the default as Yedlin & Johnson said. Also, there's a cool ICG article where Yedlin explains his process to match the Alexa with 35mm with his special secret sauce, it was visible on Canto Bight imo, grain wasn't natural film grain, on the big IMAX screen, it's visible but overall, it worked very well. Also, yes, some spherical lenses were used from time to time like David said. The grain was very visible on the IMAX screen, very cool, also, Rian said in an interview there were just a few IMAX shots for some isolated scenery shots, but the ratio doesn't open up in IMAX, so they might have left those on the cutting room floor. 

 

http://www.icgmagazi...-of-the-father/

 

"While the movie was primarily shot in anamorphic, using Panavision G-Series (full set), C-Series Close Focus 50 mm, the AWZ (40-80 zoom) and some other anamorphics, Yedlin and Johnson also mixed in spherical lenses (a 19-90-mm Primo Compact Zoom and an assortment of Primo primes).

We wanted the idiosyncrasies of anamorphic – oblong bokehcurved distortion, its characteristic flares, and the anamorphic ‘egg’ [the lenses’ inability to focus at the top and bottom of the frame],” Yedlin details. “But there were times that we either didn’t want those idiosyncrasies – like if an actor’s face was going to be in the blurry part of the ‘egg’ – or when we needed to do a rack focus to closer than an anamorphic can focus. We also sometimes used spherical simply because VFX requested it: either because they wanted the extra image padding outside the framing area or because they wanted a more technically pristine lens.”

 

An AC article is coming in February as well


In Topic: Come on, Star Wars

20 December 2017 - 06:07 AM

By the way, here's a QT 1080p quality screencap of what OP used, something else than a blurry, crappy screencap.

 

https://ibb.co/nNxFjm

 

(image extensions dont work)


In Topic: Come on, Star Wars

20 December 2017 - 05:51 AM

Gorgeously shot & incredible film


In Topic: Could Digital Kill Film?

06 November 2017 - 07:05 AM

Tyler should say that to all big time directors who shoot on film, even the masters like Scorsese who only do a DI, gosh, such noobs, I guess they aren't aware. The Yedlin test makes me shake my head, I'd argue the Alexa still looks videoey, I don't know, his tests are interesting, but he keeps touting his digital LUT that closely mimicks a film response or something, he's used it on San Andreas, Danny Collins, and those films just look like regular digital, it's just not working. If there's this little of a difference for him, I wonder why he didn't ask to switch to Alexa for The Last Jedi :D (and yes, there are a handful of Alexa shots in it for specific situations). 

 

I think if you cut really quickly from film to digital for example, and you match them well, it "can" be indistinguishable but films such as Argo (film for 90 %  of the film, mix of super 16, 2 perf, 4 perf, Alexa for some low light situations, and the whole section in Turkey I think where Affleck meets a contact), The Wolf Of Wall Street, Silence that have a clear separation where low light is strictly digital (or some VFX shots), I find it really sticks out like a sore thumb, not that it looks bad, but Wolf & Silence in particular don't seem to have any grain added to the footage.  

 

Comparison tests in bleh conditions, carefully prepared, and the digital footage made to look as close to film is just a test, Carl said it best. It'd be fun to see Yedlin pull a Tommy Wiseau and shoot a film on film and digital at the same time, where they'll end up not looking the same at all. Stuff like LiveGrain does wonders (and it's 5 grand on a low budget project just to install the plugin), but it's still a trick. Why spend hours in the DI suite, and money to make digital look like film? Just shoot the real thing (if possible obviously). Ultimately, it blows my mind when great DPs such as Linus Sandgren, or Rodrigo Prieto keep saying how film is just so different, praising it, and a few others (a minority) insist they see little to no difference. Obviously though, if you sit really far away in the theater, you won't see the texture, it's also shocking to see how compression on TV absolutely annihilates the grain and makes almost everything feel like it's been shot digitally. 


FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Metropolis Post

Tai Audio

Technodolly

CineLab

Visual Products

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Paralinx LLC

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Ritter Battery

Gamma Ray Digital Inc