4 ms·

Or unless you are Quentin Tarantino; see Inglorious Basterds (2009) to see what rich colors film can provide.

by beamatronic 11y ago

kalleboo 11y ago
> Sean Mattini .... digital colorist assist Edited and color graded on digital intermediate
- jankins 11y ago
  The image retains characteristics of film even though it goes through DI, even color quality. (Quality in the sense of 'different', not strictly 'better'.) I think it's the principle of "you can't work with what's not there" - film (especially talking several years ago vs. today) will capture a different and usually wider dynamic range, and lend a different starting point that that might not be possible or easy to simulate.
  - stephen_g 11y ago
    Film is beautiful and has a great 'by-default' aesthetic - but many digital imaging systems have been able to capture more dynamic range (and far more resolution) for a few years now, and it isn't that hard to add grain and emulate the kind of image response for popular stocks in post... These days it's really more of a tactile choice - 'do you want to work with film' - than aesthetic.
    - jankins 11y ago
      Well I'll admit my acquaintance with the equipment is dated by a few years since it turned out programming was more fun and paid more :P I imagine it still gets you a different quality and a different set of possibilities, even if digital has taken the rational and technical upper hand in many situations. More on-topic, it also occurs to me that the Kodak cameras mentioned here will produce an image that the average film student or hobbyist (I guess that's the market?) with a canon or red wouldn't likely be able to reproduce convincingly, so that's interesting. Anyway what I'd really like to see resurrected is 3-strip technicolor! That'd be retro
drrotmos 11y ago
Or better yet, The Hateful Eight, in which he takes film to a new level, shooting on Ultra Panavision 70 (which perhaps counter-intuitively is 65 mm film). Other people are going digital, but Quentin Tarantino seems to be busy taking film to the next level instead :)
- timeisapear 11y ago
  Or JJ Abrams. Or Christopher Nolan. Two of the most profitable and prolific directors of today. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-wars-kodak-ceo-848593 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-war...
- extra88 11y ago
  Honestly, I thought the opening shots of the snow-covered landscape and a few of the longer interior shots didn't look that good. However the close-ups looked amazing.
- rodgerd 11y ago
  Pity it looks like shit if you don't live on the first-run circut, but I guess us peasants who don't happen to live in NY and LA only deserve scratched-up seconds.
- rplst8 11y ago
  The "70" in Ultra Panavision 70 mostly refers to the projection system. As projected in the the theater, it uses 70mm film. During the filming process a 65mm stock is used. The extra 5mm was for the optical soundtrack.

Or unless you are Quentin Tarantino; see Inglorious Basterds (2009) to see what rich colors film can provide.

kalleboo 11y ago

> Sean Mattini .... digital colorist assist Edited and color graded on digital intermediate

jankins 11y ago
The image retains characteristics of film even though it goes through DI, even color quality. (Quality in the sense of 'different', not strictly 'better'.) I think it's the principle of "you can't work with what's not there" - film (especially talking several years ago vs. today) will capture a different and usually wider dynamic range, and lend a different starting point that that might not be possible or easy to simulate.
- stephen_g 11y ago
  Film is beautiful and has a great 'by-default' aesthetic - but many digital imaging systems have been able to capture more dynamic range (and far more resolution) for a few years now, and it isn't that hard to add grain and emulate the kind of image response for popular stocks in post... These days it's really more of a tactile choice - 'do you want to work with film' - than aesthetic.
  - jankins 11y ago
    Well I'll admit my acquaintance with the equipment is dated by a few years since it turned out programming was more fun and paid more :P I imagine it still gets you a different quality and a different set of possibilities, even if digital has taken the rational and technical upper hand in many situations. More on-topic, it also occurs to me that the Kodak cameras mentioned here will produce an image that the average film student or hobbyist (I guess that's the market?) with a canon or red wouldn't likely be able to reproduce convincingly, so that's interesting. Anyway what I'd really like to see resurrected is 3-strip technicolor! That'd be retro

drrotmos 11y ago

Or better yet, The Hateful Eight, in which he takes film to a new level, shooting on Ultra Panavision 70 (which perhaps counter-intuitively is 65 mm film). Other people are going digital, but Quentin Tarantino seems to be busy taking film to the next level instead :)

timeisapear 11y ago
Or JJ Abrams. Or Christopher Nolan. Two of the most profitable and prolific directors of today. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-wars-kodak-ceo-848593 http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-war...
extra88 11y ago
Honestly, I thought the opening shots of the snow-covered landscape and a few of the longer interior shots didn't look that good. However the close-ups looked amazing.
rodgerd 11y ago
Pity it looks like shit if you don't live on the first-run circut, but I guess us peasants who don't happen to live in NY and LA only deserve scratched-up seconds.
rplst8 11y ago
The "70" in Ultra Panavision 70 mostly refers to the projection system. As projected in the the theater, it uses 70mm film. During the filming process a 65mm stock is used. The extra 5mm was for the optical soundtrack.