Mixing Film And Digital Footage: Killers Of The Flower Moon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 чер 2024
- Head to squarespace.com/indepthcine to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code INDEPTHCINE
Let's break down the cinematography - specifically the use of colour and LUTs - in Killers Of The Flower Moon.
Source: American Cinematographer, December 2023
Source: theasc.com/articles/finessing...
Source: • 'Killers of the Flower...
MERCH:
Official IDC Merch: www.indepthcine.shop/
SOCIALS:
Instagram: / indepthcine
Patreon: / indepthcine
IDC Website: www.indepthcine.com/
My Website: www.graykotze.com/
Discord: / discord
GEAR:
Music I Use: bit.ly/3qCRt7u
UA-cam Gear I Use: kit.co/InDepthCine/youtube-gear
Editing Software I Use: bit.ly/41oeH2x
MUSIC:
Music I Use: bit.ly/3qCRt7u
ANBR - 'Decisions'
Phury - 'Misty'
Marco Martini - 'Nothing Makes Sense'
Smplsmth - 'Slow Morning'
Mansij - 'Be Mine'
Notize - 'Seaside'
Mansij - 'Luminate'
Chill Winston - ‘The Truth’
0:00 Introduction
1:09 Mixing Formats
2:01 Colour Negative Film
3:20 Black & White Film
4:12 Sony Venice
5:41 4 Film LUTs
6:46 Squarespace
7:49 LUTs
9:41 Post Production Workflow
11:11 LUT Comparison
12:54 Conclusion
DISCLAIMER: Some links in this description are affiliate links. If you purchase a product or service with these links I may receive a small commission without an additional charge to you.
Thank you for supporting my channel so I can continue to provide you with free videos! - Фільми й анімація
Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs is another great example to take a look at - each of the 3 acts of the film uses a different format - super 16 to 35mm to digital
I worked with Rodrigo on a film in 2013 called The Homesman - we shot both film and digital on that film as well: Sony F55 for all the night scenes, and Arricam LT for all the day scenes. It's a very clever technique!
Prieto's best work right here.
love visuals you use on your videos. theyre really intuitive and genuinely help me understand the detailed aspects of filmmaking that you talk about.
I found the fake archival footage so convincing that my first thought when it appeared was “wow this is some incredibly well preserved old footage” no wonder, they used a real hand-cranked camera and everything!
Rodrigo Prieto's work is phenomenal. He truly deserves an Oscar this year for his work. Killers of the Flower Moon was really special and feels like a culmination of his collaboration with Scorsese.
The depth of these videos is incredible. thank you!
So they actually did shoot on a Bell and Howell! I thought that was just being used as a movie prop. That's super cool! I hope there's behind the scenes of that camera being used.
Already loved KOTFM but this makes me love it even more. Great work as usual
Very good video. It’s cool to see how much work goes into just the choice of film vs digital and the color work
Such a phenomenal video! I love the attention to detail!
Film aside, thank you for such an insightful video for us budding film makers !! Great service you are doing
Very well done and informative as always- thank you for this
This video has me hyped for a rewatch!!
The talent here is out of this world
Amazing Video- well crafted & well researched. Kudos!
Great video! Could you make a video about how The Holdovers managed to pull out such a realistic film look?
very well explained
Howdy! Sparky from Oklahoma here! My boss on reservation dogs was the gaffer for this movie! He was the best boy for the first Halloween film.
I would argue the main reason for the use of digital was the fact that anamorphic lenses need to shoot closer to a T/4-5.6 to mitigate the distortion (soft edges, field curvature, chromatic aberration, and increase depth to reduce focus breathing) that is inherent in that system. This is similar to how spherical lenses of the past were not optimized for shooting wide open.
You could use Super35 or 70mm instead.
@@ghostviggen I would say that the limitation is still film. You can only push colour negative film so much before it looks grainy and contrasty (and different from the rest of the movie). Look at the night scenes in Wild at Heart where pushing the night scenes was a visual choice. It's also you only gain a couple of stops by switching to spherical in either 35 or 70mm.
Thank you very mucho for all this work
i love you videos, they are always extremely well done
Pretty good work man
Fascinating thank you.
Crushing it as always 💪
Great video, as always.
Very informative video. Thanks for sharing.
I absolutely loved this film. Scorsese's best work to date. It was so sad that it was snubbed at the Oscars. It's been such a long time since we had a film that focused on indigenous people and their background. Such a shame.
Awesome & Thanks :)
im genuinely curious. How did you collect information about Prieto's technical process for this movie? Was it through interviews or did you work in the film?
Fr, I'm watching this and thinking how does he know exactly which LUTS they used and all the technical stuff??
I would like to know aswell
very nice video as always! btw I'm pretty sure they used the Venice 1 (Prieto stated that in the american cinematographer interview)
I was too immersed in the story when i saw this film in the theater and didn't notice any color changes. When I watch this film again, I'll see if I can spot the changes. 😅
Gorgeous
Hollywood needs the old-school auteurs like Scorsese more than ever
I am a 100% film/darkroom photographer that has been working with film ever since 1990.
From a film still-photographer's perspective, I don't understand the consistent debates of "vs." that sits between Film vs. Digital.
Why would digital want to emulate film outside of just having fun with an App or Digital Filter?
One of the biggest issues (I have spoken & written about this in past interviews & articles) that stops digital's potential is when it tries to emulate film. The next stagnating issue would be placing the formats against each other.
Photography as a Medium is closing in 200 years old & filmmaking (if we are referencing the first film, non-narrative) has around 135 years.
How do two formats have a "vs." when neither film or digital has a Renaissance or a historical classical period that shows centuries of still-photography & filmmaking?
I do understand the intellectuality & technical comparisons but film (the physical format) is the origin of photography & filmmaking, everything else after that are inspirations or innovations crafted from its origin (film).
Why would digital want to emulate film? Well, Kodak and Fuji spent millions creating those film stocks, crafting a certain look that appears "nice." Now, take any digital camera and convert the log footage to Rec.709. Does it look good? Not really. What does look good? Film! That's why people are trying to emulate film. They aim to replicate the "nice color" and "nice looks" of film. Steve Yedlin, one of the best Directors of Photography and Color Scientists on the planet, continuously improves his "film look" year after year. Similarly, Filmlight Baselight is also trying to recreate film. This is because film is considered the "gold standard" in terms of looks. Once you achieve the goal of replicating film, you can modify the image further to your liking and go beyond the film look. However, "breaking the rules" without understanding them is foolish. You need to know the rules to effectively break them, and understanding how film works is a lifetime challenge.
@@allenpayne9182good day, I hope that all is well. Very contenplative response. Thank you for taking the time out to express such points.
Even if these high-tech companies bring an APP or software to digitally emulate Film with pinpoint visual accuracy, it still won't have that chemical process accuracy that is one of the foundations for a roll or can of film showing the visual mathematics & scientific outcomes of specifically making an exposure about a technique.
These Apps & chest of software are emulating the technology not the technique. Someone could make a Gordon Willis digital filter but that won't display Gordon's technique because there are certain subconscious approaches that went into how Gordon judged his light, that he probably could not explain it, yet alone, an App or software being able to explain or trace it.
Standard Development, Pushing or Pulling Film are chemical reactions that have to go through the process not the high-tech: the same with Bleach Bypass. I was just reading an article where Janusz Kamiński was discussing how the physical way of Bleach Bypassing is falling away from the education of current filmmakers & cinematographers.
I don't have anything against technology; however, it seems redundant to use or misuse a new invention (digital) to emulate an existing invention (film).
Kodak is not the same company. I have argued with Kodak & in concise terms, told them that they are running film into a Pop Culture marketing machine where they look for social-media Royalty & their Blue Checkmark photographers, filmmakers & cinematographers as a source of "Cool Enough to Promote" while overlooking the consumers who are amateur & loyal film photographers that kept their company alive before any Kodak hashtag went viral. Therefore, I don't have great elation in whose work Kodak shares in their Instagram stories & posts.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you in one aspect, photographers & cinematographers should learn film & the process.
Now I don't know if this would make them better at emulating film with digital Apps & software but it would put them in an educational layer that has visual wisdom where Nicéphore Niépce, Louis Daguerre, Fox Talbot, Sir John Herschel, Peter Henry Emerson, Alfred Stieglitz & Group f/64 learned the science, mathematics & photography from, all of which formed that educational bridge where Gregg Toland, Gabriel Figueroa, James Wong Howe & Robert Burks learned from, Medium wise.
But film was not the origin of photography. Colloid plates were.
@@Fedor_Dokuchaev_Colorare you just going to skip over Nicéphore Niépce & Louis Daguerre making successful latent images (the word for a Photograph before the word was invented) in the 1820's & 1830's & credit Frederick Scott Archer's Collodion (which was invented in the late 1840's) chemistry as the invention of Photography, some 20 years after Nicéphore Niépce & Louis Daguerre?
When coating a sheet of glass, plate or metal (large-format), the chemistry formed a "film" over the glass or plate, hence the term film which followed the concept behind Roll Film (120/220) which was invented by the Reverend Hannibal Goodwin (he & his estate sued Kodak for stealing his roll film formula) in the late 19th Century, which flowed into 135 film (better known as 35mm film, also called small-format film, a term Ansel Adams used).
Do you see the connection behind the word "film"?
Love using printer lights In Resolve
❤❤❤❤
Huge fan of your channel. However, I think the explanation of the LUT part was not entirely correct. At 7:50, you mention: "A normal film LUT" recreates the look of 5219 negative film. You then say that this negative film LUT can be applied to the digital camera, as well as to the "negative film scan". However, it doesn't make sense to apply a 5219 LUT to a 5219 negative film scan. I believe the segment at 7:50 is just confusing and not completely accurate. I know you are knowledgeable in this area. I understand what you're trying to convey here, but the way you're expressing it isn't precise.
You are right. I thing what he meant "positive stock" LUT instead.
Rodrigo Prieto is gonna face some tough competition against Hoyte Van Hoytema at the Oscars
Linus Sandgren for Saltburn should be there too. Saltburn looks gorgeous.
Hey can anyone explain the creator was shot at fx3 which is a full frame camera but the lens used was a 75mm anamorphic lens which is s35 . How can this two be used together?
The anamorphic lens is probably bigger then the 35mm area. But if you can’t expose the entire sensor you can crop in post.
Thank you for the breakdown. I always love the experiments that are done for the story, unlike Knives Out, where it was done to show that the director could fake film look without people noticing it, as it was side by side with film and that was very distracting for me, because I could sometimes see the difference in different shots, it threw me off the film.
There’s no film in Knives Out/Glass Onion though? It’s all digital
@@he.smile_ The first movie has both mediums. Arri Alexa 65 and Mini. And Panavision PSR R-200 (using Vision 3 500T). That's according to IMDB. I had read an article with the director's interview where he talks about mixing both mediums and trying to apply film effects, including halation, to prove that you can't tell them apart, but of course you can. There was one night scene where he combined digital and film, because film is better with highlights and digital is better with shadows. It was where someone sneaks into the house, climbing up the wall to enter through the window.
NOPE also did this.
Scorsese is greatest director of all time.
Buddy, I love your videos but you really need to stop using white iconography on bright backgrounds, haha
That day for night didn’t look impressive
This just proves that digital is better than film in every regard: resolution, noise, sensitivity, frame rate, etc. Does the Sony have global shutter? So, the use of real film was just a whim.
Every regard?
Film is much kinder with highlights, and the colour of film is unparalleled
the most common problem with digital filming is contrast ratio.
contrast is not high enough to match analog film. camera sensor need to be more larger or reduces the data compression. just add more ssd drive and RAM
I really can’t believe what Company 3 is doing with all these hybrid movies. They only use a LUT to match the colors. They don’t even attempt to match the formats on a textural level and you can feel that.
Also the thing about film speed is pretty wack. Kodak 5219 is nominally 500 ISO but has huge underexposure latitude. I never feel starved for speed with this stock. You can push it no problem and with the fast lenses that perform well wide open today, you get effectively the same depth of field shooting 35mm wide open as full frame closed down a stop. Shoot 5219 pushed a stop at T2.3 and you can use it in the same lighting as the Venice at T2.8 at 2500 ISO. And it’ll look better.
That blue light window is tight, might be more convenient to adjust the exposure on digital as the light is diminishing rapidly.
@@Kliffot Still applies. Especially with 5219 sensitivity to blue.
"and it'll look better" That's completely subjective mate. And my pushback on the texture argument is that no one cares. The audience certainly doesn't. Unless you're a seasoned DP or Colorist, you won't know which shot is on film and which shot is on digital. Getting the color right is way more important. Convenience always wins. Having said that, you could totally match the texture completely with a more diligent process on a shot per shot basis, to be as accurate as possible. But people simply don't care as much as long as they're getting the color right.
@@botbot3698 And I wonder why so much cinematography sucks now.
@@VariTimo I agree. For me the texture is what I love about film. It just feels more real for whatever reason. I watched the latest Indiana Jones flick and couldn't believe how plastic the whole movie looked. It's not just the film grain but there is a certain pleasant sharpness that film has. Almost like false detail.
It's probably partly due to how soft everything is shot these days. Super soft lenses and super shallow depth of field for everything. I do like that look sometimes, it was great in The Batman, but for Indiana Jones it wasn't doing it for me at all.
Tommy Wiseau did it first and everyone laughed at him. Now people are praising this garbage as "innovative, bold, and ground breaking" The Room truly is the Citizen Kane but maybe no longer of "bad movies". The hypocrisy baffles me as to why Mr. Wiseau is still shunned.
Garbage ?
This dude must be a good friend of the dude who made The Room. 😂
He didn't hit her. He didn't, he swears. He didn't that's bs, he did not.
It’s just that there’s no way you believe this
Je didn’t use the digital footage in the film though lol. He just did it because he had the money and had no clue what he was doing. Also, George Lucas tried it first for phantom menace
That's one well-fed indian.
It's outright laziness to be shooting on digital and expect paintbrush oil painting kind of purity and authenticity, film remains superior atleast up until now, it's like wanting to create a Picasso painting with digital imagery and push the idea of how good and convenient digital is... What matters also is how one is projecting a film via digital or on a film projector.... So if one does not want to put in the efforts digital is the way to go..
picasso was a shit painter bruh, But I see your point
either way the movie was an unwatchable bore.
Yeah, they didn't even say "Well, THAT just happened." or "Uhh, he is right behind me, isn't he?" every 10 minutes. Unwatchable.
Kinda disappointing Martin even used digital at all
This movie wasn't. Early as good as I was hoping it would be. It wasn't bad at all but jot as good as say maestro or oppenheimer