just imagine what it's like being the lighting cameraman on an interview with roger deakins. "right, i'll just put this light HERE. or maybe not. um..."
I'd like to shoot an interview with Roger Deakins using multiple cameras at different framings and focal lengths moving in opposite directions on 360° tracks through long anamorohic lenses on 42fps 35mm film with a lighting mixture of tiny warm sodium vapor in bokeh and large cool bare floescents beaming directly down the passing rotation paths of the camera causing burst of beautiful blue horizontal lens flares. Just to watch him squirm.
One of my most cherished memories is being an extra on 'Unbroken' back in 2013 while it was filming in Brisbane, QLD. Being able to watch Roger at work on set from the sidelines was just magical, and I picked a moment while he wasn't busy to go and just shake his hand and told him that he was my cinematography hero. With that, he smiled and patted me on the shoulder. Such a humble and amazing man.
Roger is one of those extremely lucky DoP's who does what he likes, what he wants, what he thinks is best and people pay him handsomely for that approach. Rather than a director telling him what to do or for him to go against what he holds dear about image making, they employ him because of the way he does things which must be incredibly satisfying. Roger also now has this brilliant style, one that isn't necessarily recognisable across the films he shoots but that each film he does shoot is a visual feast and you know that every little nuance in that image has been considered by him, nothing is left to chance or accident. Can you imagine JJ Abrams shining a torch into Roger lens to get more flare? Ugghhhh... I love this guys work, he's one of the best out there and I hope he still has plenty of films left in him before he hangs up his lenses.
I have never really looked into Roger Deakins' methods but hearing him talk here shows me he is just probably the most "classical" cinematographer in the industry now. What I mean by classical is that he wants minimal grain, no lens flares, shoots with wide lenses, natural lighting, etc.. I think its cool that he's so admired even though he isn't really doing anything "interesting". He's just so damn good at being "nothing interesting" that he stands out. He also really seems to love what he does. A great rolemodel for any sort of creative person!
I wouldn't say classical; he said himself that his style is actually opposite to the classical hollywood "classic-cut" look (look up "cinematographer roundtable 2019" I believe). BTW classical is often confused with natural or realistic, something classical is something artificially perfect, like a religious nude. I would say that his lighting is naturalistic. But not classical. Not at all. He's hyper-realist, like lighting things that would "look like that if they existed" kind of thing... but that's not what classical cinema lighting looks like at all. I know it's just nomenclature but Roger is far far away from the most classical cinematographer out there. He's as close to documentary as possible. No classical hollywood film would be made with no fill-light or only natural sources on some scenes.
Great and legend cinematographer of Hollywood Cinema history..mr roger deakins ...loved his work in prisoners Blade runner 2049 And sicario And thank you arri for giving the best cinema art eye camera to the world...thank you Namaste from India 🙏😊💐
Roger Deakins: I don't know, I kinda like a little bit of noise...it gives it a little texture. All Videographers: What's the best camera for low light? What's the best noise reduction software?
Loool, it really depends the camera tho, the noise on the LF was made to look like film grain, if you take Blackmagic you’ll get that patterned noise that looks horrendous
Exactly. It's not the quantity of light, it's the quality of the footage, the feeling. There is a little bit of noise in your own eyes at night after all.
@@paulpersic3004 My thoughts exactly. I believe that manufacturers of inexpensive camera systems need to focus on increasing quality of noise, not decreasing quantity. It is achievable in the lower budget camera market, as I own a Fuji X100 and have found that the noise on that sensor looks more like film grain rather than sensor pattern noise. If only my Blackmagic was like that... It's similar to how these same low budget camera companies try to sell people on the resolution of their sensors, which has nothing to do with image quality. For example, the perceived sharpness of a 3.2k Alexa. It looks as sharp, if not sharper than images from certain 6K RED sensors. This is because of the quality of the photosites; not the quantity. (You're literally paying hundreds of dollars for each individual photosite) I hope for Blackmagic and other companies to focus on improving the image quality and color depth of the pixels they already have instead of adding more mediocre ones. Long comment. - Interesting stuff!!
It shows where he's coming from. When you have worked with film for such a long time as he did (when he started working there was essentially no digital imaging technique in existance) you learn to appreciate the roughness and as he calls it "texture" that noise can lend to an image - particularly b/w shots. I totally get where he is coming from and I could listen to this man talk for days XD
I agree with Roger 100% regarding using available light, practicals, etc. and lens flair telling the audience that it's seeing the scene through a lens rather than their own eyes. I think that some scenes, for example flashbacks, should be shot thru the patina of a vintage lens... to emphasize a memory. Somehow, pro-mist filters don't cut it for me. Great piece!
Had a chance to study him in action 20 years ago on the set of The Hurricane. Knew right then that I was watching a master at work. He was just as much of a gentleman then as now.
Dear Respectful Sir, One of the best 😍 and hope 😍 full Review of the "LF MINI" 🙏🙏🙏 Sir, I remember all time, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH Sir and ARRI TEAM...... SIR
ARRI to me is the incorruptible good of the motion picture industry, albeit quite an expensive good at that. I dream for the day I have the pleasure of shooting a project on an Alexa. Keep these interviews coming, you all. Cheers.
I love vignetting. I find it aesthetically very pleasing. Roger Deakins tells that he doesn't like Vignettes...and now I am doubting my own aesthetic preferences :/
Someone should make a "Legendary Cinematographer, Cheap Camera" challenge, starts with Roger Deakins. "Hey, sir, uh...we'd like to give you a challenge," *gives him a nokia N70*
Awww my father, my mentor, my everything. I love you so much. Have been following you from day one I started photography and through your teachings, I'm also making it small small. Please help me progress
hahaha oh man. their hands shaking as they set up lights and voice cracking when they are giving some direction during the set up. Imagine Roger asking them if they are really going to use that set up, but then remaining silent. lol
Roger is one of my favorites DP´s. But here he says something that I don´t undestand... he says that the LF allows him to use a 40mm instead of a 32mm and getting less distorion when shooting a close up... but the format and the focal lenght have nothing to do with this... I mean, the distortion of a subject is related only to the distance of the subject to de sensor, I know that changing the sensor size will give you the oportunity to use a longer focal lenght and getting closer to the subject to match the same frame, but if you are replicating the frame, and the distance to the subject the distortion will be the same in both large format or full frame or even MFT.... Maybe there are some very subtle difference that he percieved and I am not aware of... Anyway, he is the best!
The "appeal to authority fallacy" comes to mind. Just because Roger Deakins says it, doesn't mean it's necessarily true. The distortion of faces is related to perspective (distance from subject) as you said. Barrel distortion is a thing, especially with wide angle lenses, but I don't think that's what his comment was regarding.
I guess his point is that because he uses a full frame sensor, he can frame the same way he would with a 32mm on S35 with less distortion BECAUSE of his relative position to the subject. His 40mm on FF would yield more visual compression, and thus he would be farther away from the subject, reducing distortion. Deakins makes mention in a previous interview that he prefers shooting with tighter lenses and pushed the Coens to adopt this visual language in their films. So if I'm understanding your point correctly, it's simply a matter of his positioning and choice of lenses and framing with such on this new LF sensor
@@bikenejad The wider the lens the more likely to have barrel distortion, although very very minimal in really expensive lenses, spherical of course. Also a 40mm should render an image more close to reality than a 32mm. A 32mm makes your face a little thinner, 50mm is the closest to reality for most people from what i've seen. I don't think the "appeal to authority fallacy" comes to play here, the guy actually knows his shit.
What he says makes perfect sense. The distortion on a 24mm vs. a 35mm is dramatically different. The 35mm mounted on the LF gives the same perspective as the 24mm, with even more roll off from the glass, given that a 35mm 1.4 is going to be far more shallow than a 24mm 1.4, you can now keep the subject in the same location while shooting a deeper lens while having them equal size within the frame, the main difference in the image is the distortion via the focal length of the glass. This is very easy to understand by simply taking a zoom lens on a DSLR (18-55 Kit works great). Watch how things distort as you zoom in or zoom out of the image. Would also like to note, I have shot the LF, have shot the SXT, have shot the Sony Venice, Red Monstoro, 16mm, 35mm, etc, and what he says about the LF is absolutely true. Incredible camera from an incredible team.
@@Datboyvideo Justin, I think I don´t understand you. Please, I only wanna learn, I am not trying to fight, I make this warning because usually this comments sessions go out of line. Is there any difference between perspective and distortion? The example of trying to replicate this with a DSLR is not relevant, unless you are suggesting to use two DSLRs, with different sensor sizes. The question here is simple, If I use two different sensor size based cameras, and mantaing the distance to the subject I replicate the framing of the smaller sensor sized camera with a longer focal lenght in the bigger sensor size one, the image will be rendered differently? We all know about the DOF compensation when you use different sensor sizes, but let´s suppouse that we also adjust the F-stop to match the same DOF in both caneras... I made my test with an APS-C and a Full Frame camera... and I cannot see the diference. If you could show me an example I´ll be very greatfu.l Thanks!!
Ive graded alexa and LF and i didnt notice much difference besides the greater Resolution, it is better than the Mini in 4k, since the Mini is upscaled in camera and looses some of the Quality you get from an alexa shot in 2k. I watched the LF project projected on the big screen in 4k and fuck, its beautiful.
For those mystified by what may be a British term, "Lighting Cameraman" is a person who lights or arranges the lighting of a set. They do not operate the camera, that's another job.
At 4:17 I like Roger Deakins when he says ''Arri Signature lenses are a bit big but I understand why they are big.'' Il me semble être enfin le premier à dire que les objectifs Arri Signature ont d'énormes diamètres.
Have you guys seen "Joker" yet? Shot on a couple of ARRI digitals, using Hassleblad lenses. Not sure what they did in post, but it as a beautiful film -like look, with classic film-like colours. Watch the trailer, you will be blown away.
Imagine a Roger Deakins Masterclass.
NEED!
kortizoll if you have the Fargo movie blu ray, there’s an audio commentary from Roger himself.
maybe this christmas
ua-cam.com/video/j2hMZs40R2E/v-deo.html
someone make it happen
just imagine what it's like being the lighting cameraman on an interview with roger deakins. "right, i'll just put this light HERE. or maybe not. um..."
Hahhahhaja
😂👍
I’d just pick his brains mercilessly. I’d feel sorry for him if I was shooting it 🤓
I thought exactly the same! Imagine the pressure!
I'd like to shoot an interview with Roger Deakins using multiple cameras at different framings and focal lengths moving in opposite directions on 360° tracks through long anamorohic lenses on 42fps 35mm film with a lighting mixture of tiny warm sodium vapor in bokeh and large cool bare floescents beaming directly down the passing rotation paths of the camera causing burst of beautiful blue horizontal lens flares.
Just to watch him squirm.
Roger Deakins should release a boxset of all of his movies, with a cinematographer's commentary :)
Who's with me? :P
That would be amazing.
yes!
I can hear Roger Deakins talk about cinematography all day.
I understand that. Then look here: 100.arri.com/interviews/event/59d5e9767c84e7093efc11c8
One of my most cherished memories is being an extra on 'Unbroken' back in 2013 while it was filming in Brisbane, QLD. Being able to watch Roger at work on set from the sidelines was just magical, and I picked a moment while he wasn't busy to go and just shake his hand and told him that he was my cinematography hero. With that, he smiled and patted me on the shoulder. Such a humble and amazing man.
That is so cool you got to shake his hand. I bet that was a great moment for you.
Doctor: You have 7 minute and 3 seconds left to live
Me:
Me:
I don't like breathing
I'd be up for hearing a LONG version of this interview, The Deakins deserves to be heard haha
That is what I think too, the edit is terrible, lots of cuts when it is getting interesting.
I love that he embraces newer technology.
but doesn't just rely on it. He is definitely a master.
Imagine being 70, with that body of work... And still being so on top of your game. Amazing!
Roger is one of those extremely lucky DoP's who does what he likes, what he wants, what he thinks is best and people pay him handsomely for that approach. Rather than a director telling him what to do or for him to go against what he holds dear about image making, they employ him because of the way he does things which must be incredibly satisfying. Roger also now has this brilliant style, one that isn't necessarily recognisable across the films he shoots but that each film he does shoot is a visual feast and you know that every little nuance in that image has been considered by him, nothing is left to chance or accident. Can you imagine JJ Abrams shining a torch into Roger lens to get more flare? Ugghhhh... I love this guys work, he's one of the best out there and I hope he still has plenty of films left in him before he hangs up his lenses.
I'll say it here, second Oscar incoming for Roger Deakins.
@@ViziaFilms 1917 probably
^
Imagine seating in the same room with Deakins & Lubezki and the subject topic is lighting.
I have never really looked into Roger Deakins' methods but hearing him talk here shows me he is just probably the most "classical" cinematographer in the industry now. What I mean by classical is that he wants minimal grain, no lens flares, shoots with wide lenses, natural lighting, etc.. I think its cool that he's so admired even though he isn't really doing anything "interesting". He's just so damn good at being "nothing interesting" that he stands out.
He also really seems to love what he does. A great rolemodel for any sort of creative person!
I wouldn't say classical; he said himself that his style is actually opposite to the classical hollywood "classic-cut" look (look up "cinematographer roundtable 2019" I believe). BTW classical is often confused with natural or realistic, something classical is something artificially perfect, like a religious nude. I would say that his lighting is naturalistic. But not classical. Not at all. He's hyper-realist, like lighting things that would "look like that if they existed" kind of thing... but that's not what classical cinema lighting looks like at all. I know it's just nomenclature but Roger is far far away from the most classical cinematographer out there. He's as close to documentary as possible. No classical hollywood film would be made with no fill-light or only natural sources on some scenes.
Emmanuel Lubezki is the natural light master.
isn;t grain a good thing? Maybe im mistaken but the grain that shooting on film provides gives more texture to the image
@@jayv8068 yes, the human eye sees grain when lighting is bad.
Great and legend cinematographer of Hollywood Cinema history..mr roger deakins ...loved his work in prisoners
Blade runner 2049
And sicario
And thank you arri for giving the best cinema art eye camera to the world...thank you
Namaste from India 🙏😊💐
Always understated and polite. Never about the hype. He’s a real gentleman for a time when we need to go back to basics. CINEMA
Roger Deakins: I don't know, I kinda like a little bit of noise...it gives it a little texture.
All Videographers: What's the best camera for low light? What's the best noise reduction software?
Loool, it really depends the camera tho, the noise on the LF was made to look like film grain, if you take Blackmagic you’ll get that patterned noise that looks horrendous
Exactly. It's not the quantity of light, it's the quality of the footage, the feeling. There is a little bit of noise in your own eyes at night after all.
@@paulpersic3004 My thoughts exactly. I believe that manufacturers of inexpensive camera systems need to focus on increasing quality of noise, not decreasing quantity. It is achievable in the lower budget camera market, as I own a Fuji X100 and have found that the noise on that sensor looks more like film grain rather than sensor pattern noise. If only my Blackmagic was like that...
It's similar to how these same low budget camera companies try to sell people on the resolution of their sensors, which has nothing to do with image quality. For example, the perceived sharpness of a 3.2k Alexa. It looks as sharp, if not sharper than images from certain 6K RED sensors. This is because of the quality of the photosites; not the quantity. (You're literally paying hundreds of dollars for each individual photosite) I hope for Blackmagic and other companies to focus on improving the image quality and color depth of the pixels they already have instead of adding more mediocre ones. Long comment. - Interesting stuff!!
Well... That's just like...his opinion man.
It shows where he's coming from. When you have worked with film for such a long time as he did (when he started working there was essentially no digital imaging technique in existance) you learn to appreciate the roughness and as he calls it "texture" that noise can lend to an image - particularly b/w shots. I totally get where he is coming from and I could listen to this man talk for days XD
What a calming and secure voice
Whoever edited the interview did a really seamless job. Love the flow of this
I agree with Roger 100% regarding using available light, practicals, etc. and lens flair telling the audience that it's seeing the scene through a lens rather than their own eyes. I think that some scenes, for example flashbacks, should be shot thru the patina of a vintage lens... to emphasize a memory. Somehow, pro-mist filters don't cut it for me. Great piece!
Had a chance to study him in action 20 years ago on the set of The Hurricane. Knew right then that I was watching a master at work. He was just as much of a gentleman then as now.
They shot this at my local cinema and I had no idea...
I want a Masterclass from this man so bad...
He is the best, hands down. Thank you for this interview.
This is a wonderful interview. I like how his philosophy to film if different from a lot of younger filmmakers.
Gotta love Roger! Thanks for this video, very informative as always.
thank you for this interview! :D love hearing from my Favorite DP and my Favorite camera company :D
Such an inspiration ! I love Rodger ! Thanks @arri for that wounderfull interview !
It’s so nice hearing someone talk about how they don’t like flairs
Dear Respectful Sir,
One of the best 😍 and hope 😍 full Review of the "LF MINI" 🙏🙏🙏 Sir, I remember all time, AND THANK YOU SO MUCH Sir and ARRI TEAM...... SIR
Well done ARRI. You got me watching your puff piece because Roger Deakins.
Roger Deakins is so cool. I could listen to him all day.
ARRI to me is the incorruptible good of the motion picture industry, albeit quite an expensive good at that. I dream for the day I have the pleasure of shooting a project on an Alexa.
Keep these interviews coming, you all. Cheers.
Masterpiece he is ❤️ One of the hugggessssttt DOP of this era
The humble Master shares his wisdom. Can't wait for 1917 !!
One of my favorite DPs using one of my bucket list camera systems (LF Mini + Signature Primes). Can't wait to see some results :-)
Clean sharp lenses, grain for texture; I've never had my shooting style more validated than right now :)
Thanks for sharing this. Very nice!
I love vignetting. I find it aesthetically very pleasing. Roger Deakins tells that he doesn't like Vignettes...and now I am doubting my own aesthetic preferences :/
This interview really highlights how influential it was for him to start off in documentaries
Legendary master craftsman, salute.
All hail to The Great Roger Dea-King!
Someone should make a "Legendary Cinematographer, Cheap Camera" challenge, starts with Roger Deakins.
"Hey, sir, uh...we'd like to give you a challenge,"
*gives him a nokia N70*
He'd find a way to shoot a movie with a 3310.
didn't expect N70.... you just reminded me I owned it at some point.
it'd be extremely expensive to get him to do a youtube challenge...
Thank you Roger Deakins Sir & ARRIChannel Nice Information (SHAMSHAADU/DOP)From;INDIA
Mini LF, signature primes and the trinity is a ridiculously powerful filmmaking combo
Am I the only one who doesn’t know exactly what he’s saying but could still watch him talk all day ? Lol
genius level. thank you for this.
Coincidentally, turns out ARRI was founded in 1917
that's amazing
Nice video... and Roger Denkins is the man...
Love Arri & Deakins ❤
wow absolute gold.
Awww my father, my mentor, my everything. I love you so much.
Have been following you from day one I started photography and through your teachings, I'm also making it small small. Please help me progress
If you are listening carefully there is always at least 3 amazing takeaways from listening to a Roger Deakins interview.
No idea what he talking bout something with cameras but this man inspiration
Thanks for sharing
Thank you
God bless this man
A true master of his class
Absolute legend.
what an incredible cinematographer, I can't wait to see how 1917 turns out with this "one take" method
Thanks Arri
That was chaotic, I love it
imagine being the DOP on that interview thats pressure
hahaha oh man. their hands shaking as they set up lights and voice cracking when they are giving some direction during the set up. Imagine Roger asking them if they are really going to use that set up, but then remaining silent. lol
Great thanks
Roger is one of my favorites DP´s. But here he says something that I don´t undestand... he says that the LF allows him to use a 40mm instead of a 32mm and getting less distorion when shooting a close up... but the format and the focal lenght have nothing to do with this... I mean, the distortion of a subject is related only to the distance of the subject to de sensor, I know that changing the sensor size will give you the oportunity to use a longer focal lenght and getting closer to the subject to match the same frame, but if you are replicating the frame, and the distance to the subject the distortion will be the same in both large format or full frame or even MFT.... Maybe there are some very subtle difference that he percieved and I am not aware of... Anyway, he is the best!
The "appeal to authority fallacy" comes to mind. Just because Roger Deakins says it, doesn't mean it's necessarily true. The distortion of faces is related to perspective (distance from subject) as you said. Barrel distortion is a thing, especially with wide angle lenses, but I don't think that's what his comment was regarding.
I guess his point is that because he uses a full frame sensor, he can frame the same way he would with a 32mm on S35 with less distortion BECAUSE of his relative position to the subject. His 40mm on FF would yield more visual compression, and thus he would be farther away from the subject, reducing distortion. Deakins makes mention in a previous interview that he prefers shooting with tighter lenses and pushed the Coens to adopt this visual language in their films. So if I'm understanding your point correctly, it's simply a matter of his positioning and choice of lenses and framing with such on this new LF sensor
@@bikenejad The wider the lens the more likely to have barrel distortion, although very very minimal in really expensive lenses, spherical of course. Also a 40mm should render an image more close to reality than a 32mm. A 32mm makes your face a little thinner, 50mm is the closest to reality for most people from what i've seen. I don't think the "appeal to authority fallacy" comes to play here, the guy actually knows his shit.
What he says makes perfect sense. The distortion on a 24mm vs. a 35mm is dramatically different. The 35mm mounted on the LF gives the same perspective as the 24mm, with even more roll off from the glass, given that a 35mm 1.4 is going to be far more shallow than a 24mm 1.4, you can now keep the subject in the same location while shooting a deeper lens while having them equal size within the frame, the main difference in the image is the distortion via the focal length of the glass. This is very easy to understand by simply taking a zoom lens on a DSLR (18-55 Kit works great). Watch how things distort as you zoom in or zoom out of the image. Would also like to note, I have shot the LF, have shot the SXT, have shot the Sony Venice, Red Monstoro, 16mm, 35mm, etc, and what he says about the LF is absolutely true. Incredible camera from an incredible team.
@@Datboyvideo Justin, I think I don´t understand you. Please, I only wanna learn, I am not trying to fight, I make this warning because usually this comments sessions go out of line. Is there any difference between perspective and distortion? The example of trying to replicate this with a DSLR is not relevant, unless you are suggesting to use two DSLRs, with different sensor sizes. The question here is simple, If I use two different sensor size based cameras, and mantaing the distance to the subject I replicate the framing of the smaller sensor sized camera with a longer focal lenght in the bigger sensor size one, the image will be rendered differently? We all know about the DOF compensation when you use different sensor sizes, but let´s suppouse that we also adjust the F-stop to match the same DOF in both caneras... I made my test with an APS-C and a Full Frame camera... and I cannot see the diference. If you could show me an example I´ll be very greatfu.l Thanks!!
Roger is the one of the greatest DP in film art history
Legend roger....
When does he will do a masterclass of his work?
I would sign in without hesitation
Roger Deakins the Goat
Can't wait to see 1917!
The Master has spoke I'd Love To get my hands on this camera and play around with it a little bit
Legend.
Did anyone see the purple colour behind the lamp in camera 2? By the away, love the interview.
It's a flare.
The Humble Master!
Great stuff .. just dont see how the image of LF going to be that much differnt from a classic ,when they same sensor is used
Ive graded alexa and LF and i didnt notice much difference besides the greater Resolution, it is better than the Mini in 4k, since the Mini is upscaled in camera and looses some of the Quality you get from an alexa shot in 2k.
I watched the LF project projected on the big screen in 4k and fuck, its beautiful.
Legend....,
For those mystified by what may be a British term, "Lighting Cameraman" is a person who lights or arranges the lighting of a set. They do not operate the camera, that's another job.
watching this makes me feel what I imagine led zepplin fans feel when seeing an interview with jimmy page.
At 4:17 I like Roger Deakins when he says ''Arri Signature lenses are a bit big but I understand why they are big.'' Il me semble être enfin le premier à dire que les objectifs Arri Signature ont d'énormes diamètres.
We can listen to him talk about this stuff all day really. We’re like sponges taking it all in :)
This is just good content
I haven't got a clue what the hell he's on about but I like it... LF's T4's Flares What a Guy...
Natural light, small crew..my kinda guy.
The GOAT
Have you guys seen "Joker" yet? Shot on a couple of ARRI digitals, using Hassleblad lenses. Not sure what they did in post, but it as a beautiful film -like look, with classic film-like colours. Watch the trailer, you will be blown away.
Roger Deakins is such a tresure
2:57 same
😍😍😍
anyone know the make of the those little gold lamps?
waiting for the day he will use the alexa 65 .
Master teacher
In our opinion, there is no better money spent than on an Arri Mini LF, hands down the best investment ever.
Interview with Roger Deakins? Hit him with that cove light setup xD
Hero.
Was this shot in the Stella Theatre?
The Electric, clue is there at the top of the video!
GOAT
Super 🙂🤘
Distagons and Planars?! Roger is talking about the Zeiss Contax line???!
Zeiss labeled all their older lenses by their architecture, so it could be any of the older zeiss sets
He talks about Zeiss Standard speed and super speed lines
is the interview also shot on arri alexa?
Yes it is! ALEXA Mini LF and Signature Primes.
Where's the bit where he called 2049 as "the underground indie film with purple ana de armas"?
More! release the whole interview! Hahaha