„The best cut is the one you donˋt see.“ Your lighting is rediciolous. The final image always looks so real and natural. Damn! Thanks for sharing and talking on eye level with us. I think your videos are dope.
Goes to show you don’t need a crazy shallow depth of field to get a cinematic shot and it’s mostly on lighting and the roll off. I love the way that camera and super 16 work together, wow!
Great video! I'd say film can be easier than digital in the removal of various digital factors. Playback doesn't exist, so the director and DP can be much more confident in keeping the ball rolling during a shoot day and make it more time efficient. You also can remove the gunk and costs of DIT, video villages, or creating a LUT in advance. What I love shooting physical film is that all you decide on is the lens and the stock.
I really liked something about the couch shot, not sure if it was the actor and set, but it felt so "real" that I really dug it! Thanks for the insight, as always.
Very well done to make it look like there was actually no lighting. I wonder what it looked like if there was no lighting.. or just a black floppy and a diff if the sun was poking in?
The hurt locker lens, hell yeah! Used this and the 11-165mm on a recent project, dope glass but only ever used them on 16, interesting idea to use them on digital for a similar but cheaper look!
Other than a creative decision why did you decide s16 was the best for this shoot. Was it due to needing more DOF? A specific look the director was after? Or no reason at all?
smaller sensor area means less resolution, deeper dof & bigger noise. all things that feels better for a 16mm look, which he stated was the desired look.
@@botbot3698I watched the video again and I don’t think he did state that he was looking for low resolution or deeper DOF which I’m aware is the look of 16mm. So I was wondering why randomly try and emulate 16mm why not super 35 if you’re using an Alexa 35. Personally I think it’s because most people don’t associate the super 35mm “film look” with film. As it’s so crisp and similar looking that it could be digital.
@@2trilltochill Because he wanted a film look and used a 16mm film zoom lens that doesn't cover the super35 sensor, used crop mode and then stated "it makes a pretty convincing 16mm look out of camera" @ 1:06. With all that information it's fair to assume that a 16mm look was the look he desired to achieve. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here. Idk why you're asking if it's a "random" decision, the whole thing seems pretty deliberate.
@@botbot3698yeah perhaps random was incorrect. What I was more so asking was why was the 16mm look needed or desired for this specific commercials. As I don’t know what it specifically is about I cannot gather why he would desire more grain and deeper depth of field.
Excellent as always but still not sure why you would want to use that particular lens and sacrifice the sensor size. Looks great on my phone but seems a little odd. Not sure how this couldn’t be “changed” later. Thx as always.
I'm glad this didn't turn out to be a dehancer ad.
Make a UA-cam video and I guarantee you'll get an email asking you to review it
I didn't get the email. What am I doing wrong?@@trippwilsonphoto
😂
😂 100%
„The best cut is the one you donˋt see.“ Your lighting is rediciolous. The final image always looks so real and natural. Damn! Thanks for sharing and talking on eye level with us. I think your videos are dope.
Goes to show you don’t need a crazy shallow depth of field to get a cinematic shot and it’s mostly on lighting and the roll off. I love the way that camera and super 16 work together, wow!
Agreed! Lighting is 80% of the battle. You can have great comp but if the lighting doesn’t portray the right mood then it’s just a normal video
Great video! I'd say film can be easier than digital in the removal of various digital factors. Playback doesn't exist, so the director and DP can be much more confident in keeping the ball rolling during a shoot day and make it more time efficient. You also can remove the gunk and costs of DIT, video villages, or creating a LUT in advance. What I love shooting physical film is that all you decide on is the lens and the stock.
He's back. It's a Christmas miracle. God bless us everyone!
I really liked something about the couch shot, not sure if it was the actor and set, but it felt so "real" that I really dug it! Thanks for the insight, as always.
“Babe, wake up! Lewis posted a video!”
Always a treat!
Pretty cool how convincing the in camera grain looks are. Great shoot. Looked like a fun project.
Very well done to make it look like there was actually no lighting. I wonder what it looked like if there was no lighting.. or just a black floppy and a diff if the sun was poking in?
I always love your videos! Thanks for putting in the hard work
Interesting Project, thanks for sharing the insights.
The hurt locker lens, hell yeah!
Used this and the 11-165mm on a recent project, dope glass but only ever used them on 16, interesting idea to use them on digital for a similar but cheaper look!
Nice, Christmas upload!!! Cool to see the sooc and final grade comparison.
Dragon Village Chinese Restaurant! I drive past that place all the time! I had no idea that's how it looked inside... NICE!
So useful and informational
not sure about the canon zoom, i find it doesn’t have a significant look, id rather choose the standard S16 highspeeds
Your work is top notch! Please do a "Blade Runner" (1982) very strong back light video sometime! : )
Great video always
How this old Canon lens are typically attached to the newer mounts like EF?
How did you get into cinematography originally?
was this shot in usa or uk?
xmas gift
brilliant
Did the lens come as PL or did you have to get funky with the adapters to get things working?
This lens comes standard as PL
@@CoffeewithCrew awesome!
goat
Other than a creative decision why did you decide s16 was the best for this shoot. Was it due to needing more DOF? A specific look the director was after? Or no reason at all?
Film=Cool
smaller sensor area means less resolution, deeper dof & bigger noise. all things that feels better for a 16mm look, which he stated was the desired look.
@@botbot3698I watched the video again and I don’t think he did state that he was looking for low resolution or deeper DOF which I’m aware is the look of 16mm. So I was wondering why randomly try and emulate 16mm why not super 35 if you’re using an Alexa 35. Personally I think it’s because most people don’t associate the super 35mm “film look” with film. As it’s so crisp and similar looking that it could be digital.
@@2trilltochill Because he wanted a film look and used a 16mm film zoom lens that doesn't cover the super35 sensor, used crop mode and then stated "it makes a pretty convincing 16mm look out of camera" @ 1:06. With all that information it's fair to assume that a 16mm look was the look he desired to achieve. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here.
Idk why you're asking if it's a "random" decision, the whole thing seems pretty deliberate.
@@botbot3698yeah perhaps random was incorrect. What I was more so asking was why was the 16mm look needed or desired for this specific commercials. As I don’t know what it specifically is about I cannot gather why he would desire more grain and deeper depth of field.
my mannnn
wow
Dragon Village?
Danke für den deutschen Ton
*buys and Alexa 35*
Excellent as always but still not sure why you would want to use that particular lens and sacrifice the sensor size. Looks great on my phone but seems a little odd. Not sure how this couldn’t be “changed” later. Thx as always.