First one was the one that had a solid story and character arcs. The rest of them are a bit more like fan fiction exploring his backstory and the world. So.. 1 for the story, the others for the song and dance routines (I equate action films with musicals in a lot regards)
@@jmalmsten Honestly love the idea of equating them with musicals haha. It's almost the same kind of concept. If I'm being honest, I'm not a massive fan of action thriller movies. More of a slow burn sci-fi philisophical movie kind of guy. But I can appreciate an action movie like John Wick giving me something to appreciate while just enjoying all the action scenes and not caring about the story haha. Unlike the visual mediocrity that Marvel puts out at this point.
The first one, still. Although not totally related to cinematography, only in the first movie did he looked so unstoppable like an apex predator. On the succeeding movies, the plot armor thickens so much it becomes unrealistic. So many ways he could've died but didn't just because he got saved by someone or got lucky to find a way out.
The original film is a tightly knit story. A distinguished and nuanced action thriller that works best as a standalone which is why I believe people prefer it to the sequels. However for pure entertainment value, technical craftsmanship, stunts, choreography, art design, special effects and overall production value chapter four is my favourite. I’ve seen it three times already in theatres and I absolutely love it. It’s pure art from start to finish. The set pieces are majestic (Osaka continental), the score and music soundtracks are wicked, the fight scenes are literally jaw dropping. It feels like a love letter to action cinema. Just when I thought chapter three couldn’t be topped, 4 surpassed all expectations in my book. The action is a plenty and a tad overwhelming at times, your suspension of disbelief is threatened for sure but it’s executed with such finesse it’s impossible not to be amazed by it. A spectacle to behold for sure. Despite the OTT action the film does a great job of keeping you invested in the story. New characters such as Mr Nobody and Caine add nuance and variety to the lore of John Wick. Most impressively is the continuity within the script. Chapter four ties up all the overarching themes and story threads of the previous chapters, culminating in a cohesive and emotionally satisfying grand finale. The rules of Wick’s world are still evident, consistency is still retained, despite the ambiguous ending, the story ends on a finite note. I can’t wait to see it again. All four films are exquisite in style, each of them offer something unique and distinct. The action genre should be treated as such; I expect explosions, bullets, knives, violent combat, car chases etc. It shouldn’t be compared to a drama, romance or sci-fi. With the exception of the mission impossible franchise, John Wick is the modern day action film, period. Just my two cents.
Big part of why I don't understand the people who prefer the first film. It's just less of a movie in nearly every way. people are just obsessed with the simplistic dead dog hook.
@@Sazed0 I actually have to agree. I think it’s because the original film works best as a standalone feature. Anyone can watch the first movie, be satisfied by its simplicity and ignore the sequels.
😂😂😂 same! Like man, to have the chance to actually build a legit "look" with whatever gear you want to use? Would be fun! Honestly would be so fun to tag along with a cinematographer to document that process.
@@graealex For now! I could see BMD or another camera manufacturer adding a Large Format camera at an affordable price here at some point. Now the ALFA glass? ha, maybe in another life
@@FrameVoyager Even if prices drop, which they actually did, as 4K60 for example has become affordable for any enthusiast now, there will still always be cameras that basically only rental and large production companies can afford. They're specialized tools, and most of them will remain unaffordable unless you have a way to make money off of them.
Cinematography is not my forte but I was mesmerised by chapter four’s cinematography. Thanks for adding insight and clarity into what camera, lens, technique and formats that were used. This makes so much sense because the shots and angles used in this film are just breathtaking. The scene of Winston walking into an art gallery as he approaches the marquee, is a tracking shot. This is perhaps my favourite scene in the entire film. Although it conveys a character walking past art paintings, the colour palette and art design is so majestic. Not the most significant scene in the film but subjectively it conveys so much thematically within the narrative and story. I just love that shot. I also loved the closeup shots too. However the wide angle lens technique used throughout this movie is just immaculate because I was fully engrossed from start to finish. My favourite shot is the wide shot of the sun rising at dawn whilst John is chasing those guys on horses. That sequence is Lawrence of Arabia inspired for sure but wow what a way to immerse the audience into the spectacle that is unfolding before our eyes. Chapter four was pure art from start to finish. A love letter to action cinema. I actually cried whilst watching it, it cured me of my depression and reminded me why I love cinema, and IMAX. It’s not just another movie, it’s an experience!
About the "shaky" combat cameras, I remember an interview of Jackie Chan saying that shaky cameras and rapid cuts were a trick used when shooting actors who can’t fight. The principle is simple, you never show the actual blows. You get a shot of a fighter preparing a blow and then cut to a shot showing the effect AFTER the blow (opponent being thrown back). Ironically he said in his movies blows were often actually shown TWICE. The second cut, usually a close-up, is very short and meant to make the audience feel the power even more. If done right, he said the audience didn’t even realize they have seen the blow twice, only once but with a bigger impact. Anyway, Jackie Chan’s movies, similar as the John Wick series, can afford to depict combats in a more readable and steady way and give a clearer look of the background and scene because the cast knows their moves and doesn’t need any tricks to be credible.
I always liked the shaky cam in the Bourne movies, as I think the disorienting feel of it puts you right into Jason Bournes confused shoes. It wasn't just done because Damon couldn't fight, it was an intentional style. The problem was that these movies got really popular and then waaaaay to many directors and producers didn't get the point of the shaky cam and just started using it badly for movies were it didn't fit at all. And they used it exactly to hide that actors like 60 years old Liam Neeson can't fight and then justified it by saing "it's the popular style". Then you have movies like Quantum of Solace with really good fight and car chase choreography that gets absolutely ruined by quick cuts and shaky cam because, again, nobody understood what shaky cam is for and just thought it was popular. I'm really glad the "trend" is dying down again.
@@theomnitorium7476 no matter whoever you ask No one likes shaky cam and it's only for pu**ies who can't do any choreo That is your opinion which you like shaky cam In reality, it sucks
@@theomnitorium7476 I always hated it (the shaky camera I mean). I think it’s a complete opposite principle of what cinema was made for in the first place. And it’s a lazy trick. I think one of the best way of making a combat impressive is to contrast it with a realistic depiction of the world characters daily life. I’m not sure if I’m making myself clear but I’ll give an example that really striked me : the movie Dheepan, from Jean-Jaques Audiard. Most of the movie shows how an immigrate family from Sri Lanka (fleeing the civil war) struggles to live after arriving in France. And the cinematography is very simple, almost documentary style. Tension builds up until the very last part when happens a fight scene, which violence seems absolutely insane. But that’s not so much the filming style for this fight scene that seems crazy but the fact that you don’t expect to witness that kind of violence given the way the film started. If you haven’t seen it I strongly recommend it, impressive movie.
I also noticed the various textures in these John Wick movies - the desert scenes, night shots in the cities, ultraviolet and glassy nightclubs, the woodiness of antique furniture in the dwellings of the mysterious "families" and the gritty, analog-ish communication center with all the goth chic switchboard operators... and that's not even the half of it. The color, texture and character palette of these movies are also what make these films so artistic and optically satisfying to watch. Plus there's that special sauce of getting to revisit that old dynamic duo chemistry between Keanu and Lawrence. This franchise had no choice but to be great. I recently saw John Wick Chapter 4 and enjoyed every knife-wielding, teflon suit-wearing, explosive-magnesium Dragon's Breath round-shooting, physics-defying second of it.
I was breathless on the start of the table scene with the Eiffel behind. The camera was above Keanu and smoothly moving down and BOOM: the Eiffel appears, enormous and powerful in front of Keanu. Beautiful, just beautiful.
Man... I'm kind of disappointed to hear there's a MasterClass where a big cinematographer claims that Large Format has anything to do with camera proximity to the subject. That is just... blatantly false. If you put a Super 35mm camera in the same spot as a camera with a sensor twice it's size, yes, the Super 35 camera will be twice as zoomed in. But you can simply fit a lens to the smaller format with half the focal length, and you immediately have the exact same field of view, at the same camera proximity. And there isn't a single shot in John Wick 4 with a FOV so wide that you couldn't achieve it with an equivalent lens on Super35. There is optically, mathematically, no difference in the characteristics of the image captured after utilizing equivalent focal length, other than an increase in the depth of field... but you can also match up depth of field by changing aperture. Sure, T1.5 on Large Format is too shallow to replicate on anything else, but the DOF at that point is razor thin and genuinely incredibly rare to actually implement. And yes, in the days of film, it was also true that 70mm was less grainy/more detailed than 35mm, but that no longer applies when talking about high res digital cameras. It's so disappointing that professional DPs are buying into this idea that there is some magical immersive quality with large format, rather than understanding the math behind optics. Perhaps it wouldn't even matter, were they not promoting and even /profiting/ off selling these false ideas to aspiring young filmmakers. You've got people gear shopping thinking that Full Frame / Large Format is going to give them a magic cinematic quality they can't get any other way. It's just not true. The reality is that a sensor size is mostly just something you should consider in tandem with what lenses you're going to pair it with, to determine if you'll be able to get the look you want. Large Format does not create a special sense of immersion by inherently altering the achievable image and the camera placement.
We're doing a follow up video on this topic, diving into the history of what Large Format actually came from, inviting a cinematographer with experience with LF to talk about the technical, and showing the whole picture!
@@FrameVoyager I’m curious to see it, I actually subscribed to you guys just yesterday, lol. There’s an impressive balance of good information, good editing and good humor in your uploads
@@ConnerMainChannel Appreciate it! We have a research team and several industry people check on all of our content. We really try to make this all entertaining and fun and as informational as we can be! Thanks for watching!
@@FrameVoyager That's awesome. I subscribed because I actually felt like I was learing new things from some of your uploads. A lot of filmmaking channels repackage the same basic information on things, or even butcher it. Your history lesson type videos are particularly appreciated. Hope my initial comment didn't sound like I was bothered about the channel itself. I've just been increasingly more bothered about Large Format misconceptions prevalent WITHIN the upper levels of the industry, ever since Steve Yedlin made that post on his website about the subject.
No it's totally fine! I think there are points that are valid on both sides of the argument as I think there is a thing as a large format look it's just a lot more complicated and it's not just the "sensor" that makes it that way. We're doing a video with an adjunct film professor here soon and diving into the history and drama around it.
Steller job. I could watch your videos all day long. I love the fact that you include the technology behind the scenes and the nuances of film style. It's like taking a masterclass in cinematography in 7 minutes. The shots you use too are so interesting. Thank you for making these these!
Appreciate it! 😅 Yeah, I love taking a look at the "why" and history behind everything. Like it's cool to say "theses lenses were used" but where did they come from?
The reason not to use an Alexa 65 is down to the aspect ratio of the sensor, the 65 is 2:20 ratio, while the LF is 3:2. 2x anamorphic for digital, targeting a 2:39 release use either a 4:3 or 6:5. Since the Alexa 65 is snitched from the same sensor as the LF, it is pretty much a “wider” lF, sensor wise, and thus 6.5k instead of 4.5k. The John wick films have always been anamorphic, thus shooting on the 65 would always have been impractical, as I cannot think of any benefit. The only film I have heard using 2x anamorphics on the 65 was Elvis, which used expanded and customized T series “Elvis” lenses from panavision, however I have never found the exact advantage of the 65 over the Lf for that film. In general for 65mm 1.25x anamorphics are used, (rouge one, Avengers infinity war and endgame, the hateful eight [on 65mm film].) but 1.25x anamorphics do not have as much of the “anamorphic character” as “true” 2x squeeze lenses. And if you think about anamorphic as “stretching” the sensor to create a larger format (as was its original purpose) then a 2x squeeze lens on a full frame/LF creates a similar effect as filming in medium format. (If you believe in large format advantages, of course) Anyway that’s my little diatribe about anamorphic on large format.
I believe Godzilla: King of the Monsters also used 2x anamorphic squeeze on a Arri Alexa 65 sensor using a variety of Panavision primes customized for large format. Though I believe they did this because the LF didn't come put for rental by the time that movie was in production.
I'm glad you point out that sensor size is a choice, and doesn't inherently make some thing better or worse. Far to often do people think a larger sensor = better film when most older & popular earlier films were either super35 or even super16. I personally love the look of super16 and super35 over larger format because of their wider depth of field. I personally am hoping someone comes out with a more modern 4k+ super16 sensor camera that use the majority of vintage Super16 glass.
Absolutely! I'm a big proponent of seeing all of these as tools to achieve a creative vision. Everyone has their preferences and it's just cool to see what everyone does with those tools and analyze what they did. Taking sides one what's the best with some of these decisions is kind of dumb tbh. I also love the look of super 16. LOVED the look from the Digital Bolex camera and it would be awesome to see that brought back again.
I'm a bit like you : I love the look of Super16... And Large Format and above (that doesn't mean I don't like S35 : I DO, BUT I REALLY LOVE Larger Formats). In fact, my favorite digital cinema images right now come from the Alexa 65 and the Sony Venice (The Whale is shot on Venice, it is soooooo beautiful)... Then again, as you said : they are just tools.
Much appreciated! We're circling back on LF here very soon with a much more in depth look at it with Manuel Luebbers. Want to help clear up some of the misconceptions
Large Format is the future, despite what people in the cinematography subreddit say. Why? Most of these LF cameras have a Super35 crop mode: literally, the best of both worlds.
🔴🔴🔴We have received some pushback on the way we described Large Format filmmaking in this video. In an effort to help clear up some of the misconceptions on this and to give a better, clearer explanation on this, we will be doing a full video on Large format with Manual Luebbers and the project we mentioned here in the video. As well as covering the history, misconceptions, why award-winning cinematographers still talk about LF, John Yeldin, and more! As always, thanks for watching our content and supporting the channel! 👊🔴🔴🔴
Looking forward to seeing that video! As for this video and the statements made in it, I don’t know how you could link to Manuel Luebber’s article and still talk about perspective differences. His tests perfectly show how it’s all about lens choice.
I don't mean to be rude by saying this, but you should actually take this video down and replace it with the more in depth and properly researched video mentioned here. It does a disservice to filmmakers trying to understand these subjects to present them with incorrect and misleading information. The whole premise of this video is based on a misconceived and misunderstood concept, so to say that you'll clear up some of the misconceptions is to say that you need to clear up the whole video. Again, I know tone is hard to convey in writing, but I'm not at all trying to be rude. I just don't want people to be confused or misinformed. And I can't help but think of all of the people who will watch this video before the follow up is posted and get these ideas stuck in their heads, or never see the follow up and thus never correct their understanding.
@@parisremillard3651 No worries, I don't think you're being rude at all. I think the main issue is that there are 2 sides to this that both have points to make against eachother. There are differences between the 2 formats and I think that some people are minsinterpreting what I'm saying or what the sources I'm pulling from are actually saying about Large Format. So we're bringing some of those people to discuss in that video and show a balanced historical view on it. But this video in particular is more about the directoral choices and why they used certain lenses, cameras, etc. all from quotes or sourced from the cinematographer of this movie and others in the industry that I think some misrepresent exactly what they are saying.
@@colinjudge1261 Because there still are differences on any given focal length when switching between the 2. You can match them certainly with different focal length lenses but you do lose some flexibility with DOF which I think can create a difference. Manuel Luebber's article shows the technical side of this and James Laxton shows an entirely different side of this argument. Which is why in this video we tried to maintain a sense of neutrality because I do personally find merit in both. This subject is definitley difficult and we probably should have done a full video on this beforehand to point to. Hoping to get this out soon
It’s an unmissable opportunity to amend on the terminology and clarify that “LF” ≠ “FF”. Actual large formats are bigger than “24x36 FF” or “135mm”. ARRI does hold some accountability for misleadingly spreading it through the commercialization of their “LF” range of cameras.
2:07 wait, what? Just as in photography, you just need to go for the focal equivalent to get a similar angle and perspective... You'll just lose a bit of bokeh at equivalent aperture.
yeah they are mostly talking crap fed by marketing. I guess if you have a favourite lens and it happens to cover full frame you can get a wider angle on it, but they aren't saying that
At the equivalent aperture the bokeh will match. So a 50mm f4 lens on LF will match a 25mm f2 lens on MFT. There maybe be differences in characteristics of the bokeh... but the blur amount will be the same.
Always love seeing these vids come out. I'm more a photographer than videographer but find these fascinating. Also nice to see the late great Lance Reddick getting such great film as a sendoff.
Man you're treating us to so many videos lately! Every video I'm so entertained and learn a lot... thank you 🙏 Also, crazy to me you don't have more subs. It may take some time but you will have that silver play button and then the gold before you know it.
Haha yeah thankfully have started setting up processes for others to help with these videos so I get to make more content!. Hoping to hit 100k subs this year 😅 I'll keep plugging away! Thanks for watching!
Love your videos, this one included, but man that James Laxton masterclass is so misleading for so many people and I wish it wasn’t referenced here. The way he presents the relationship between sensor size and field of view is purely based on maintaining the depth of field he associates with Super 35 but in wider frames, and while it’s interesting that he thinks in those terms, it really isn’t how it should be explained to people. Why? Because depth of field is purely a function of the size of the entrance pupil of the lens and the focus distance, both of which are independent of sensor size. Meanwhile, the perspective in an image is a function of camera placement and field of view - which is determined by the sensor size and focal length. So when you say that you “see more” with the same lens on a larger sensor, it’s technically true, but in the context of perspective you’re now looking at two different shots since the larger sensor will have a wider field of view with the same focal length. The thing is, that wider perspective - and even the shallow depth of field at that wider perspective - can easily be matched on a smaller sensor by using a wider and faster lens, so neither are exclusive to any given sensor size the way you and James Laxton present it to be. I realize this is pretty nit picky, but it’s a topic that’s very misunderstood across the internet, so hopefully this comment finds at least some of the right eyes.
Good points! Now I would ask though, while you can "match" and create the same look on s35 as LF, the depth of field due to the focal length is still a factor here. DOF, and correct me if I'm wrong, is determined by aperture size, focal length, and distance to a subject. In the case of matching a shot you'd change focal length but not distance to an image. But in doing so you will have a DOF that is different then both cameras. For an Alexa mini to match and Alexa 65 35mm, which would be I would believe an 18mm to match distance to image and field of view, but you still have around 1.3 stops shallower depth on the 65 vs the mini. So you adjust your aperture to match. So say T2.8 on the 18mm on the mini, you'd have to have around T5.6 on the Alexa 65 on the 35mm. You got a matched look. But say you wanted to go to T2.8 on that 35mm and not only that, but because you have a larger field of view, you can get in closer to you subject now further changing your DOF. How do you match that on a S35 in this extreme? Maybe I needed to use a different example than Laxton, also why I have Luebbers as another resource. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or if I did not word it correctly in this video. It really is easy on this subject to misconstrue something Appreciate the comment!
@@FrameVoyager as quoted in your video Laxton is wrong. If you feel the actors don't have enough space to express themselves and they are feeling boxed in... the DP is simply using the wrong focal length for the desired angle of of view. A 50mm will give a narrower angle of view on S35 than on FF / 135... so use a 35mm. That's is... Magically the actor has EXACTLY the same space to express themselves. They do not feel boxed in. Perspective and compression are identical... the only differences are DOF (a 1.5 stop difference) and potentially resolution... depending on what camera is used.
@@FrameVoyager So you’re almost right with the first part of your comment. Depth of field is a function of the entrance pupil of the lens and the focus distance, but while the entrance pupil is a function of the focal length and the aperture setting, a given entrance pupil is not exclusive to any specific lens. So if you’re matching a shot between two different sensor sizes, the larger sensor will need to use a longer focal length, and assuming the exposure of the scene is the same, then both cameras will be at the same stop, giving the larger sensor camera a shallower depth of field. You could stop down the lens on the larger sensor camera or open up the lens on the smaller sensor camera to match the size of the entrance pupils on both cameras, and thus the depth of field, but this will of course require you to change another variable to keep the exposures matched, such as shutter speed, ISO, or NDs. Long story short, at the same exposure settings, a larger sensor camera will have a shallower depth of field because a longer focal length at the same f stop has a larger entrance pupil. The second part of your comment is why I’m bringing up the super nerd stuff. Haha Again you’re spot on with the focal length and aperture settings to get both the angle of view - “perspective” - and depth of field to match between the two cameras, and yes, if you open up to a 2.8 on the 35mm the depth of field will now be shallower, but you can match that again on Super 35 by now opening up even wider to a 1.4. It’s all about the size of that entrance pupil (and focus distance, but that isn’t changing if you’re matching shots). Now if you’re shooting at the extremes of lens design - say you’re already wide open at f1.4 on the Alexa 65 - you probably won’t be able to find a lens for Super 35 that opens up wide enough to match, but as soon as you’re at a 2 on full frame or 2.8 on the Alexa 65, there are plenty of lens options that will get you both a matched angle of view and depth of field. As for the last part of your comment, you just forgot that you’re using the 35mm lens on the Alexa 65 because it has the same field of view as the 18mm on Super 35. If it were an 18mm, than yes, it would be much wider than the 18 on Super 35 and with the same depth of field, but in this case the solution to matching the cameras is just to use a wider and faster lens on Super 35 so that the angle of view and entrance pupils are the same size again. Now is there a 9mm f1.4 lens out there for Super 35? I’m not sure, but if there is, the images will match!
@@flyingfox2005 Spot on. I find it really interesting that he seems to associate lenses with their depth of field and not their field of view on a given camera, but it’s not how matching shots actually works. A given focal length on a given sensor size results in a specific angle of view. A given entrance pupil size and focus distance results in a specific depth of field. Changing any of those four parameters will change either the angle of view or the depth of field, which is ultimately all a shot is.
Whenever I see discussions on large format cinematography... It always degrades down to vague undefined terms. So I do remain unconvinced by most of the arguments. I mean. Yes. You can more easily keep a shallower depth of field with a larger sensor. Yes, a 4K sensor at Super Panavision 65 size will have easier time to collect photons than the same pixel count on a 4K phone camera sensor... But other than those factors. What can be actually shown on an actual blind test? What makes the projection different on these systems? If you put a large format camera and lens in one point in space, then record from the same spot with a wider lens to match the angle of view and match the aperture... I see no real reason one should look different than the other. There used to be a real need for large format photography. Mostly because the film stock's grain was finite in size. So bigger film meant more grains which meant cleaner pictures. But with digital we already have pixels small enough and many enough to make them indistinguishable on screen. So I'm not really convinced we need anything bigger than s35. Even for the epics. Yes. Sure, John Wick 4 looks great. But I do not think it would be unachievable on an s35 Alexa.
Oh, totally agree. And they have achieved that in the previous films. The difference mainly is the compression you get with Large Format and the ability to get close in with a camera. But don't get me wrong in this video, I think you can achieve similar results in Super 35 and ARRI has shown that they think that format is still alive keeping their latest camera in that format. But I still think you can achieve some different results on a Larger Format sensor and have a bit more flexibility with preferred focal length.
@@FrameVoyager There are still a few misleading things in this video. Focal Length and perspective are two very different things. When shooting a specific frame size (say a close up) you will always sacrifice your preferred perspective using a different field of view no matter how you achieve it (whether with focal length or sensor size). I encourage everyone to read Steve Yedlin ASC's "Common Misconceptions About Large Format Optics" on his website. Getting "close in with the camera" can absolutely be achieved no mater the sensor/film size with an equivalent focal length as you stated. Getting the "same look" of a particular focal length (50mm was your example) on a different format is entirely false. If you're talking about the look a different perspective gives you, of course it will be different. Perspective (ie compression) is now different because you changed the field of view and camera position. FOV and perspective go hand in hand when shooting the same frame size. You also have to keep in mind lens selection plays a role. If we continue using the 50mm example then which specific 50mm lens are we talking about? A modern lens? A vintage lens? When using that lens for LF vs S35 you're using more or less of the glass. You're using more or less of the image circle that lens can produce. So you might introduce more vignetting, speherical aberrations, etc on the larger format that you wouldn't have seen on s35. Therefore, using that 50mm lens on large format is, in many respects, actually quite different. Hopefully that clarifies things!
@@rarefish5791 Absolutley! I totally agree. I may have mixed up the wording a bit in the video which if I did, totally sorry about that! Yeah field of view and focal length are comepletey different. Like you said a 50mm on s35 or Large Format will have the same focal length but a different field of view. But you get a wider field of view with the same DOF. That's more what I was referring to. And totally on the lenses! That's why I pushded to other resources as I really didn't want to get into this "too much." I probably should have gone beyond a super basic explanation. And absolutely, 50mm lens on a large format vs. a s35 very different. And like you said, the same look can be acheived with wider lense on a s35. And many high end wide angle lenses don't have any issues with that fish eye look nowdays. I guess the only real issue you run into is with matching DOF depending on what it i between systems. At some point you run out of room. Appreciate you helping ot clarify that !
@@FrameVoyager Thanks for making the video! It's challenging to boil down complex topics into concise explanations. Huge props for putting it out there to educate and inspire. It's always tricky getting the details right. Hopefully we can tamper down the misconceptions out there. Many top cinematographers spread wrong info sometimes! As we learn, it's important to do our own research to fully understand the concepts rather than taking others' words at face value.
@@rarefish5791 no problem! Analyzing films forces you to learn a lot and rethink things you thought you knew, which is always a good practice. And I hope so! Sometimes it's hard to figure out the right terms or words to help explain it because it's gotten really convoluted!
The Abandoned series has been super insightful! Understanding where our current cameras came from in development! I love it. We have the OG Lytro still image camera in our office and totally forgot they they went full force with the digital cinema and it didn’t go anywhere! We were so on board with that camera being the next gen in filmmaking!
@@SamMcGhee Oh that's awesome! Yeah, at some point I want to get my hands on as many abandoned cameras as I can. Going to film the last remaining Dalsa camera up in Toronto here soon but if I could ever find a Fran 8k... man I'd take that thing EVERYWHERE haha
I just saw this movie in IMAX and it was amazing!!! What a masterpiece! Only scene I thought was bad, the shots of Marquis in the Louvre looked out of focus, same when after that they went to turn the cards at the church.
5:57 Was reminded of the fight sequence from THEY LIVE, which is closer to WICK than to BOURNE. It features Rockin' Roddy Piper the wrestler, which partially explains the length - 5 minutes of fisticuffs - and style of choreography and shooting. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-11dZSPIe9UU.html
I’m honestly a little confused on LF and its appeal. If you want to go wider, why not just opt for wider lenses? What else are you gaining shooting on LF apart from a wider sensor?
@@FrameVoyager this upcoming video is an unmissable opportunity to amend on the terminology and clarify that “LF” ≠ “FF”. Actual large formats are bigger than “24x36 FF” or “135mm”. ARRI does hold some accountability for misleadingly spreading it through the commercialization of their “LF” range of cameras.
Great breakdown, learned some things! But I didn't learn why. Field of view is field of view, no matter what size sensor one shoots. Is it not dictated solely by the lens? If not, then why? Does this mean that none of the shots in Wick could be duplicated on a smaller sensor? Puzzled. Unless the final resolution of the file is important. But that's not the same thing.
No they totally could be duplicated! Some of it comes down to some other factors but we're doing a follow up video on LF and the misconceptions around it here very soon. Manuel Luebbers will be on with us to discuss
Interesting! And now to something completely different: What microphone are you using (and the thing in frame is the one actually recording your voice)?
Yeah Fraser had the Batman ALFA lenses they used redesigned from the stock and Detuned according to the look they wanted. Check that out here --> nofilmschool.com/why-does-batman-look-so-gorgeous-and-how-you-can-copy
They can. You just change the focal length and aperture to adjust. LF has a couple advantages but you can still achieve similar looks with S35, and they did that with the first few John Wick movies. We are going to be covering LF a little more in depth here soon as it gets super technical and just didn't work to fit in this video
let me start by saying im aboslutely ignorant and dumb about this topic, but one question comes to mind about field of view. What's the difference between having a "wider lense" to have more field of view up close, and just "taking more steps back" to get the same amount of field of view?
the focal length doesn't just change how zoomed in or how wide but it affects the actual look. The background changes shape and people look different, it's kind of hard to explain exactly what it looks like tho. There's plenty of examples online and a easy one to look at is the popular zolly effect from films like Jaws which change focal length and distance at the same time to create a very unique effect.
I think you're confusing sensor size, focal length, aperture, field of view, and depth of field. They're all related but a larger sensor on its own implies very little. It does not give anyone "more space" - just a use a wider angle lens with a larger aperture on the smaller sensor.
Agreed! We're actually doing a video on misconceptions of LF with Manuel Luebbers here soon. Which we probably should have made before this video as we were quoting other cinematographers.
That's not how lens and sensor size interact though... You can shoot with a shorter focal length on a super 35 sensor. getting a lens with greater than full frame coverage at 35 mm is just as diffucult to engineer as a 24 mm lens on apsc sized sensors. I suspect that what's going on here is that the specific cinema lens sets that they are using don't have ultra wide angle lenses because they're just less commonly used. The DP's prefered ARRI primes dont have say a 12 mm, but ari makes the same set of lenses to match with the bigger sensor size
All john wick movies are in 21:9, so if you get the movie in 4k and crop it on your 1440p ultrawide, it will be pretty much native resolution. with like 4 pixel black bars around, but you can't really notice.
Films do not have an excuse for choppy, incoherent editing with shaky cam and close ups any more. It's been proven time and time again that that era should've been well and truly abandoned years ago
The JW color palettes are akin to Cyberpunk 2077's color palettes, which is interesting because the same actor is in both 🙂 Also, if the Arri LF is just a tick larger than FF, it's a bit tongue and cheek to call it LF. It's essentially the same difference between Nikon DX and Canon APS-C.
True in a sense! But technically with Super 35 as the mostly accepted base cinematic format these days and anything larger then that is considered Large Format. The "Full Frame" concept is more of a photography term that's been infused into video because of hybrid cameras that can do both, but it's generally not accepted as the "base" format in cinematography. Well, I think John Wick films were part of the start of the color palette trend in action movies because you're right, you do see this in bullet train, cyber punk, Altered Carbon, etc. I like a good fun look to even just a generic action film!
Dunno if you touched on it but also using a LF sensor you get to use narrower lenses for the shot a 24mm instead of a 16mm which means it will have lens distortion and another reason LF is of benefit.
True! Sometimes depends on the lens, as a lot of the high end wide angle lenses nowadays don't have high distortion with them! But yeah, run into less of that type of distortion and into distortion from large format sensors and lenses. Which is actually preferred by some because in a lot of cases it shows more character out of the lenses.
not all wide angle lenses have distortion. For example Ultra Primes are distortion free up to 8mm. On top of that, the widest lens in the mentioned ALFA lens set (John Wick) is a 32mm.
@@kwa42 for sure! ASC even has an article talking about how more modern wide angle lenses are essentially distortion free at this point. Pixel pitch, lens characteristics, and some other technical features is where I see LF having some differences.
@@kwa42 well you have very well corrected lenses but I wouldn't go as far to say distortion free and I am sure the lens techs I work with would disagree with that point, however optics now have truly surpassed that of any conceivable distortion, though like everything that is a compromise and further would say it is fairly limited to very high end cine glass. Though I think this is why a lot of dops are looking at vintage glass and other forms of lenses that help tell a story. With more imperfections.
this concept of wide screen and continuous action scene filming was definitely influenced by the way Jackie Chan revolutionized Hong Kong kung fu cinema. Hollywood adds way too many cuts in scenes that breaks up the feelings of realism in the scene because most Western DPs are not as experienced in filming continuous fight sequences. So i would imagine some of us old school fight scene purists could appreciate John Wick's decisions to use these filming techniques, but its concept isn't that new. now on the other hand, the LF format is a huge game changer. I would assume to implement such filming choreography would be really difficult to achieve even if the Arri LF is lighter than the 65. I wonder what would happen if a DP combined the old school HK cinema concept and the current.... oh wait. they did. The Raid Redemption and RAID 2. Considerably one of the best action films every made that had these ingredients, now if a RAID 3 came out in Arri LF wide.... hehehe if you haven't seen RAID 2. It might give John Wick franchise a kick in the nads. Go watch it. Speaking of wide? Have you seen BARDO? entire film brilliantly filmed on super wide Atlas lenses. blew my mind.
I've watched the latest film last weekend. An i was amazed by the colors and art direction. But I have to say, it didn't come close to the first one. And the same goes for 2 and 3. Maybe the story just isn't that interesting. Maybe it's because we know what to expect now. But I also feel that with the fight scenes being less cut up it also becomes a lot slower and boring faster.
If you ask me this whole thing is misleading. The Alfa lenses start at 32mm with T2.5. So if you use for example Ultra Primes which go down to 8mm and T1.9 on Alexa35 you get a look that is in every aspect more "LF" then the actual LF. There should some disclaimers especially for newer people, what the real math behind these differences is. The more I think about it, the more I feel like it would be a good idea to delete this video and upload a "LF/s35" myth bust video instead. There already is enough false information and interpretations about cinematography on YT.
Totally get it. I've had several discussions with others that I respect in the cinematography world and we're doing an entire video on this subject to explain large format, the math, and everything around it. For this I was trying to cover more from the cinematographers viewpoint that filmed it, who basically said that's why he picked the LF. I tried showing the 2 schools of thought that Luebbers points to that mathematically you can get the same across S35 and large format by changing focal lengths to match. While others, who know this math, still believe they achieve a certain look to it. I just did not go in depth as I should have on this and honestly. We're working on a video with someone with experience with LF and the math behind it and fleshing it out fully and we'll make sure to link that here.
@@FrameVoyager - Nice find. That'd be the definitive answer I'd say. Maybe PotatoJet has skewed my ideal pronunciation. Great channel BTW. New sub. Found via my home screen on YT. (I always like to know how people find channels) Thanks. 🙌🏻
I don't understand the Mario in IMAX lol. Like some anime's I could totally understand but there is nothing like overly visually interesting about Mario from an animated standpoint to go see it in IMAX
@@FrameVoyager me neither and after watching John wick one hour ago their where plenty of visualy stunning sets which would have been even more stunning on the big big screen.
@@Thron2111 OMG They are doing this at my IMAX too! I missed seeing JW4 the first week and now it's replaced by Mario. Facepalm. I feel like calling the theater and asking them to put it back!
So interesting. That it came from John Wick makes me happy. I love all film, and pushing the boundaries of genre propels all film. And it’s so, so needed these days of the CG invasion. Apologies….I just couldn’t continue to enjoy story that was sacrificed for effects. The Bourne actions films annoyed me from the first 5 minutes and just irritated me. John doesn’t have deep plot but it’s executed like a piece of large scale canvas.
Personally wide angle anything is nearing an end. Not a huge fan at all. It can make things look massive and the worlds look great but it’s sometimes too much to take in with mere eyeballs
❤ i love your content but there is a ton of incorrect information in this video my brother. Shooting with the same focal length on a wider sensor DOES give your talent more “room to breath” because the field of view will be wider, but the perspective WILL CHANGE. If you enjoy the perspective of a 35mm lens on a 35mm film gate or Alexa mini, you will have to REPOSITION the Alexa 65 when using that same focal length in order to achieve the same perspective. Perspective is not tied to focal length its tied to subject position composition and field of view. I can get the same geometrical perspective with a 6mm lens on my IPhone sensor as I can with a 50mm lens on my Alexa mini.
Haha yeah that was a quote from the James Laxton that I believe he meant something else with. In my attempt to kind of play both sides and give links to both sides of the argument I think probably wasn't best without an extensive conversation. But we're doing a follow up video with an adjunct professor and cinematographer with experience with LF. We'll be taking a look at what both sides say as well at the technical math behind it. But you're correct, your field of view changes and you get some extra DOF but you can technically match that same look with the S35 which we mentioned at one point they did on the previous John Wick movies. I think there are some other factors that add to the LF "look" directors are speaking of in this. Some of it has to do with Pixel pitch, the way the sensor is built with the potential for extra resolution, and lens characteristics.
@@FrameVoyager I own an Alexa LF. The pixel pitch is the same. The Noise floor and highlight clipping point are the same. The field of view is the same. Hell everything is the same! It’s just 36x24. I also own an Alexa Mini. The image is identical when adjusted for Perspective, field of view, and Depth of field.
Wide angle cinema scenes totally get broken on TV or DVD release. Because some idiots prefer to have no black bars in whatever side over seeing the entire image. Means no matter if its 21:9 cinema or 4:3 (older) TV show, companies are forced to crop the stuff in order to please the crowd with a 16:9 screen. I mean when you watch a 21:9 movie on a 16:9 screen, you will have black bars at the top and bottom that will fill up half your screen. Same with 4:3 movies but the bars are on the sides. It just gets difficult with movies that change their aspect ratios from scene to scene. In the worst situation you might have dark frame around your movie. For a example with a 21:9 scene in a 16:9 movie on a 21:9 screen. But then that's how the movie looks on your TV. Life with it. But stop this "I don't care about composition, I just want my screen filled" nonsense.
Why do you wear a woollen cap? Is it so cold in your little studio? Want to keep too many female fans at a distance? Should work... Really funny: just when you voice the words "wide angle lenses" we see one of the most extreme tele shots in recent years, at 0:28 And: the DPs name is not Lausten but LauStsen.
They needed that wide view to show how large the villains art collection was so that you could feel even more poor for buying those tiny schmuck prints you put up on your walls that your spouse bought from home sense
I feel the bottleneck for wide angle in action choreography, not director vision/artistic taste/camera choice. Donnie Yen has long been pushing margins for long takes, medium to long focal lengths, and wide angles for action scenes, with the requirement of having some of the best action choreography in the biz. Few actors have undergone the intense training that Keanu has for these films. This isn't to say that your points aren't valid, I just hope that this particular factor is kept in mind in this discussion.
