Mixing Film And Digital Footage: Killers Of The Flower Moon 

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

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.

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"?

The anamorphic lens is probably bigger then the 35mm area. But if you can’t expose the entire sensor you can crop in post.

You are right. I thing what he meant "positive stock" LUT instead.

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.

Linus Sandgren for Saltburn should be there too. Saltburn looks gorgeous.

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 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.

Every regard? Film is much kinder with highlights, and the colour of film is unparalleled

Yeah, they didn't even say "Well, THAT just happened." or "Uhh, he is right behind me, isn't he?" every 10 minutes. Unwatchable.

picasso was a shit painter bruh, But I see your point