Don't kid yourselves, folks. It is not insignificant that a director of Scorsese's stature would choose to shoot a big budget feature on 35mm film in 2016.
But WHY would he do it? I mean, he's shot on digitial before, right?
The answer is, digitial still doesn't look as good.
1. There is nothing unusual about it.
2. It's a mix of 35mm and digital (for some night exteriors) exactly like WoWS was.
Yes. This film is a mix of both and it is noticeable, but nicely done. The digital stuff is most prominent in the beginning of the film. The vast majority of the movie is 35mm. Towards the end the image is very warm and indeed 35mm.
shareTowards the end the image is very warm and indeed 35mm.
[...]cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto shot on 35mm film (except for more complicated night scenes)
Prieto was also inspired by baroque painters of the period, especially for candlelit scenes in the huts and in a Macao church. But as the movie progresses, he used different imagery influenced by Japanese screen art during this same Edo period, with the color timing taking on a golden hue.
There’s a progression of color in the film. We were inspired by baroque painters, starting off in cooler tones—blues and cyans—and going towards the green of nature, as it’s an important character to the story. Then we transitioned into a more Japanese feel, if I may. We went with more amber, yellow, and gold hues that would represent the same Japanese screen art during the Edo period.
We actually shot all the night scenes digitally to capture them in candlelight or the dusk scenes with torches.
I try to approach color in a simple way. In this case, the LUT we wanted had a film look and we used it for everything. Once we did that it didn’t take that much tweaking. We only needed to do a photochemical type of grade, meaning primary color—red, green, blue—and complementary colors. Sometimes we adjusted the contrast, but I don’t like twisting the image around too much.
I realize that this isn't a matter of it just being film. Although, tungsten stock is going to have a different look (even with filters in front of the lens) at 5,500k than daylight film.
The night scenes had some digital grain in them. It didn't look like film grain, but more like digital noise -- relatively clean since it's coming from an Arri Alexa. One moment in the beginning looks to be lit by a torch as well, as he said there.
Here's a screenshot of something: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CD2mhgJUgAAYUAM.jpg
I managed to download some broll footage and there's a moment when the 'B' Camera Operator, is shooting something on an Alexa during the day. So, there may have been exceptions.
The night scenes had some digital grain in them. It didn't look like film grain, but more like digital noise -- relatively clean since it's coming from an Arri Alexa. One moment in the beginning looks to be lit by a torch as well, as he said there.
Digital is garbage. Digital is what teenagers use when posting a video to youtube.
Real directors use FILM! Good news, though. Film is making a big comeback. Thanks to Nolan and few others. Now if we could just cut back on CGI by 90%; and of course the biggie....get rid of shakeycam!
Hope you're right but, alas, I fear you are not.
share'Real directors use FILM! Good news, though. Film is making a big comeback. Thanks to Nolan and few others. Now if we could just cut back on CGI by 90%; and of course the biggie....get rid of shakeycam! '
Also bring back Black and White and get rid of audio.
It's that man again!!
Are there any screenings in 35mm?
shareDigital is cheap, that's the reason why they use it.
And at the beginning it's clear where digital is predominant...yes it doesn't look good.
Juliet Parrish: You can't win a war if you're extinct!