http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/be hind-screen/help-star-wa
You are currently reading a thread in /p/ - Photography
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-wars-kodak-ceo-848593
BRAVO LUCAS
>>2723279
>It's going to be screening at a couple AMC theaters near me
>Lost an AMC ticket voucher that I had
>>2723279
the kikes and their cronies?
>>2723279
why would you shoot film and use cg?
that's just stupid.
NEW KODACHROME WHEN.
>>2723331
cool opinion, mr. literallyfuckingnobody.
>>2723279
the difference between modern film and digital aesthetics in motion video is so fucking small that people who argue film over digital look like huge fedora faggots.
Case and point, Quintin Tarantino.
Not only that, shit like Django Unchained all has fucking computer processing tonal effects in it anyways.
>>2723357
cool opinion, mr. literallyfuckingretarded.
It's "Quentin", btw.
>>2723374
>accuses other people of memery
>uses the "hipster" meme
>implying it makes a fucking difference in the CGI-infested modern movie business
The Revenant is probably going to be the most visually incredible movie of the decade so far and it was shot fucking digital.
Quentin's a literal autist whose excuse for shooting film is literally the technical aspect of "moving picture", proving that he's a literal autist.
What movie in the 21st century, shot on film, actually looks like it was shot on film? Because I didn't see any.
>>2724248
I don't give a fuck about all that as long as they keep producing Ektar
>>2724248
Wes Anderson shot Moonrise Kingdom on 16mm and it had that 60s type of vibe to it.
>>2723357
the hobbit looked like ass though
>>2724302
That's because of Peter Hackson and the colossal failure of 48fps cinema, not the cameras
>>2723357
So you've not seen samsara?
There's a massive difference between the 2 mediums, your inability to recognise it is only your own shortcoming.
>>2724308
Nope, nothing wrong with 48fps, everyone from the dop to the final editor was to blame, not the medium. 48fps took the flack, but if you watch it at home at 24fps its just as ugly.
>>2724248
interstellar
>>2724248
i literally couldnt fucking care about your shitty flicks.
kodak will launch NEW Kodachrome. its all that matters. brace yourself, youre going to be blown the fuck out of your own bones.
>>2724248
The Revenant looks like trash. Every shot looks like it was take with a super wide angle, even the close-ups. I agree about Quentin and his movie looks like trash too. I don't understand the obsession with shooting gloomy snow scenes. I want a movie shot in a bright stimulating evironment if it's trying to show a dynamic and interesting environment.
>>2724248
>The Revenant is probably going to be the most visually incredible movie of the decade so far and it was shot fucking digital.
I can't wait for the Hateful Eight to be ten times better looking.
also, i can't even into the sheer enormous idiocy of a statement like "What movie in the 21st century, shot on film, actually looks like it was shot on film? Because I didn't see any."
I get that having been born in the 21st century as you were, you may not have seen many movies before your mouth started to work faster than your brain, but there are literally thousands of movies shot on film that completely look like they were shoot on film.
>>2724248
Black Swan.
>>2723357
Rewatch The Dark Knight and try to appreciate how the celluloid helps to set the mood. Bong Joon-Ho is another great director who is an absolute genius when it comes to making visually pleasing movies. It would be a shame if he, Christopher Nolan and other would be forced to make visual comprimises because they can't get a hold of film anymore.
>What movie in the 21st century, shot on film, actually looks like it was shot on film? Because I didn't see any.
Basically everything by Christopher Nolan. Take a look at them, they are great.
>>2724351
If you watch some of the behind the scenes videos they basically say that the color reproduction on the red cameras is shit so they tried to compensate by making the sets super colorful and then try to fix it in post. That's why the whole thing looks like a 2003 era videogame and the skin tones are all flat and pasty.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Elements 9.0 Windows Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2012:12:13 18:26:55 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 615 Image Height 350
>>2724367
>Every shot looks like it was take with a super wide angle, even the close-ups.
That's because it was. It was mostly shot on an Alexa65 with almost all wide lenses. Iñárritu and Lubezki talk about choosing to shoot with wides for narrative reasons in the latest issue of SOC.
only literal autists use film over digital in this day and age
