The only people Ive ever met who talk trash about film are 14 year old DSLR heroes on this website who have never shot on film. You have all these opinions about how much better digital is but most of you probably haven't shot with a real digital cinema camera either. You're all just a bunch of non educated loud mouths who are clueless.
Thanks for setting me straight. I thought I had read that they were going straight photochemical on this. Weird that tarantino is such a film only guy but allows a DI. I was hoping all the blue was baked in by using tungsten stock outside. (I could be wrong again but I thought I read they only used 5213 and 5219 on this).
I'll need to do more research but I'm almost sure there is no "grading" going on here. I think this movie is being finished photochemically.
Hi Sophie,
First let me say that my original post may have sounded a little more offensive than I intended but I'm glad that you learned something from your mistakes. I just really want to stress that shooting RAW wasn't the problem but the mistakes you made before and during principle photography. Prores is a great codec and you probably would have been fine shooting with it. The majority of the work I do is captured with prores (usually on an alexa though so its a bit higher quality than on the BMCC). If its good enough for Game of Thrones and that last Will Smith movie then its good enough for all of us! It appears you just weren't aware of the proper questions to ask your DP and your DP wasn't aware that you weren't taking the major tasks to a RAW workflow into consideration (because you weren't aware of them).
I hope the thing you take away from this thread and your experience on your feature isn't to "regret shooting RAW" but to regret not asking the right questions/doing the right prep and that from now on you'll be much much more prepared for your next feature.
I hope your film turns out amazing and I'm glad people like you are out there making their films instead of just talking about it. Don't let my harsh tone (or anyone else's) here dissuade you from reaching out to the filmmaking community for help or answers. I promise we are all probably really nice in person.
Yes.
And I'm not suggesting it. It's just the way it is. Re-read your own link to the Matt Duclose article. He is saying exactly what I'm saying.
Try it yourself. Grab a Red with an MX sensor (a lot of PL glass won't cover the bigger than s35 dragon sensor at full 6k.) with a pl and canon mount. Grab a canon mount full frame 25mm lens and a zeiss super speed 25mm (mk1,2,or 3). Put on the ff canon lens and take a still image. Switch mounts and put on the PL lens. Take a still image. Put the two side by side and you will have the same angle of view give or take...there can be very slight differences between lens manufacturers but it is marginal.
when was the last time you shot actual film then? And I don't mean some shitty reversal stock through a crap lens on a bolex from the thrift store? I'm talking 5219 lit properly and shot with nice glass. When was the last time you did that then compared it to digital? There is no comparison. Digital just can't do what film can. Not in the highlights not in the skin tones not in the color not in DR not in ease of use. Film isn't dead and it isn't anymore complicated or expensive than digital. I've firsted 2 indies over the past year shot on film. The camera package plus stock plus processing cost exactly the same as an Alexa for the three weeks of production. The second production was shot out in the woods and in remote locations. Having a simple film camera that won't over heat, won't freeze, won't malfunction in wet, no DIT, no need to dump data, etc. film is just simpler and more reliable. Maybe in your old age you've forgotten that, maybe your eyes are slipping and you can't see the aesthetic differences, maybe you haven't been quite as "around" as you'd like to believe...whatever the case is you're wrong. Film isn't dead. The biggest movies of the year were shot on film and indies are still using it too.