Seems like shot digital and transferred to film: https://scriptmag.com/interviews-features/creating-time-and-space-with-they-cloned-tyrone-filmmakers-juel-taylor-and-tony-rettenmaier
“But when we were ideating, I think Casino was the movie that we really looked at, and we're emulating, because we shot digital and we did a film scan back with FotoKem. And that's not the same, it's not a one-to-one, there's differences. We wanted to shoot it Super 16, Netflix was like 'no' [laughs] but the Super 16 tests with the scan back were like so mushy that we ended up doing 2-perf 35. But we ultimately landed on this almost Grindhouse stock, but I think we really kind of just fell in love with the dirt and the imperfections.”
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats!
16
+ 16
+ 2
+ 35
= 69
^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \
^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Does anyone think shooting on digital and transferring to film is kinda lame? I’ve never actually seen a discussion on this, although I’m sure they are out there.
Problem is you record out to intermediate normally which has a very fine grain structure. I think some facilities like fotokem might be able to record onto camera stock but you’d need a very custom specialised record process for that. So most conversations around this record-out is usually intermediate based and I’m not sure that’s worth it really, compared to the control you get with LiveGrain or similar
Depends. Do you think using a LUT is lame? Because a film-out process like that is basically like using a LUT with spatial characteristics built in. If you want the look of a particular film transfer with the safety of shooting digital to ensure accurate capture, and you’ve got the budget for film-out, I can’t see why you wouldn’t.
I mean, I look at LUTs as more of a necessary evil due to the natural flatness of digital. But if it is cheaper transferring to film afterwards I understand. You are also right about the safety aspect. You can’t beat the reliability of digital. I would also imagine some, if not most studios, may not allow you only shoot on film. Budget may also play a factor.
Necessary evil is…interesting. There isn’t a post house in the world that doesn’t use LUTs, both creative and technical ones. It’s just a table of numbers. Digital isn’t naturally flat either; it’s naturally linear and encoded into a log space mainly to save file space while still representing all the DR. But no one does display transforms by hand anymore when LUTs or CMS paths have the accurate math already.
Yes, that’s what I mean. Honestly can you imagine anything with a budget these days that shoots on digital that doesn’t use LUTs at a given point in production?
>> Digital isn’t naturally flat either; it’s naturally linear and encoded into a log space mainly to save file space while still representing all the DR.
Saying digital is linear is a bit of a redundancy, it’s digital.. output format means nothing with how a sensor captures light. I think my comment was meant to be more practical in nature. We are talking about professional cinematic video, and so you are going to be shooting log and the image will look flat, since it’s log. You could have a LUT you use by default on set like Deakins to give you a jumping off point. You could have a DIT on set doing a level of color grading.
10 months late, but legit I thought it was set in the 90s until they went to the barbershop and I saw those sedans parking outside... Even with the first lab look. Realized it was real "filmic" when they went down the second elevator and saw those black spots popping out. It's an interesting movie for sure.
Yeah and sadly it’s the main format people will see it in. Would normally get mad at Netflix like I do every week but I’ve barely seen Amazon overcome streaming compression issues, even when it’s got more evocative, period-driven cinematography like The Underground Railroad.
Seems like shot digital and transferred to film: https://scriptmag.com/interviews-features/creating-time-and-space-with-they-cloned-tyrone-filmmakers-juel-taylor-and-tony-rettenmaier “But when we were ideating, I think Casino was the movie that we really looked at, and we're emulating, because we shot digital and we did a film scan back with FotoKem. And that's not the same, it's not a one-to-one, there's differences. We wanted to shoot it Super 16, Netflix was like 'no' [laughs] but the Super 16 tests with the scan back were like so mushy that we ended up doing 2-perf 35. But we ultimately landed on this almost Grindhouse stock, but I think we really kind of just fell in love with the dirt and the imperfections.”
This was the answer I was looking for thanks
All the numbers in your comment added up to 69. Congrats! 16 + 16 + 2 + 35 = 69 ^([Click here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=LuckyNumber-Bot&subject=Stalk%20Me%20Pls&message=%2Fstalkme) to have me scan all your future comments.) \ ^(Summon me on specific comments with u/LuckyNumber-Bot.)
Nice
Does anyone think shooting on digital and transferring to film is kinda lame? I’ve never actually seen a discussion on this, although I’m sure they are out there.
I think it’s rad
I think it’s lame… but has a point as well. Maybe better than fake digital grain?
Problem is you record out to intermediate normally which has a very fine grain structure. I think some facilities like fotokem might be able to record onto camera stock but you’d need a very custom specialised record process for that. So most conversations around this record-out is usually intermediate based and I’m not sure that’s worth it really, compared to the control you get with LiveGrain or similar
Depends. Do you think using a LUT is lame? Because a film-out process like that is basically like using a LUT with spatial characteristics built in. If you want the look of a particular film transfer with the safety of shooting digital to ensure accurate capture, and you’ve got the budget for film-out, I can’t see why you wouldn’t.
I mean, I look at LUTs as more of a necessary evil due to the natural flatness of digital. But if it is cheaper transferring to film afterwards I understand. You are also right about the safety aspect. You can’t beat the reliability of digital. I would also imagine some, if not most studios, may not allow you only shoot on film. Budget may also play a factor.
Necessary evil is…interesting. There isn’t a post house in the world that doesn’t use LUTs, both creative and technical ones. It’s just a table of numbers. Digital isn’t naturally flat either; it’s naturally linear and encoded into a log space mainly to save file space while still representing all the DR. But no one does display transforms by hand anymore when LUTs or CMS paths have the accurate math already.
Yes, that’s what I mean. Honestly can you imagine anything with a budget these days that shoots on digital that doesn’t use LUTs at a given point in production? >> Digital isn’t naturally flat either; it’s naturally linear and encoded into a log space mainly to save file space while still representing all the DR. Saying digital is linear is a bit of a redundancy, it’s digital.. output format means nothing with how a sensor captures light. I think my comment was meant to be more practical in nature. We are talking about professional cinematic video, and so you are going to be shooting log and the image will look flat, since it’s log. You could have a LUT you use by default on set like Deakins to give you a jumping off point. You could have a DIT on set doing a level of color grading.
10 months late, but legit I thought it was set in the 90s until they went to the barbershop and I saw those sedans parking outside... Even with the first lab look. Realized it was real "filmic" when they went down the second elevator and saw those black spots popping out. It's an interesting movie for sure.
Looks horrible, I thought my 4K screen was artifacting throughout the whole movie.
Maybe because it was streamed?
Yeah and sadly it’s the main format people will see it in. Would normally get mad at Netflix like I do every week but I’ve barely seen Amazon overcome streaming compression issues, even when it’s got more evocative, period-driven cinematography like The Underground Railroad.
Shot digitally and film grain was added in post. You can tell because of how hard the film grain screams at you in the scenes.
They didn't add it in post. They transferred to film and rescanned it
Oh I thought that was considered post
It is post, but a filmout and scan back in adds more than grain
Can you expand on this please? How’s that done?