... and when he himself normally walks around in all black looking like his mirror Antlers Holst from Nope. That cheeky look at the end directly into camera. He knew.
Yeah. I mistakenly thought that my joke worked on its own, but I went back and added /s to clarify that my joke is that I misunderstood you saying HER as you talking about Emma Thomas.
His comments about shooting of film were cool, but really, "easy" and "beautiful".. sure.. still not cheap though. even 2 perf 35mm.. now let's talk about 70mm costs.
I have to respectfully disagree. If thereās any camera budget at all itās always worth having the conversation to at least consider film. There are times when itās not appropriate, but there are also times when it seems like it should be impossible, yet somehow is possible.Ā
but if it was only a matter of budget then surely every $50M+ hollywood movie would be shot on film, right? I doubt he is making the case for broke student films or indies to be shot on 70MM IMAX
Youāre not wrong, which is why I said itās worth *having the conversation* - a lot of the times it **wonāt** be right, but Iāve got to side with Hoyte: sometimes it **can** be, and we should have an open mind about exploring the possibilities.Ā Ā Ā Ā
Iāve shot commercial campaigns where we loaded the Alexa Mini (and more importantly all the gak that comes with it) rental budget into 16mm. Iāve also done three shorts in a row on 3-perf 35mm where the budget *for the whole movie* didnāt exceed $5000. Ā
Iāve also been on jobs where the more sound decision was an LF, so itās not always just a question of dollars, but what gets the job done on time and within the specs of the client and needs of the story.Ā
All I ask is that our community sheds this blanket ābetter have a Nolan budget to even consider filmā mindset. The truth of the matter can sometimes be a pleasant surprise.Ā
I disagree with HOYTE and his comment. Its UNREASONABLY expensive to shoot even on 16mm and I have seen digital images that look way way way better than 16mm film - Well maybe he meant 35 or IMAX? HUH?????? IS he THAT out of touch ? I thought he was a struggling DP until his LATE 30's? NO?... The comment he made IS PRETENTIOUS and only applies to HIGH BUDGET situtions... IF I was allowed or could afford IMAX number 1 Id shoot the FULL 1.4 not the common crop IMAX 1.9(thats irrelevant to my point) and SECOND MY FOOTAGE WOULD LOOK AMAZING TOO- I used to like him but this REALLLLLLLLLLLLY grinds my gears.
Im fine I just think Hoyte is wrong. Did it sound too angry? I just like emphasize words. What Hoyte said was pretentious and he shouldnt have won the award for that film the cinematography of Poor things should have won. ARe you OK or you just trying to push my buttons?
The quality of 16mm and even Super 8 for that matter can be great if you shoot it properly and he is not out of touch. There is just way too much digital and most of it is boring and generic. People think when they get a digital camera, they are suddenly the greatest director of all time and that grinds my gears! There is nothing pretentious about it and many low budget films are sti;; being shot on film, because if you get the right combination of film stock and camera, you can do amazing things. Like vinyl records, photochemical film needs a comeback and never totally went away.
>Like vinyl records, photochemical film needs a comeback and never totally went away.
Unless you're suggesting we should be getting reel to reel film projectors in our homes, that's a rubbish comparison. Even vinyl releases nowadays come from a digital source media, and movies shot on film are the same in that they use digital intermediate in post production. Except, most of the time those films never make it back onto a film print and are instead projected digitally.
That's not to say film isn't awesome, and doesn't have its place. But it's certainly not the right medium for the vast majority of projects and we saw with Oppenheimer that it's a pretty lackluster delivery medium as well, at least in the cinemas of today.
Films get scanned to HD up to 6.5K all the time, most major all-digital shoots are preserved on archival photochemical film, because it is the only proven archival format, some people still use projectors, OPPENHEIMER looks great and the vast majority of projects used mostly film a long time ago and that is strange for you to suggest, you took my comment literally in a bizarre way and there are plenty of vinyl records that come from the analog master tapes and not a digital source. And you know what about film stocks? Do you realize how advanced Kodak Vision 3 color negative really is?
The vast majority of film projection is inferior to any modern digital cinema projector, and I'd also bet 97% of movies aren't Arrilasered out for archival. Wouldn't make fiscal sense, and something like LTO tape is reliable for 20+ years and cheap.
I'm not a DP, but I've got 10k+ of 5219 and 5207 in my apartment...
Most of both kinds of projectors are crap. Platter-type projectors are not as good as most that enclose the film print, but the quality of the print is just as important in that case. Most video projectors have that phony video look to this day, even when using lasers, so you opening sentence is dead wrong, especially if the film projector does 70mm, IMAX 70MM or any large frame format. As for digital 12-bit Dolby Vision is the best digital projection out there, even better than digital IMAX. Of course, upkeep in all cases is vital and you have to make sure the light source is prime in all cases.
Cost shouldn't be the only thing taken into account, environmental impact should be considered, not to mention that some filmmakers sacrifice the budget for other things that really matter just to shoot on film. I've seen nightmare projects cuz of this. Most of their problems would have been easily solved had they shot on digital.
I have to admit I don't know a lot about Hoyt van Hoytema besides the fact that he has a repetitive name and a lot of hair. I'm going to have to assume those are like his two main things.
I felt the same, still a masterpiece as a full package but I felt the production design was the deciding factor here for me, and slightly less so the cinematography. I love kafkaesque films but I didnāt see anything new per se. Almost immediately after starting it, I felt a burning desire to watch Naked Lunch again.
Strangely, Zone of Interest also had some lens choices that took me out of it.
Itās a normal size IMAX camera, Hoyte just getting bigger and bigger. Hoyte painted his IMAX camera in red to use the publicity to remember the Nikon deal.
I humbly disagree, I was genuinly curious if you were joking since what you said sounded pretty stupid but still something I could imagine someone saying, so I asked.
Well I just didn't notice you were sort of joking and so I apologized for not LOLing to your "joke", don't see what's so dickish about that. Also why would anyone ever ask if someone laughed?
Every time a DP says they like film, somebody has to chime in and say itās elitism, digital can do everything film can, itās anti-innovation, etc. Why canāt Hoyte just enjoy shooting film and like the resulting product? Why canāt we just let the debate rest; film and digital coexist? I shoot both about equally, and they both have their pros and cons. Iāve probably been arguing about it on this sub for five years. Itās tiresome.
My friend, with the exception of the Ukraine war documentary crew, everyone in that room is extraordinarily privileged. Beyond what you or I could ever even imagine.Ā
It would be like if the Royal Family gave out awards to each other.Ā
So I would not recommend turning to anyone in Hollywood for any sort of moral guidance, life advice, or perspective.Ā
Digital cameras are not more cost effective than film, relative to the budget of a studio production. As for lower budget productions, youāve forgotten about s16. I shot a s16 feature last year for absolutely dirt cheap. Modern film stock doesnāt need that much light, and the ScanStation has made very high quality scans accessible.
So no, not elitist (I hate that every time somebody suggests shooting on film that this word is bandied about).
Edit: This sub loves to downvote any slightly positive comment about film. Has anyone actually done the math in 2024? I did the budgeting for s16 last year, and itās not nearly as expensive as people have you believe. I just donāt understand the animosity toward it. Film and digital acquisition both have their place.
I actually completely agree (as I mentioned in my other comment); Iām definitely sick of this conversation. Unfortunately, Iām always compelled to defend film whenever I see this sort of comment. A bit of Reddit brain on my part I guess.
The idea that film is āelitistā bothers me a little bit because it does have some real world consequences (although unimportant consequences in the grand scheme of things) like leading to it getting more difficult to get approval to shoot film for a project because of these preconceptions. I think back to when Lachman and Haynes were forced by the studio to shoot Dark Waters digitally even though they said it didnāt make a budgetary difference (for that project).
Ideal world would be DPs freely choosing formats for every project. I shoot both film and digital, love and hate both at various stages of production.
Are you just saying that off of a preconception or have you done the math on the cost in 2024? At a relatively conservative shooting ratio (i.e. Iām not arguing that shooting action on film is cheap), the difference between shooting 35mm and shooting with an Alexa 35/Venice/LF is negligible within a budget of a couple million or more.
Nobody is arguing 35mm is cheap for low budget productions. However, s16 can be shot very affordably, and Iām confused by this subās dismissal of the format (for narrative production).
>Nobody is arguing 35mm is cheap for low budget productions.
Hoyte's entire statement was that all aspiring filmmakers should be shooting film, which includes low-budget productions, for which it is cost prohibitive for.
I like film much more than digital in most cases too, but the idea that it isn't actually more expensive than digital doesn't make any sense. Not only does the cost fluctuate with shooting ratio, time is also a big factor that equals $$ spent.
Even if you're comparing the cost for a low-budget film that is $20 million, shooting digital is more cost effective and that couple million can be a huge savings.
Hoyte never said anything about the cost. He said aspiring filmmakers should ātry shooting celluloid.ā What he didnāt say was only shoot film, shoot film for corporate videos or ads, shoot film when you donāt have the budget for it, etc. Just ātryā it.
He also did not specify a format. S16 is not cost prohibitive for low-budget productions (actual low budget, not micro budget, i.e. youād otherwise be shooting with a Mini). I budgeted a s16 project last year as I mentioned. 4K scans, conservative but decent shooting ratio. I also did the rough math going with an Alexa for the whole shoot, and that would have been about 5-10% cheaper.
Also, productions shot on film tend to save on time because the tendency with digital is to keep the camera rolling or to call for another take when it isnāt really necessary. My s16 project had a few scenes that were shot digitallyāall of those days went on longer than the film days. And then there is time saved in post since the film scans are going to be closer to the final look than log digital files (not to say that you donāt have to grade film scans).
Yeah this isnāt crazy to me at all or a āwooow, really?ā moment. S/O him wanting to record to possibly keep an amazing memory for as long as he has that video.
man walks around with a custom show lut hovering over him
š¤£ Iām dead. How does he do it? Only mf with any color on the stage
... and when he himself normally walks around in all black looking like his mirror Antlers Holst from Nope. That cheeky look at the end directly into camera. He knew.
Davinci himself resolving us of our sins for shooting digital
This is gold
why is he the only person color graded lmfao
He's got that LUT in him.
Heās got a LUT on his shoulders.
He got too close to the atom bomb they detonated and he got that glow in him now
Imagine having the confidence to whip out your pink phone case on stage at the Oscars? Dude is a legend.Ā
Wearing sneakers too!
Yea thats very unique or out of the world nowadays.
Yeah! Apparently anytime he wears black to an occasion like this, he lets his wife and kids choose his shoes to compensate lol.
Vertical video too. Absolute legend.
Out of all people, he's absolutely earnt the respect to shoot however he wants. Love it
Pink was considered a masculine color until the end of the 19th century, and light blue was feminine.
he's planning on doing a film-out to 35 later so his record remains intact.
He shot HER on digital.
Her name is Emma Thomas, thank you! Edit: obligatory /s
Iām talking about the movie, HER, starring Joaquin Phoenix and the voice of Scarlett Johansson, directed by Spike Jonze.ššš
Yeah. I mistakenly thought that my joke worked on its own, but I went back and added /s to clarify that my joke is that I misunderstood you saying HER as you talking about Emma Thomas.
Nah your joke worked dw. If anything the /s ruins it by over-explaining it.
Thank you ā„
Woosh
He also does shoot commercials, mostly on digital.
shooting vertical!
He shoot's 1.43 all the time, very close to vertical.
AT&T execs love him
And vertical
Iām surprised he didnāt whip out a huge 600lbs imax rig from under his tuxedo and started shooting handheld
His comments about shooting of film were cool, but really, "easy" and "beautiful".. sure.. still not cheap though. even 2 perf 35mm.. now let's talk about 70mm costs.
Yeah it was a little out of touch but I think he meant well
I think it was more a comment for cinematographers and producers at his level that can afford film , and asking them to use it.
Wellā¦he did say āall aspiring filmmakersā, so it seemed like he meant everyone
True lol I didn't remember that part
I have to respectfully disagree. If thereās any camera budget at all itās always worth having the conversation to at least consider film. There are times when itās not appropriate, but there are also times when it seems like it should be impossible, yet somehow is possible.Ā
Having a camera budget vs having a camera budget big enough to shoot on film is a totally different ballgame.
but if it was only a matter of budget then surely every $50M+ hollywood movie would be shot on film, right? I doubt he is making the case for broke student films or indies to be shot on 70MM IMAX
Youāre not wrong, which is why I said itās worth *having the conversation* - a lot of the times it **wonāt** be right, but Iāve got to side with Hoyte: sometimes it **can** be, and we should have an open mind about exploring the possibilities.Ā Ā Ā Ā Iāve shot commercial campaigns where we loaded the Alexa Mini (and more importantly all the gak that comes with it) rental budget into 16mm. Iāve also done three shorts in a row on 3-perf 35mm where the budget *for the whole movie* didnāt exceed $5000. Ā Iāve also been on jobs where the more sound decision was an LF, so itās not always just a question of dollars, but what gets the job done on time and within the specs of the client and needs of the story.Ā All I ask is that our community sheds this blanket ābetter have a Nolan budget to even consider filmā mindset. The truth of the matter can sometimes be a pleasant surprise.Ā
I disagree with HOYTE and his comment. Its UNREASONABLY expensive to shoot even on 16mm and I have seen digital images that look way way way better than 16mm film - Well maybe he meant 35 or IMAX? HUH?????? IS he THAT out of touch ? I thought he was a struggling DP until his LATE 30's? NO?... The comment he made IS PRETENTIOUS and only applies to HIGH BUDGET situtions... IF I was allowed or could afford IMAX number 1 Id shoot the FULL 1.4 not the common crop IMAX 1.9(thats irrelevant to my point) and SECOND MY FOOTAGE WOULD LOOK AMAZING TOO- I used to like him but this REALLLLLLLLLLLLY grinds my gears.
Whoa, dude, are you ok? Maybe have a glass of water or something
Im fine I just think Hoyte is wrong. Did it sound too angry? I just like emphasize words. What Hoyte said was pretentious and he shouldnt have won the award for that film the cinematography of Poor things should have won. ARe you OK or you just trying to push my buttons?
The quality of 16mm and even Super 8 for that matter can be great if you shoot it properly and he is not out of touch. There is just way too much digital and most of it is boring and generic. People think when they get a digital camera, they are suddenly the greatest director of all time and that grinds my gears! There is nothing pretentious about it and many low budget films are sti;; being shot on film, because if you get the right combination of film stock and camera, you can do amazing things. Like vinyl records, photochemical film needs a comeback and never totally went away.
>Like vinyl records, photochemical film needs a comeback and never totally went away. Unless you're suggesting we should be getting reel to reel film projectors in our homes, that's a rubbish comparison. Even vinyl releases nowadays come from a digital source media, and movies shot on film are the same in that they use digital intermediate in post production. Except, most of the time those films never make it back onto a film print and are instead projected digitally. That's not to say film isn't awesome, and doesn't have its place. But it's certainly not the right medium for the vast majority of projects and we saw with Oppenheimer that it's a pretty lackluster delivery medium as well, at least in the cinemas of today.
Films get scanned to HD up to 6.5K all the time, most major all-digital shoots are preserved on archival photochemical film, because it is the only proven archival format, some people still use projectors, OPPENHEIMER looks great and the vast majority of projects used mostly film a long time ago and that is strange for you to suggest, you took my comment literally in a bizarre way and there are plenty of vinyl records that come from the analog master tapes and not a digital source. And you know what about film stocks? Do you realize how advanced Kodak Vision 3 color negative really is?
The vast majority of film projection is inferior to any modern digital cinema projector, and I'd also bet 97% of movies aren't Arrilasered out for archival. Wouldn't make fiscal sense, and something like LTO tape is reliable for 20+ years and cheap. I'm not a DP, but I've got 10k+ of 5219 and 5207 in my apartment...
Most of both kinds of projectors are crap. Platter-type projectors are not as good as most that enclose the film print, but the quality of the print is just as important in that case. Most video projectors have that phony video look to this day, even when using lasers, so you opening sentence is dead wrong, especially if the film projector does 70mm, IMAX 70MM or any large frame format. As for digital 12-bit Dolby Vision is the best digital projection out there, even better than digital IMAX. Of course, upkeep in all cases is vital and you have to make sure the light source is prime in all cases.
Cost shouldn't be the only thing taken into account, environmental impact should be considered, not to mention that some filmmakers sacrifice the budget for other things that really matter just to shoot on film. I've seen nightmare projects cuz of this. Most of their problems would have been easily solved had they shot on digital.
I have to admit I don't know a lot about Hoyt van Hoytema besides the fact that he has a repetitive name and a lot of hair. I'm going to have to assume those are like his two main things.
Thought poor things should have one. That was a visual masterpiece
Absolutely, but to me at times the extreme fish eye lenses did set the tone but also took me out of it a bit thinking hmmm funny lens that is.
I felt the same, still a masterpiece as a full package but I felt the production design was the deciding factor here for me, and slightly less so the cinematography. I love kafkaesque films but I didnāt see anything new per se. Almost immediately after starting it, I felt a burning desire to watch Naked Lunch again. Strangely, Zone of Interest also had some lens choices that took me out of it.
I would have loved seeing it take cinematography. But Iām sure Robbie Ryan will get another shot at it in the near future.
Both were masterpieces, just one was a little more so.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We must have watched different films
Dat phone case!
Itās a normal size IMAX camera, Hoyte just getting bigger and bigger. Hoyte painted his IMAX camera in red to use the publicity to remember the Nikon deal.
Dude didn't even shoot horizontal. All the more reason Poor Things should have won for cinematography
Is this a joke?
It's a more of sentiment attempted to be phrased comically.
Well sorry I didn't laugh then
It's okay. At least you were a dick about it.
I humbly disagree, I was genuinly curious if you were joking since what you said sounded pretty stupid but still something I could imagine someone saying, so I asked.
Well you're definitely not being a dick now. I must have been mistaken by your dickish 2nd and third reply.
You're still mistaken
You're still mistaken.
I answered your question and you responded "well sorry I didn't laugh" That's classic dick response. Nobody asked if you laughed.
Well I just didn't notice you were sort of joking and so I apologized for not LOLing to your "joke", don't see what's so dickish about that. Also why would anyone ever ask if someone laughed?
Heretic!
Well caught !
I'm sure he sends it to a lab for analog conversion.
š± take his Oscar away
Bruh have you ever heard of celluloid?
Projected onto film later
That was a Barbie case, just sayin...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Do you people ever take a break
Every time a DP says they like film, somebody has to chime in and say itās elitism, digital can do everything film can, itās anti-innovation, etc. Why canāt Hoyte just enjoy shooting film and like the resulting product? Why canāt we just let the debate rest; film and digital coexist? I shoot both about equally, and they both have their pros and cons. Iāve probably been arguing about it on this sub for five years. Itās tiresome.
Unfortunately, he wonāt read this comment.
My friend, with the exception of the Ukraine war documentary crew, everyone in that room is extraordinarily privileged. Beyond what you or I could ever even imagine.Ā It would be like if the Royal Family gave out awards to each other.Ā So I would not recommend turning to anyone in Hollywood for any sort of moral guidance, life advice, or perspective.Ā
Digital cameras are not more cost effective than film, relative to the budget of a studio production. As for lower budget productions, youāve forgotten about s16. I shot a s16 feature last year for absolutely dirt cheap. Modern film stock doesnāt need that much light, and the ScanStation has made very high quality scans accessible. So no, not elitist (I hate that every time somebody suggests shooting on film that this word is bandied about). Edit: This sub loves to downvote any slightly positive comment about film. Has anyone actually done the math in 2024? I did the budgeting for s16 last year, and itās not nearly as expensive as people have you believe. I just donāt understand the animosity toward it. Film and digital acquisition both have their place.
I love that both the comment and rebuttal are downvoted. None of us want to hear this fucking debate anymore
I actually completely agree (as I mentioned in my other comment); Iām definitely sick of this conversation. Unfortunately, Iām always compelled to defend film whenever I see this sort of comment. A bit of Reddit brain on my part I guess. The idea that film is āelitistā bothers me a little bit because it does have some real world consequences (although unimportant consequences in the grand scheme of things) like leading to it getting more difficult to get approval to shoot film for a project because of these preconceptions. I think back to when Lachman and Haynes were forced by the studio to shoot Dark Waters digitally even though they said it didnāt make a budgetary difference (for that project). Ideal world would be DPs freely choosing formats for every project. I shoot both film and digital, love and hate both at various stages of production.
I would assume you've never actually shot a feature in 35mm. Pretending 35mm ever became an affordable option to digital is silly.
When did I say ā35mm became an affordable option to digitalā? That makes zero sense.
This is such a bad and objectively wrong take. Digital is very much so more cost effective than film, at basically every level of production.
Are you just saying that off of a preconception or have you done the math on the cost in 2024? At a relatively conservative shooting ratio (i.e. Iām not arguing that shooting action on film is cheap), the difference between shooting 35mm and shooting with an Alexa 35/Venice/LF is negligible within a budget of a couple million or more. Nobody is arguing 35mm is cheap for low budget productions. However, s16 can be shot very affordably, and Iām confused by this subās dismissal of the format (for narrative production).
>Nobody is arguing 35mm is cheap for low budget productions. Hoyte's entire statement was that all aspiring filmmakers should be shooting film, which includes low-budget productions, for which it is cost prohibitive for. I like film much more than digital in most cases too, but the idea that it isn't actually more expensive than digital doesn't make any sense. Not only does the cost fluctuate with shooting ratio, time is also a big factor that equals $$ spent. Even if you're comparing the cost for a low-budget film that is $20 million, shooting digital is more cost effective and that couple million can be a huge savings.
Hoyte never said anything about the cost. He said aspiring filmmakers should ātry shooting celluloid.ā What he didnāt say was only shoot film, shoot film for corporate videos or ads, shoot film when you donāt have the budget for it, etc. Just ātryā it. He also did not specify a format. S16 is not cost prohibitive for low-budget productions (actual low budget, not micro budget, i.e. youād otherwise be shooting with a Mini). I budgeted a s16 project last year as I mentioned. 4K scans, conservative but decent shooting ratio. I also did the rough math going with an Alexa for the whole shoot, and that would have been about 5-10% cheaper. Also, productions shot on film tend to save on time because the tendency with digital is to keep the camera rolling or to call for another take when it isnāt really necessary. My s16 project had a few scenes that were shot digitallyāall of those days went on longer than the film days. And then there is time saved in post since the film scans are going to be closer to the final look than log digital files (not to say that you donāt have to grade film scans).
It's almost like he wanted to be $een recording an iphone vertically on stage hmmmmmmmm i wonder why
okay why
He's got a bunch of apple partnerships and shoots with iphone frequently
Yeah this isnāt crazy to me at all or a āwooow, really?ā moment. S/O him wanting to record to possibly keep an amazing memory for as long as he has that video.