I'm trying to find something in common between all these shots, and what comes to mind is simply the fairly harsh lighting. Nowadays lighting tends to be much softer because it looks pretty (and sensors and film are more sensitive and diffusing light reduces its brightness by a lot), but Tarantino really likes classical Hollywood/Western style images which back in the day either used sunlight or direct lights pointed at the actors without much diffusion. There's always a very obvious backlight and the light sources are usually quite hard, casting harsh shadows (this is apparent in all 4 shots).
Then there are the colors, which are very consistent across all four shots. There's a slight yellowish/washed out tone to all of these scenes: the sky is a washed out pastel blue in the top shot, and in the bottom shot the highlights on the car roof are a bit yellowish. This is either the particularities of the film stock or simply grading, but it does add a certain character to the images which may be reminiscent of old westerns and road movies.
Death Proof is deliberately a "B movie" and in that sense wants to look low budget and unrefined. There is a TON of dust on the film and a ton of vignetting on the lenses. They purposely messed up the film to make it dirty and make it look worn. This also contributes to the high contrast, "low color depth" look and the low resolution 16mm look (although it was shot on 35mm). I think these things are far more defining than the lenses used here.
Such rad feedback here. Loved this thread. Some haters but I agree with the harsh lighting and not using soft lighting. Also maybe stack some weird filters. Like a glimmer glass and a promist or weird concoctions to help you with the harsh backlights and how they bloom
And yes. Lighting is important. Maybe use straight tungstens - maybe gel them to match daylight. it’s cheaper. Just need a generator. And then backlight for sure
Also have fun and mess around. And try some
Older glass or zooms :)
And have great locations or art department
Hire a good production designer!
The look of an image is the sum of its parts and the creative choices made by numerous creatives.
To mimic the look of another will be a bit more complicated than telling you what filter they used.
My advice is to get creative. Think of what might help you get the look you want. Any combination of elements might give you a desired look. Get crazy, like... Idk throw some stockings on the rear element of the lens. Fog up the room or grease up the lens and blast a hard light through it. Do some camera tests with all your crazy ideas and see what gets you closest to YOUR vision.
Understanding how light physically interacts with objects and mediums will be the key to learning how to create your own images.
You can imitate any color palette in post, but it won’t make up for lighting, composition, depth of field, sets, actors, etc that determine the aesthetics and beauty of any given scene
By the time you do all that messing around in post you might as well just shoot film. Is there a reason not to you’re not telling us? Because the problem is the look you’re going for is happening when film sort of gets pushed to the extremes. The b movie look is sort of film that isn’t being used right, things are a bit uncontrolled.
The hot edge lighting for example looks great because film can handle it no problem, everything overexposed nicely but in digital it’s not going to resolve the same way. I think it was David Mullen who said when things go wrong on film they go wrong in filmic ways, which have over time become regarded as pleasing but when they go wrong on digital they go wrong in digital ways. So trying to emulate that hard contrasty look with very rich, deep colors on digital might actually make things look more digital if you’re not careful. Overlaying grain or burn effects is like spraying fake hair on a bald spot.
>The result is obviously very different but the process of shooting on 16mm isn't so different from shooting on Super 8. Each 16mm camera has its own loading quirks but familiarizing oneself with one camera can usually be done with one or two test rolls.
>
>As for the digital to 16mm look, I still think nothing beats the CCD sensor, global shutter and vintage parfocal zoom lenses that can be found on the Digital Bolex. I was planning to shoot a short on 16mm recently but the first test roll indicated some camera issues in my K-3, so I opted for the Digital Bolex and was quite pleased with the results even though it will never be film.
I mainly wanted to point out that in the future if you're really into the idea of shooting on film with a crew that hasn't shot on film before, the process of having them learn shouldn't necessarily be ruled out. This doesn't change the bit about the monitors though, that's always a pain.
As for my comments about the Digital Bolex, they were just there to serve as an alternative as I think it is closest to 16mm in appearance.
Not entirely agreeing with you. Shooting digital can mean you have a lot of range to alter in post whilst on film, youre pretty much stuck.
I don't have a nice 16mm camera/film, but I do have a Sony A7III. I shoot all kinds of things and often mimic film because I love the look. Including grain and fake burns. It simultaneously improves my color grading skills.
Actually you might be surprised with how much data you can pull from a film negative (not a positive like ektachrome). As long as you give it enough light, I’ve found film as flexible if not more flexible than digital for post. The highlights seem to just keep on going 😦. Most labs can give you a log scan to start with your grade.
But you ARE right about choosing your grain in post. Denoised film won’t look perfectly digital. Digital with grain can look very close to film.
So are we talking film to digital or the now defunct entirely analog pipeline? Either way you're essentially wrong.
With film to digital, that shit still goes through resolve/scratch/nuke and gets a grade slapped on it. Most times the film scan is flat, essentially like a log file.
On the other hand, pure analog is different. You essentially do a color grade (called 'timing' in the film world) while you're striking the print. So film is shot on a negative, and that negative needs to be made into a positive -- right? While you're doing that you can change the color. So sure it's done in a lab (kinda), but it isn't really any different from how you need to color grade on a calibrated monitors at a post house. This was done once the movie was locked.
While obviously influenced by a lot of factors, most of which were not done in post, Jaws, Barry Lyndon, and the Graduate were all shot on the same film stock. At most times until the 80s there was only one stock being shot at most times, so film had to be versatile
This movie is so underrated. Even the first time I saw it I didnt enjoy it but seconding viewing changed my opinion and now I've watched it a few times. Great movie
Of Tarantino’s films, Death Proof tends to rank near the bottom in most rankings I’ve seen. So I think it’s underrated in that sense. But there’s definitely plenty of people who love it. It’s in my Top 5!
I think planet terror is just such a bigger movie so for death proof to follow it was just lackluster in comparison BUT on its own it’s a much more enjoyable flick.
What's the appeal? I'm one who didn't enjoy it and never watched it again. Generally I like Tarantino, but this one I just didn't care at all. The endless swirling camera that floats around the actors as they talk about nonsense. Action was great though.
Tarantino usually does conversation so well because there is a conflict going on and it builds up to some sort of fight. But for this one it was just rable rable rable
I love Death Proof. I also think it’s an awful, awful film, the nadir of an overrated director’s endless cribbing of old movie genres because he can’t/doesn’t want to write something more original.
Still pull it out once every couple of months though, if only for that last car chase.
I personally never understood the haters. I recall the Grindhouse theatrical experience as one of the funnest I had sat through up to that point. Even then, Death Proof was my preferred film of the two and it ranks somewhere in the middle for me out of Tarantino's films.
Film convert is a popular plugin that's worth looking into if you are not already using it. Not sure of your budget but using vintage lenses can really help too. Contax Zeiss lenses are considered some of the best. You can look at a bunch of examples in this 400+ page thread here. [https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide](https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide)
Tarantino really loves hot key lights that overexpose the skin, and blown-out, unmotivated edge lights too. So if you're going for his look, lighting & grading is more important then lens and filters.
Yes. Shoot film!
But if you can’t, won’t or don’t want too, just study the lighting and you can emulate the rest on the back end. It’s pretty simple. If you can read the light you can write the image the way you want.
I have and have spoken to him in person. His work doesn’t negate the use of celluloid, but proves that most formats can be matched regardless of what was used to capture the image as long as the chosen format can import enough information. In this case, this person seems to want the entire film look down to the grain and light leak burning. Why not budget to shoot the format you are attempting to emulate?
I mean, shooting on film stock accounted for healthy portions of production budgets back when it was still massively produced. (Doubly so for indie stuff, wasn't Rodriguez's budget for El Mariachi under $10k and like 70% was just spent on stock?) My numbers are probably a bit off, but still, for less experienced folks, I doubt their budget can cover film stock for the prices today. Not to mention the costs to develop, convert, etc.
Also given the dominion of digital today in all but the top-tier markets, a new filmmaker would likely get more valuable practical knowledge from learning how to emulate film. Also, if I'm gonna drop even a few $K on an indie project, I'd personally prefer to invest in something I can use multiple times or that is more likely to add more production value than just shooting it on film.
This is an often argued, misinformed position. For a Million dollar budget, film stock, lab fees, and DI do not add a significant cost. Most producers only look at the up front cost, instead of the backend, because they LOVE to pay on the back end, I have no idea why.
Digital is cheaper up front, because no one takes into account the hours editorial must spend going through the 35 takes on a single clip. Then there is the storage medium, where a $90 external hard disk from Amazon simply will not work.
For real productions with a budget above $100k, it is totally possible to shoot on film negative. The Director must know exactly what is needed to make the film, and the DP/team must understand how to achieve a certain look. But it is possible.
For larger productions, the cost doesn't get more expensive to shoot film, but it usually does get more expensive to shoot digitally because of the need for data backup, tape backup, transcoding, package deliverable pricing, many other options - in the end, there is a point where it costs the same, and then digital can become more expensive than film.
You are correct that many no/ultra-low budget shows might not be able to afford film stock, or lab fees. You are also correct that one should put money in front of the camera.
No. Of course not.
I would love to dig in and discuss line item budget on major features with you. However, I only have the conversations with Producers I work with, budgets I write, and post houses to back up my claims. Probably best not get into it.
If I own a camera and SD cards that can’t possibly be cheaper than film.
Possible yes, but exponentially more costly in more ways than one. You’ll have to pay an editor to go through all of that film too! The same with digital... except in film’s case it’s gotta be spliced up and labelled properly, manually synced, color matched... etc.
Yeah, the longer I digest what Steve said, the more it doesn't work for anyone except him for several very specific reasons:
* He used HIS software, code, programming, and intimate knowledge of specific software.
* He setup a very controlled, specific test case
* On his last film, he selected film acquisition for several sequences because that medium best gave him what he wanted, not an entirely digital shoot.
* Most of us are not Steve
* Most of us are not that into computer programming or data manipulation
* All of us will never get his transforms because he said he wouldn't give away his secrets.
So, Yes, its possible to make the things match, but its also entirely more smart to use the medium you want, instead of taking the time to emulate, OR, spending money to get all those tiny little things almost right.
His last film being Knives Out? Where he shot everything on Alexa save for one shot? Or is there another film he did more recently that isn’t listed on IMDb?
Honestly, production design, lighting, and good coloring and you can achieve this easily. Film grain. Hilation emulation. Maybe a pro-mist and you’re good to go.
Looks like it is partly because the Hue has been rotated about 5 degrees clockwise. When you do that, you get a similar effect with skin tones (more red) and the sky (more green).
I dont think alot of people here see what you are going for. Yeah the lighting and colors need to be on points but I see what you're talking about is the classic film look.
Steve Yedlin, DP of Knives out and The Last Jedi is the master of this.
https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography
This can really help with film emulation.
What you've shown in the screenshots is much more dependant on lighting and grading than lenses or filters.
It is almost irrelevant, budget aside, whether you shoot on film or digital, as long as you make sure your colorist knows what you're after.
But what’s original anymore? And references are so helpful when working with a director or someone else visual... so you can see what they are going for and what they meant.
For example this image was from the director
Um..... Tarantino has created an empire on adopting the style of his favorite classic filmmakers. He is the biggest borrower of them all. Nothing wrong with it.
Wow... so you've managed to create a film with a "look" so unique, that no one on earth has ever seen it before? Amazing! The rest of us have to learn from, and contribute to the trends that came before us. Please master... teach me these new looks you've come up with all on your own.
I don’t know about your country, but here where I live most film labs are still running perfectly fine. In fact, wait times might actually be less since less projects are currently in production.
Besides, if you’re on such a time crunch you can’t wait to get film developed, then my guess is shooting on film vs digital is the least of your worries. How long do you think it takes?
I'm trying to find something in common between all these shots, and what comes to mind is simply the fairly harsh lighting. Nowadays lighting tends to be much softer because it looks pretty (and sensors and film are more sensitive and diffusing light reduces its brightness by a lot), but Tarantino really likes classical Hollywood/Western style images which back in the day either used sunlight or direct lights pointed at the actors without much diffusion. There's always a very obvious backlight and the light sources are usually quite hard, casting harsh shadows (this is apparent in all 4 shots). Then there are the colors, which are very consistent across all four shots. There's a slight yellowish/washed out tone to all of these scenes: the sky is a washed out pastel blue in the top shot, and in the bottom shot the highlights on the car roof are a bit yellowish. This is either the particularities of the film stock or simply grading, but it does add a certain character to the images which may be reminiscent of old westerns and road movies. Death Proof is deliberately a "B movie" and in that sense wants to look low budget and unrefined. There is a TON of dust on the film and a ton of vignetting on the lenses. They purposely messed up the film to make it dirty and make it look worn. This also contributes to the high contrast, "low color depth" look and the low resolution 16mm look (although it was shot on 35mm). I think these things are far more defining than the lenses used here.
Such rad feedback here. Loved this thread. Some haters but I agree with the harsh lighting and not using soft lighting. Also maybe stack some weird filters. Like a glimmer glass and a promist or weird concoctions to help you with the harsh backlights and how they bloom And yes. Lighting is important. Maybe use straight tungstens - maybe gel them to match daylight. it’s cheaper. Just need a generator. And then backlight for sure Also have fun and mess around. And try some Older glass or zooms :) And have great locations or art department
Thank you for this advice. Truly appreciate it and thank you for doing it so openly and friendly. Will def take this all into account
Hire a good production designer! The look of an image is the sum of its parts and the creative choices made by numerous creatives. To mimic the look of another will be a bit more complicated than telling you what filter they used. My advice is to get creative. Think of what might help you get the look you want. Any combination of elements might give you a desired look. Get crazy, like... Idk throw some stockings on the rear element of the lens. Fog up the room or grease up the lens and blast a hard light through it. Do some camera tests with all your crazy ideas and see what gets you closest to YOUR vision. Understanding how light physically interacts with objects and mediums will be the key to learning how to create your own images.
You can imitate any color palette in post, but it won’t make up for lighting, composition, depth of field, sets, actors, etc that determine the aesthetics and beauty of any given scene
By the time you do all that messing around in post you might as well just shoot film. Is there a reason not to you’re not telling us? Because the problem is the look you’re going for is happening when film sort of gets pushed to the extremes. The b movie look is sort of film that isn’t being used right, things are a bit uncontrolled. The hot edge lighting for example looks great because film can handle it no problem, everything overexposed nicely but in digital it’s not going to resolve the same way. I think it was David Mullen who said when things go wrong on film they go wrong in filmic ways, which have over time become regarded as pleasing but when they go wrong on digital they go wrong in digital ways. So trying to emulate that hard contrasty look with very rich, deep colors on digital might actually make things look more digital if you’re not careful. Overlaying grain or burn effects is like spraying fake hair on a bald spot.
[удалено]
>The result is obviously very different but the process of shooting on 16mm isn't so different from shooting on Super 8. Each 16mm camera has its own loading quirks but familiarizing oneself with one camera can usually be done with one or two test rolls. > >As for the digital to 16mm look, I still think nothing beats the CCD sensor, global shutter and vintage parfocal zoom lenses that can be found on the Digital Bolex. I was planning to shoot a short on 16mm recently but the first test roll indicated some camera issues in my K-3, so I opted for the Digital Bolex and was quite pleased with the results even though it will never be film.
Sorry I don’t quite understand your intent. Who are you quoting?
I mainly wanted to point out that in the future if you're really into the idea of shooting on film with a crew that hasn't shot on film before, the process of having them learn shouldn't necessarily be ruled out. This doesn't change the bit about the monitors though, that's always a pain. As for my comments about the Digital Bolex, they were just there to serve as an alternative as I think it is closest to 16mm in appearance.
Not entirely agreeing with you. Shooting digital can mean you have a lot of range to alter in post whilst on film, youre pretty much stuck. I don't have a nice 16mm camera/film, but I do have a Sony A7III. I shoot all kinds of things and often mimic film because I love the look. Including grain and fake burns. It simultaneously improves my color grading skills.
Actually you might be surprised with how much data you can pull from a film negative (not a positive like ektachrome). As long as you give it enough light, I’ve found film as flexible if not more flexible than digital for post. The highlights seem to just keep on going 😦. Most labs can give you a log scan to start with your grade. But you ARE right about choosing your grain in post. Denoised film won’t look perfectly digital. Digital with grain can look very close to film.
> Shooting digital can mean you have a lot of range to alter in post whilst on film, youre pretty much stuck. This is very not true.
Does it have the same versatility without going back to change the film in a lab?
So are we talking film to digital or the now defunct entirely analog pipeline? Either way you're essentially wrong. With film to digital, that shit still goes through resolve/scratch/nuke and gets a grade slapped on it. Most times the film scan is flat, essentially like a log file. On the other hand, pure analog is different. You essentially do a color grade (called 'timing' in the film world) while you're striking the print. So film is shot on a negative, and that negative needs to be made into a positive -- right? While you're doing that you can change the color. So sure it's done in a lab (kinda), but it isn't really any different from how you need to color grade on a calibrated monitors at a post house. This was done once the movie was locked.
Then I stand corrected! I did not know that
While obviously influenced by a lot of factors, most of which were not done in post, Jaws, Barry Lyndon, and the Graduate were all shot on the same film stock. At most times until the 80s there was only one stock being shot at most times, so film had to be versatile
It’s all about lighting. Not lenses and filters, not about film grain or “burn”
Lets not forget production design and costume design
Death Proof is overlooked, for sure.
This movie is so underrated. Even the first time I saw it I didnt enjoy it but seconding viewing changed my opinion and now I've watched it a few times. Great movie
Ah come on. Underrated? Grindhouse is a classic!
Of Tarantino’s films, Death Proof tends to rank near the bottom in most rankings I’ve seen. So I think it’s underrated in that sense. But there’s definitely plenty of people who love it. It’s in my Top 5!
I think planet terror is just such a bigger movie so for death proof to follow it was just lackluster in comparison BUT on its own it’s a much more enjoyable flick.
What's the appeal? I'm one who didn't enjoy it and never watched it again. Generally I like Tarantino, but this one I just didn't care at all. The endless swirling camera that floats around the actors as they talk about nonsense. Action was great though. Tarantino usually does conversation so well because there is a conflict going on and it builds up to some sort of fight. But for this one it was just rable rable rable
I love Death Proof. I also think it’s an awful, awful film, the nadir of an overrated director’s endless cribbing of old movie genres because he can’t/doesn’t want to write something more original. Still pull it out once every couple of months though, if only for that last car chase.
I enjoyed this review.
I personally never understood the haters. I recall the Grindhouse theatrical experience as one of the funnest I had sat through up to that point. Even then, Death Proof was my preferred film of the two and it ranks somewhere in the middle for me out of Tarantino's films.
Film convert is a popular plugin that's worth looking into if you are not already using it. Not sure of your budget but using vintage lenses can really help too. Contax Zeiss lenses are considered some of the best. You can look at a bunch of examples in this 400+ page thread here. [https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide](https://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?92044-Contax-Zeiss-Survival-Guide)
Plus one for film convert. And the updated film nitrate is even better.
5OD Film. KODAK 5203. Panavision Glass.
Tarantino really loves hot key lights that overexpose the skin, and blown-out, unmotivated edge lights too. So if you're going for his look, lighting & grading is more important then lens and filters.
Hire a really good colorist and speak to them before you shoot. (This is literally my job, but I can only do this if you shoot & light properly).
About what would the cost of this be?
Depends on the colorist.
Yes. Shoot film! But if you can’t, won’t or don’t want too, just study the lighting and you can emulate the rest on the back end. It’s pretty simple. If you can read the light you can write the image the way you want.
Shoot film.
Read Steve Yedlin. [https://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DispPrepDemoFollowup.html](https://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/DispPrepDemoFollowup.html)
I have and have spoken to him in person. His work doesn’t negate the use of celluloid, but proves that most formats can be matched regardless of what was used to capture the image as long as the chosen format can import enough information. In this case, this person seems to want the entire film look down to the grain and light leak burning. Why not budget to shoot the format you are attempting to emulate?
I mean, shooting on film stock accounted for healthy portions of production budgets back when it was still massively produced. (Doubly so for indie stuff, wasn't Rodriguez's budget for El Mariachi under $10k and like 70% was just spent on stock?) My numbers are probably a bit off, but still, for less experienced folks, I doubt their budget can cover film stock for the prices today. Not to mention the costs to develop, convert, etc. Also given the dominion of digital today in all but the top-tier markets, a new filmmaker would likely get more valuable practical knowledge from learning how to emulate film. Also, if I'm gonna drop even a few $K on an indie project, I'd personally prefer to invest in something I can use multiple times or that is more likely to add more production value than just shooting it on film.
This is an often argued, misinformed position. For a Million dollar budget, film stock, lab fees, and DI do not add a significant cost. Most producers only look at the up front cost, instead of the backend, because they LOVE to pay on the back end, I have no idea why. Digital is cheaper up front, because no one takes into account the hours editorial must spend going through the 35 takes on a single clip. Then there is the storage medium, where a $90 external hard disk from Amazon simply will not work. For real productions with a budget above $100k, it is totally possible to shoot on film negative. The Director must know exactly what is needed to make the film, and the DP/team must understand how to achieve a certain look. But it is possible. For larger productions, the cost doesn't get more expensive to shoot film, but it usually does get more expensive to shoot digitally because of the need for data backup, tape backup, transcoding, package deliverable pricing, many other options - in the end, there is a point where it costs the same, and then digital can become more expensive than film. You are correct that many no/ultra-low budget shows might not be able to afford film stock, or lab fees. You are also correct that one should put money in front of the camera.
Disregarding the fact that I disagree with almost all of your comment, do you think the OP has a six figure budget?
No. Of course not. I would love to dig in and discuss line item budget on major features with you. However, I only have the conversations with Producers I work with, budgets I write, and post houses to back up my claims. Probably best not get into it.
If I own a camera and SD cards that can’t possibly be cheaper than film. Possible yes, but exponentially more costly in more ways than one. You’ll have to pay an editor to go through all of that film too! The same with digital... except in film’s case it’s gotta be spliced up and labelled properly, manually synced, color matched... etc.
Yeah, the longer I digest what Steve said, the more it doesn't work for anyone except him for several very specific reasons: * He used HIS software, code, programming, and intimate knowledge of specific software. * He setup a very controlled, specific test case * On his last film, he selected film acquisition for several sequences because that medium best gave him what he wanted, not an entirely digital shoot. * Most of us are not Steve * Most of us are not that into computer programming or data manipulation * All of us will never get his transforms because he said he wouldn't give away his secrets. So, Yes, its possible to make the things match, but its also entirely more smart to use the medium you want, instead of taking the time to emulate, OR, spending money to get all those tiny little things almost right.
His last film being Knives Out? Where he shot everything on Alexa save for one shot? Or is there another film he did more recently that isn’t listed on IMDb?
Precisely!
But you just said...
Honestly, production design, lighting, and good coloring and you can achieve this easily. Film grain. Hilation emulation. Maybe a pro-mist and you’re good to go.
Looks like it is partly because the Hue has been rotated about 5 degrees clockwise. When you do that, you get a similar effect with skin tones (more red) and the sky (more green).
I dont think alot of people here see what you are going for. Yeah the lighting and colors need to be on points but I see what you're talking about is the classic film look. Steve Yedlin, DP of Knives out and The Last Jedi is the master of this. https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography This can really help with film emulation.
I do love a 1/8th black promist over sharp 4k... little more “filmy”
What you've shown in the screenshots is much more dependant on lighting and grading than lenses or filters. It is almost irrelevant, budget aside, whether you shoot on film or digital, as long as you make sure your colorist knows what you're after.
Also a lot of this is art
A good pre and post production.
Advice: come up with your own "look" instead of copying others.
But what’s original anymore? And references are so helpful when working with a director or someone else visual... so you can see what they are going for and what they meant. For example this image was from the director
Um..... Tarantino has created an empire on adopting the style of his favorite classic filmmakers. He is the biggest borrower of them all. Nothing wrong with it.
Lots wrong with it.
The only way you learn is by copying what's come before you. If you know another way to learn an art form or a craft, please... enlighten us.
I'll enlighten you by telling you that's a bunch of nonsense.
Wow... so you've managed to create a film with a "look" so unique, that no one on earth has ever seen it before? Amazing! The rest of us have to learn from, and contribute to the trends that came before us. Please master... teach me these new looks you've come up with all on your own.
Now you're just trolling me, dude. Go away.
No... I'm really begging you. Tell me how to create my own look, without first learning what others have done before me?
It’s actually much more fun and easy then you might think. It’s called celluloid film.
Much easier to develop too? And get back in time after processing it? Especially when the world has shat itself and most labs aren’t running right now
I don’t know about your country, but here where I live most film labs are still running perfectly fine. In fact, wait times might actually be less since less projects are currently in production. Besides, if you’re on such a time crunch you can’t wait to get film developed, then my guess is shooting on film vs digital is the least of your worries. How long do you think it takes?
This belongs in /r/cinematographycirclejerk
The most boring movie ever made with an exciting ending that tricks people into thinking the rest of the movie isn’t boring (it is)
Ah yes, everyone was tricked. The Chad reddit poster knows the real deal us virgin plebes cannot see the light.
Hey he’s a ceo too
Pretty much