“Well I’m not Gareth Edwards.”

not everyone is Gareth Edwards and is surrounded by teams of people wanting to work with us

shot on iPhone. see? Cameras don’t matter.

@@impatrickt if it doesn't matter, we would get oscar winning iphone films no?

@@gwm-btdbattlesagar.ioandmo9988 we would if someone bothered to make them. the accessibility of technology just highlights the lack of talent and ambition of the world.

​@@impatrickt💯

Well hey come watch the Frame & Reference podcast, used a C500mkII for the first two years lmao

Hands down my favorite cinematographer

⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 10/10 -OY3AH! “ say no more “

I couldn't agree more!

He is just able to to cut the BS

His name is Greig. Just a simple respect thing.

I love having to explain the concept of rendering to a neophyte... they think it just comes out “poof” perfect, seamless and ...instantly. 😆😞😤

That’s true bro i understand i Am vfx artist 2

Haha. Thanks for watching 🤘

^ what he said. I agree with what he said.

not a perfect movie but it had so much soul, a flawed masterpiece

@@multiversescriptutes8400 I can dislike something you liked. No need to get rude. If you think the script is great, cool, my opinion won‘t lessen your enjoyment of the film.

@@multiversescriptutes8400 Ok… hope you‘re happy now.

Maybe in the future a director’s cut would help? Kinda lost its’ soul in the end sequences... spectacle heavy. Didn’t ruin it for me, I love spectacle vfx, but character resolution rushed, Hollywood kiss, etc.

@@multiversescriptutes8400 Perhaps you should let the adults have their conversation. 4chan is that way.

Appreciate you watching. Cheers!

Except many films from ye olde days looked awful. Flat functional lighting/cinematography and crappy film stock. What this video and the film demonstrates is that what is in front of the camera and how you light it, matters enormously. Far more than the film of digital camera used. A lot big films in their time now look really cheap and a bit pants, even when compared to modern low budget TV shows. Heck many KZfaq videos look better. Also if every one makes films look like this, then by definition there's nothing unique about the look. The orange and teal look because a cliche in itself, twenty-ish years back. So thankfully disappeared for a while. I'd also say there's more variety of looks in modern film than when film was the norm, because not only do you have effectively way more film stocks, but far more ability to tweak how images look.

@@JeremyLawrence-imajez I strongly disagree. It's extremely hard to make digital look good, and it's extremely hard to make film look bad. The reason is that digital footage is always color graded, either in-camera or in post, and there's no restrictions on unnatural colors, like skin tones that are impossible in real life, giving you that trademark stale, fake-looking digital look. And studios are constantly reusing stock LUTs, producing endless streams of identical-looking content. Netflix and Marvel have a very narrow house style that they never stray from. Compare that to film, where even low-budget, poorly shot footage has a raw, gritty feel and tone, where colors and exposure degrades in natural, organic ways. It's like the difference between oil paints on a real canvas vs an 8-bit MS paint drawing. I can't think of a great digital grade that wasn't emulating the natural, organic look of film.

​ @BenjaminWhitley Sigh! You don't actually know very much about film making it would seem and a look not being to your own very specific taste is of zero interest to anyone, bar you. The term 'colour graded' is one that long predates digital. How how you graded film during its development or subsequent transfer meant you could markedly vary the look of the film. The choice of film used in camera also make a big difference. To add context, I used film for a very long time before digital and I'm not a fan of the standard video/TV/JPEG digital look. However my digital output looks very much like my film work. Because I am the one creating the aesthetic, not the camera. I recall similar nonsense being spouted online regarding digital Vs film in stills photography 20 years back. I once posted some stills in one such conversation and all the film evangelists said how these shots showed the soul of film, something that digital could never replicate. And yet they photos were all shot not just on digital, but a small sensor pocket digital camera. There is an awful lot of bad stills and footage shot on film and on digital, because the end result looking good is down the photographer/filmmaker, not the medium. Plus looking pretty is not always the goal, because that may not serve the story being filmed. Open Water was mostly shot on a cheap hi-8 camera because that home video look was more suited to that particular story than using big 35mm cameras. And it worked really well even on a massive cinema screen. Impossible skin tones and non realistic imagery in film also long predates digital. And that's without even mentioning the completely false look of B+W images. All this shows that you really didn't take in the key aspect that the video you are replying to explained. A huge part of the look of a film or indeed photograph has NOTHING to do with the capture medium of camera being used. That is specifically stated by the cinematographer. Not to mention film makers deliberately choose a look for films to better tell a story. Then there's the awkward fact that the look of film is less like how we actually see, when compared to digital. The 'problems' of film not looking realistic is precisely why it can look so nice. Film does not replicate how we see the world which we view in what marketing would call ultra HDR. The limited [and therefore very unrealistic] dynamic range of film is why it can look so good. If film had come after rather than before digital, folk would be moaning about how unrealistic film imagery looked. Film is anything but natural, it's just what we are accustomed to. That's aside from the large variety of very different looks that film can produce. BTW only one such look can be true to life. Marvel having a house style for a series of films that all interweave in same world makes perfect sense and is not an issue. Same reason why episodic TV has a consistent style. As for Netflix having a single style. Um nope. Their broadcast criteria is for high image quality, not how it looks. Though in film and TV, there has always been fashions in how things look which again has nothing with the capture medium. There's a lot of old films on Prime as it happens, shot on film and which clearly demonstrate that there is no image quality threshold too low or a film so dismal to be allowed to be shown on Prime. Another thing reason why digital can look different is that modern lenses are way sharper than say old skool Cooke lenses from last century. Shoot on old lenses and funnily enough you get an older looking style of footage. Something that gets done on period dramas set in say the 70s that are still shot digitally. Another huge benefit of digital is its low light capabilities, this means you can shoot using ambient light without using unnatural film lighting - which is a big reason so many old films look terrible, the very obvious fake lighting from big lights just off screen. The worst example I can recall are the rural Irish scenes in Spielberg's Warhorse that looked like they were shot on a planet with two suns, due to the strange light sources and multiple shadows. Loads of unnatural fill lighting was needed because using film would have meant blowing the skies out otherwise. This made made the film look fake and unreal. Which felt wrong for that grounded in real life story.

@@BenjaminWhitley there’s just as many film movies that look bad as there are digital. Stuff doesn’t look bad now specifically because of digital, if you light and art design like blade runner, you can use an iPhone and it will look phenomenal. Stop talking about cameras. It’s a futile conversation imo.

Yeah, small light and capable in the hands of someone who does genius work by operating the camera themselves with relatively less pre-planning is a great combination.

i know it's 2 movies

I am waiting for a decent copy to show up on a torrent.

Hack everything

Nothing at all original in this story. It ironically felt like a bad Chat GPT rehash of every war/action movie out there, with random and pretty much irrelevant scifi bits. Looked nice though.

thanks Jeven - 100%

thanks for watching!

Interstellar

We can all add Godzilla minus one in December I guess with a budget of 11 million or sth 🫡

@@eyuptas6590 21 years. Why?

That’s awesome!

Congratulations!

thanks for watching!

🤘

thanks for watching!

appreciate you, jon!!

yeah im excited for round 3 actually

Cheers! Thanks for watching.

Glad you enjoyed it!

cheers! thanks for watching.

Thanks!

Cheers!

Glad you enjoyed it!

Thanks!

Thanks!