F35: Los Angeles 1991. 10mins. F35, just released online

Hi Mac, again, great work!

If you don't mind sharing, how did you guys light the interior bodega scene? It came out beautifully.
 
I second Abreu's curiosity- I'm also anxious to know what fixtures or modifiers were used on the 2 guys in car shot. It looks unlit and very natural LA hazy golden sun. But I know better to assume it was simply lit by Ra.
 
Well, Matt Garret is probably the best one to ask about this.
We used the fluorescent lights in the store, and we had a couple image 80s if I'm not mistaken but that's about it. I guess by "bodega" you mean the liquor store?
For the guys in the car I asked for a negative fill to stop the bounce on the wall, but that's pretty much it. Choosing the right street and time of the day was the key.
 
Not to beat a dead horse, but after the first minute (which is all it took to realize it was not only shot gorgeously, but aesthetically just as gorgeous). That was about when I completely forgot about the image and was sucked into the film like a vortex. In other words, this film did as it was geared to do, enthrall the viewer, and enough so to where me and a bunch of colleagues screened it at work. This was the first and only time everyone stopped what they were doing and watched contently until the very end. It was that good! After I was the only one to comment on image, everyone else was talking about the story, pacing, irony of it. I can't give mac enough props on this film, maybe because it's the best short I've seen in a very long time, idk?
 
macgregor said:
could you guys keep this discussion in another thread please?
Click to expand...

I've just realised this was the thread with your movie on it, so i offer many apologies as i didn't notice that before wading in (i was fed up of misinformation!). If meesa wants to carry on he should create a new thread.

I did download the original short from vimeo, it's feels wonderful, very appropriate for the time and style. Aside from a great story the look is nicely organic. What did you use for the grain? Would you be able to talk a bit about the post path you chose?

There's a wonderful essay from Steve Yedlin and some tests comparing digital with film, he's someone that's spent a lot of a time getting the digital to where it has the same feeling as film (perhaps one of the best comparison tests out there). I feel this is much in the same vein, hence being curious about your particular process?

I don't think you've done this here, but grain is usually a two stage thing if you're emulating. There's grain on the negative and also on positive prints. So technically there are two passes, with the amount of grain and distribution different in both.

IMHO grain is perhaps one of the key subliminal factors in telling us something is 'cinematic'

cheers
Paul
 
I loved it.

As many others, I spent the first minute thinking about how nice the image was and whether I would have gone for that much grain, and then got sucked completely into the story and forgot about everything else.

The voiceover was very effective, I wouldn't complain at all. But yes, I'd also leave out the last bit of VO: the image of the blood mixing is super powerful and brings the point home by itself very effectively.

All in all: really outstanding. As usual with you.
 
Yeah well I feel this film needed grain but itms probably the last one I do where I add grain. It's funny, 10 years ago we all hated grain and wanted to use noise reduction, then for the last two years people have been adding grain like crazy. But I feel in 10 years we'll look back and we'll say **** that looka aweful dude!
So while I feel on this film it's ok to add that vintage look since the action is set 25 years ago, I'd be verycaruful on future projects. Take the revenant as an example, amazing photography and yet suuuper clean images.
 
macgregor said:
Yeah well I feel this film needed grain but itms probably the last one I do where I add grain. It's funny, 10 years ago we all hated grain and wanted to use noise reduction, then for the last two years people have been adding grain like crazy. But I feel in 10 years we'll look back and we'll say s*%t that looka aweful dude!
So while I feel on this film it's ok to add that vintage look since the action is set 25 years ago, I'd be verycaruful on future projects. Take the revenant as an example, amazing photography and yet suuuper clean images.
Click to expand...

I think I'm very much in the same boat. I've been adding slight to mild amounts of filmgrain on almost everything for the past couple of years. Partly for the dithering it provides and partly for the texture. But I'm also starting to find it more and more distracting, and am starting to prefer cleaner images. Kinda crazy when you consider how recently (historically) we've had clean, digital images for, and how fast that particular aesthetic quality has changed culturally.
 
macgregor said:
Yeah well I feel this film needed grain but itms probably the last one I do where I add grain. It's funny, 10 years ago we all hated grain and wanted to use noise reduction, then for the last two years people have been adding grain like crazy. But I feel in 10 years we'll look back and we'll say s*%t that looka aweful dude!
So while I feel on this film it's ok to add that vintage look since the action is set 25 years ago, I'd be verycaruful on future projects. Take the revenant as an example, amazing photography and yet suuuper clean images.
Click to expand...

The other thing is that the grain will look OK in the uncompressed version you see in your DI, but it'll look horrible once it gets hit by H264.
 
It looked surprisingly fine on this piece. I wasn't complaining about the quality of the grain, or even about quantity, I was just saying it was enough to make me wonder whether it was too much. I didn't arrive to any conclusion: the story sucked me in and I forgot about the grain. :)
 
macgregor said:
Yeah well I feel this film needed grain but itms probably the last one I do where I add grain. It's funny, 10 years ago we all hated grain and wanted to use noise reduction, then for the last two years people have been adding grain like crazy. But I feel in 10 years we'll look back and we'll say s*%t that looka aweful dude!
So while I feel on this film it's ok to add that vintage look since the action is set 25 years ago, I'd be verycaruful on future projects. Take the revenant as an example, amazing photography and yet suuuper clean images.
Click to expand...

That's funny because I saw the Revenant and thought it wasn't that great, photograhy wise, and he is really becoming repetitve with the glorified doc look. Talented of course but the Malick films he did fit it much better. Anyway, I had just seen it and Carol, as well as a new Superman trailer in the theater. I thought the overly clean images in the Rev. were just too video like compared to them, or if not that, just boring after a while. I realized I was MUCH more attracted to Carol, which was 16mm and truly crafted. The Superman trailer was just something great that no digital camera has done yet.

I don't know... if you want it, just shoot on film IMO.
 
VinceinLA said:
That's funny because I saw the Revenant and thought it wasn't that great, photograhy wise, and he is really becoming repetitve with the glorified doc look. Talented of course but the Malick films he did fit it much better. Anyway, I had just seen it and Carol, as well as a new Superman trailer in the theater. I thought the overly clean images in the Rev. were just too video like compared to them, or if not that, just boring after a while. I realized I was MUCH more attracted to Carol, which was 16mm and truly crafted. The Superman trailer was just something great that no digital camera has done yet.

I don't know... if you want it, just shoot on film IMO.
Click to expand...

There was some Revenant chatter in another thread and couldn't agree more, Vince. And Carol....man. Holy grail look. Lachman is simply one of best.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top