I never wanted to become "film still looks better" guy, but film still looks better. Granted, the benefits of digital outweigh film, there's definitely no going back, but gotta call it like I see it, the film looks so much better.
Digital never has looked better. Film provides such a naturalistic feel and carries what 99% of digital cameras lack: texture, latitude, color separation, film grain and not digital noise, saturation, 10000x better at rendering skin tones. You can do soooo much with film and all the different mediums that exist. In my opinion, digital is the reason cinematography and overall cinema has completely plummeted over the last decade. Because of its convenience, its made dps, directors, studios, and writers lazier than ever. It's become far too easy to make a film or tv show now. What was once, for the most part, a very particular and meticulous process, (buying the physical film, only having so many takes, dallies, development, analog color correction) has now become a "well, we can shoot however much we want and delete footage on set so who cares." This art form because of digital imagery and digital technology, (and many other factors) has turned into nothing more than "content." Mindless entertainment meant to be played in the background on your living room tv while you shift through tik toks and make amazon purchases on your phone. Obviously, there are exceptions every year, but for the most part directors and dps mainly shoot digital nowadays for its convenience and convenience only. Remember, digital cameras were created to emmulated the look of film, not the other way around. Sorry for my rant, lol. But yes, film has always looked better.
@@TweetBomb Absolute crisis in movie lighting, in particular. No need to do an elaborate lighting set up, digital will capture everything! Most productions have that flat, low contrast, underlit look, as a result. And it's a two sided attack! Lower budget films do it for "a naturalistic look" and big budget films do it to make it easier to add CGI in post. Dire time. Everything looks like procedural television.
@@JohnnyCashavetes Don't get me wrong, I think that the convenience of digital imagery as well as social media is a dream for an independent filmmaker. It allows them the opportunity now more than ever to put their work out there for it to be seen by millions without having to break the bank on film. (very expensive for indie filmmakers, even 16mm) But for the life of me I cannot understand why as a professional you would choose to shoot on digital over film for any visual reason; it's literally only because of its convenience and "yOu HaVe MoRe To WoRk WiTh In PoST." What happened to putting an unparalleled amount of effort on getting the shot IN CAMERA? The most recent example of how digital is killing cinematography and cinema which is very much a visual medium, people often forget, (it's why we don't shoot movies on iphones) is Spider-Man: No Way Home. That production had a 200 million dollar budget and you cannot convince me that it was not shot by first year film students. It is the dullest, flatest, laziest highest grossing movie I have ever seen. They literally blued screened a cemetery LOL. Granted, the story was great and I enjoyed it in that regard but that doesn't excuse how boring and terrible the cinematography was in that movie. Contrast that to say the cinematography of TENET with the same budget, and you'd think NWH was just a really good fan film. Lastly, (sorry for rant) I will say the only digital camera that I really find visually pleasing is RED's first camera: the Red One Mx, most notably used to shoot the Social Network. It actually provides such a unique and cinematic look while still retaining a very nice level of softness that isn't overly digital. With these insanely high budgets, I don't know why more productions don't shoot on 65mm and 65 IMAX and release 70mm and 70 IMAX prints. Seems like it's really only Nolan, PTA, and Tarantino. 65mm and 65 IMAX produce the most gorgeous images and for the life of me I don't understand how a dp and director with 200-250 million dollar budgets choose to shoot on a those digusting ugly soulless Arri digital cameras. End of rant, lol. Also, your analysis is 100% spot on.
@@TweetBomb I think they thing about Marvel is that it has to do with the over lighting and improper color grade. Flat ultra neutral lighting makes digital elements easier to integrate. The Alexa is not inherently ugly or soleless and it is not what’s causing the downfall of cinema. Gifted filmmakers were able to use it to give us work like Moonlight, Ida, Green Room, Cold War, The Marvelous Mrs.Maisel (although that one is more about the great blocking and art department), The Shape of Water, You Were Never Really Here, Honey Boy, The Revenant, Nightmare Alley, I could keep going. I kind of resent the “cinema is dying or declining” argument because more often than not, it’s coming from people with a very narrow view on what cinema is and should be. Chaplin called sound the decline of cinema and Tarkovsky called color film the decline of cinema. Yes, the instant gratification formula of capitalism has made the form more disposable, but guess what, that happened to literally everything else. Our furniture, our food, our homes, our technology, our very lives are more disposable as we all just try to survive and work with what little we get to make something meaningful to us during it. Yes the Oscars are never going to pull in Super Bowl numbers again, yes, the majority of genuinely great, memorable films are more often than not going to be played on televisions, those movies will still exist and impact someone and there will always be a place for them in some capacity, just not in a multiplex or on a 35mm print. It’s a bummer but it’s the concessions cinema has to be willing to make to survive, just like the rest of us. Maybe a new radical shift will take place that brings some of the reverence for it back but planting your feet in the ground and refusing to accept what’s happening is only going to make sure it gets left behind and dies.
@@TweetBomb I pretty much disagree with everything you said. Comparing film to digital today, both when it comes to the ascetics it can produce and the capability of the medium, has reached its end. Digital won. Digital is better. That doesn't mean film cant look stunning, and OFTEN do. But it's a dead medium. And can we please stop referring to "film grain" as this magical dust that makes every shot beautiful. Film grain is simply an artifact of the first medium that could capture an image. Thats it. We don't see film grain in real life. If film grain was never a thing, and was introduced today, we would all agree it's completely distracting. The only reason some people still have this emotional attachment to it, is because it reminds us of our favourite movies. It's been romanticised completely out of proportion. Do many films today look like they were shot and color collected by the same team? Yes. Do many films today have "boring" cinematography void of any character that could have literally been shot by anyone? Yes. But that has nothing to do with digital, and everything to do with talent. If PTA shot his next movie digitally, he would make it look and feel like he wanted it to look and feel, because he care. Because he has talent. You dont remember the horribly boring looking films from the past, shot on film, because you look at the past through rose coloured glasses. Digital has won, because it has become superior in every aspect. Every single one. You can literally make digital look and feel like anything, even if you wanted it to look like film you could do so and make it completely indistinguishable from real film. I remember seeing a press conference with Tarantino where some students told him they were starting to use 8mm at heir film school and Tarantino smiled and told her that this was a wonderful thing. NO ITS NOT! It's a horrible thing. Film has become this illusion of talent that seems to brainwash so many filmmakers these days. Someone like Stanley Kubrick would have never touched film if he could have used a modern digital camera back when he started.
I honestly still find the film beautiful. It's not an 'accurate' image but has a surreal painting like look aesthetic to it. Specially the night shot. I can see how it can work for a specific look or a project.
As far as I understand Euphoria exclusively has access to Ektachrome in 35mm for motion picture. Meaning Kodak exclusively is sending them it in 400ft / 1000ft quantities. Ektachrome in 35mm is only available to the public for still 36x exposure photography. So if that's the case, it's not something that can be replicated today.
As far as i know you can order Ektachrome in 400ft rolls just by calling up kodak. Some ebay people already did so and are selling their home spooled 36 exp canisters
Aspiring director here (only done a few low budget ads), I'm so happy youtube recommended one of your vids, I've watched them all, thank you so much for putting these out there for ppl to enjoy and learn.
I'm glad they shot on 35mm haha. That grain intensity of the 16mm variant would've been so distracting. To the lighting part, I remember reading that they had to go crazy on the lighting budget to compensate for the limitations of the range that the stock is usable. Idk, it's an interesting looking stock, but I was much more fond of what you got from the Komodo, at least in these examples. The exception being the shot against the red backdrop; absolutely gorgeous. But at least I know for the future now that I'd rather go Vision3 neg if I shot film. Appreciate you sharing this!
It's important to note that the film stock is usually almost grainless on 16mm when processed as a positive. Negative processing completely destroys the fine grain characteristics and exceptional color rendering on 16mm. This isn't really a fair assessment of this film stock, when developed in e-6 it's truly one of the finest films Kodak has ever produced.
@@brilligfilms You are absolutely correct. I have shot a handful of E100 on 16mm and processing as a color positive gives very excellent fine grain. I was wondering why this looked so grainy!
The grain here, especially in the skies, is also being mutilated by the RUclips bitrate - even at 4K. I'm sure it looks much better in the original scans, although I'm a bit of a grain fetishist so take that with a grain of salt. 😅
They cross processed the Ektachrome 35mm which was brought back specifically for the show. E6 chemistry gives a more color accurate effect because that's its native chemistry. That being said, it's already an incredibly contrasty stock because it's reversal. I'd say you get about 7 stops of range with it. I always expose it 1/2 a stop under, rating it at 150 instead of 100. Unlike negative stock you do not have a lot of flexibility. I think filmmaking wise Euphoria is amazingly done. I know some of the key crew and they used Ektchrome for most of the show with some 500T as well. Really incredible! I love that Bed shot Lewis, that was amazing!
I’d love to see a video on your exposure techniques for film! As someone who has yet to shoot film, I’ve always wanted to learn more about those exposure practices and apply them to a digital workflow. Almost as a way of practicing for film without having to shoot a whole bunch of test rolls. At the end of the day, I’d like to learn more ways to treat any digital camera like a film camera
Your video topics are so well-chosen and documented it's INSANE. You're truly one of the most inventive, knowledgable, and digestible filmmaking storytellers on this platform right now. I cannot wait to watch you blow up as the year goes on. Grateful for all your knowledge and the joy that your uploads give me!
I had no idea that they processed the euphoria film as a negative. Seems like more work than payoff. LOVED the tests you put out though. fantastic video.
The shot at 5:40 has a more interesting look than the Komodo. It doesn't reveal as much as the digital shot. Also, I like the way the highlights on her arm look over the digital version, even though her arm was on a different posture the film version has a more paint like look to it.
Gorgeous footage and colours! To answer your question, any decent look LUT designed for a Cineon scan is applying a film print emulation and is going to assume that the image is a traditional Cineon negative technical scan conforming to the spec, and not just a "flat pass" from positive film stock. So broadly speaking, given how front loaded the creative decisions are when shooting this way, what you're doing in post is correct as far as just doing minor tweaks. It could be beneficial to shoot with a filter since that saves throwing away more dynamic range in post when removing the green cast if the filter already offsets that. But then the question would be how much is the cross processing still contributing? It would be interesting to shoot a grey card with and without the cross processing, with and without correction filters to compare what you get and maybe design a technical transform based on that.
I agree! I would like to see camera tests comparing what different scenarios does to Ektachrome and decide what gives the best results. I’m sure the camera and lighting team on Euphoria did lots of testing, and I hope they would share it one day. I also asked the colorist for Euphoria, Tom Poole, what he did with the 500T and Ektachrome to make it look the way it did in the show, and he just said: “I built my own LUT for the 500T The x-process Ekta comes in super flat with green mids and magenta highlights. Was a lot of work, but worth it”
Really don't understand why they did this. The whole point of positive films is, well, that they're a positive. In the old days that meant threading a projector and being able to watch home movies you shot on Ekta/Koda-chrome. Positives invariably have terrible latitude in comparison to colour negative (less than a third of the dynamic range or something like that) and look pretty bad as you showed when cross-processed. Not sure how they are in ECN-2, only ever really seen C-41 but I can't imagine there's a whole lot of difference. I love shooting film but, eh, I'd just shoot colour neg and either filter it or grade and keep the shadows. And save money!
This was beautiful. I love seeing things truly fall into black and the discipline of getting the look right from the get go. I'd love to see more film videos from you when you have the time/resources/inspiration 🙏
Usually you cross process the positive because you want to keep the funky colors for a stylized look, not grade it out. They would do that a lot before there was a DI and utilize photochemical processes to achieve certain looks. Bleach bypass is a good example. You can get that same look now very easily in the DI, but before then it had to be done photochemically. Also, loved the green tones in the ektachrome shot with the girl in the room with the 1200D punching through the window. Had a totally different feel to it and emotion to it. Love your vids Lewis!
Having started my career on 16mm It’s the last thing I would ever want to shoot on in 2022, LOL. But I understand the curiosity and the very rare circumstance where it would be aesthetically perfect.
Just found this channel and by far the best I have found. For your cinematography videos, can you do some with some diy/consumer setups? Love these vids
Nothing can match the look the organic film provides, be it negative or positive. Its best to manually grade film footage. That how it has been done for decades, there was no LUT back then. You did it right!
dude the 16mm gives that scary image, it like horror classic, we can see the pixel in pellecul that keep bomping sometimes, it get that grain frames, holly shut, dont joke with old stuff guys, todays camera like like angels not evils,
I don't think the shot of the person laying in bed is anything worse just because the shadows get cut out. To me a prime example of WHY to use film, that sharp transition from contrasty lights to pitch-black can't be digitally manifactured.
Hell yeah new film channel to binge unique vibe! I have ektachrome super 8 I’ve been dying to use but need to find a super 8 camera. Used 16mm bolex a few years ago with some normal stocks, so cool they got ektachrome now!
I think the reason the LUT won't work is due to scanning being a variable process. Scans from different scanners and different places will all come out differently. It generally still relies on the operator setting the RGB light levels to illuminate the film, and setting the cameras gamma/gain level. It would only really work if these things were locked in, and the LUT was created from this. I think getting into the colour wheels/curves in resolve yourself is the best way to get the look you want. there will be a heap of range for adjustment.
We are at a place where film is not better just different. And even that difference can be emulated pretty well now because it’s a subtractive process from a digital file instead of an additive process with the film stock if trying to match digital for some reason. I like the film look but the dynamic range & latitude paired with easier workflow makes shooting digital the go to process. Would only shoot film now for the process but not for the end goal.
I kinda wish they shot it on 16mm now - 35mm is nice but I find it offers diminishing returns with how good digital is now, and how close you can get it to 35mm. 16mm has a look that we haven't full captured with emulation. I've re-watched SPENCER like 5x now and I'm obsessed with that image.
Yeah man, Spencer is a great unique looking movie! I know what you mean by not getting there with emulation for 16mm, but I think you can get pretty close, you just have to add so much grain, blur and shit to the image that I think when people try it they don't commit 100% because you really have to destroy the image to get there hah
@@lewispotts yeah filmbox's 16mm is really great too. I got pretty close in my Taco Bell one but I probably could have pushed it further. ruclips.net/video/MyWRJshfYcg/видео.html
film looks better. Nothing is more magical than getting back your negative and watching it for the first time. It feels like opening a treasure chest every time. It always looks better than you think it will and it always surprises you. Very sad that a whole generation of young filmmakers will never get to experience this.
Great video as always, I really enjoy the chill vibe and your cinematography. Quite a tall mac mini in the background there... Although I don't shoot analog I still want to pick up my camera and go try out some of your lighting techniques.
Really interesting to see Ektachrome being used on Euphoria and other TV shows, such as Atlanta and Succession, opting to shoot on film rather than digital. Donald Glover recently spoke about wanting season 3 of his show to feel "cinematic" which likely contributed to his and director Hiro Murai's choice to employ the medium. Funny that a format which has always brought incredibly rich images into movie theatres could now become the go-to for high-end television! Excellent video as usual Lewis, I'm going to pick up some Super8 Ektachrome now :D
This is so beautiful, I mean, it have a mood specific. It's amazing how the image becomes instantly full of an nostalgic emotion, as if our memories were.. like, fading into the messiness that is our minds while we getting older. But I'm curious, which lens do you use on your bolex? I loved it too
This is fascinating, great video. I shoot a lot of film stills and genuinely love how larger formats look compared to their digital counterparts. For example a 6x7 negative out of say a Mamiya RB or RZ gives you something that I just love. Even with a Phase One digital back, which is the largest digital sensor available practically, the super sharpness feels a bit unreal to me. However, I came away from this thinking, wow the final graded Komodo footage looks incredible lol. I find myself asking difficult questions about why in stills I prefer analogue in larger formats, but when it comes to the moving image, something like the Komodo is a clear winner in this direct comparison. Admittedly, shooting in 16mm AND cross processing is asking something of this stock that it isn't really up to, but that's just my opinion. I guess we all just have to be Chris Nolan now and just shoot everything in IMAX on massive negatives. That's not too expensive or overboard for my corporate jobs right guys....right?
This is about cross processing Ektachrome 100D 16mm and your skillfull results. Wonder what a guy like you could do with correctly exposed and processed Ektachrome! First rule I've learned is with negative you meter for the shadows you want to keep because there is much room for the highlights. With Ektachrome you more look after your highlights and enjoy the shadows going black if they want to so you have to avoid underexposure of important areas.
+1 on the Yedlin philosophy. It relieves me to know that getting the film look is a weird obsession (albeit one I like) that is pretty unnecessary. Learning what you like in an image matters most, and learning to get your image there on set and in post is all that matters. Film has to be manipulated with formulas anyways, so create your own. I like knowing I can add grain and halation and hate weave if I want it to evoke a feeling, and use one of the many emulation plugins and powergrades out there that has matched film stocks close enough to give you some off the shelf options to then adjust to your liking.
Thanks for sharing! I’ve shot reversal film photography, by I’ve been wanting to try out some 16mm Ektachrome on my SR2. Obviously lighting and framing is the biggest part of what makes your images look so good, but I like what you got with the film! 👏🏽
Very off topic and not the important thing to take away but MY MAN GOT THE MAC MINI STUDIO how is it so far? Have you done work on it or is it a personal computer? It would be wonderful to know someone's experience with it in film/editing since that would be my use case if i got one (also which chip is it i guess is an importation question) Love your videos!
Hey Lewis. Huge fan of your work! Your content is so educational - thank you! I wanted to ask you if you could break down a short film that you shot? What were your thoughts on lenses/focal lengths in the different shots, lighting, blocking etc. That could be very interesting to see. Cheers from Denmark
thanks for sharing this vid Lewis. I recently shot on 200ft of 16mm 50D and 35mm 250D and 500T. It's still at the lab and I'm curious how it will look, there's one mistake I made which was having to use 250D for the final shots inside with Tungsten. Since they will convert the negative and balance for daylight, I hope it's not too hard to correct the ending portion of the film which will be all blue I think, (fingers crossed) I wanna make a video talking about it too hehe.
If I had to guess, I'd say there's not really a conversion to do (cineon or otherwise) since it's a positive film. My assumption is that it's basically "709" as-scanned.
i always hate when people say "oh but you can have the same thinh digitally" because it misses the whple fucking point of what makes film such a beautiful thing.
Hey Lewis cool video and awesome work in general. What would you say where does the Ektachrome sit in terms of WB? Is it just a normal daylight stock? Or would you say in the end its so extreme it doesn’t really matter? Do you think by giving the film more light you could have gotten more out of the film in terms of color and latitude? If you eg underexpose vision3 that much, you also lose vital information in the negative. Are you planning on doing a non reversal process with Ektachrome as well?
I never wanted to become "film still looks better" guy, but film still looks better. Granted, the benefits of digital outweigh film, there's definitely no going back, but gotta call it like I see it, the film looks so much better.
Digital never has looked better. Film provides such a naturalistic feel and carries what 99% of digital cameras lack: texture, latitude, color separation, film grain and not digital noise, saturation, 10000x better at rendering skin tones. You can do soooo much with film and all the different mediums that exist. In my opinion, digital is the reason cinematography and overall cinema has completely plummeted over the last decade. Because of its convenience, its made dps, directors, studios, and writers lazier than ever. It's become far too easy to make a film or tv show now. What was once, for the most part, a very particular and meticulous process, (buying the physical film, only having so many takes, dallies, development, analog color correction) has now become a "well, we can shoot however much we want and delete footage on set so who cares." This art form because of digital imagery and digital technology, (and many other factors) has turned into nothing more than "content." Mindless entertainment meant to be played in the background on your living room tv while you shift through tik toks and make amazon purchases on your phone. Obviously, there are exceptions every year, but for the most part directors and dps mainly shoot digital nowadays for its convenience and convenience only. Remember, digital cameras were created to emmulated the look of film, not the other way around. Sorry for my rant, lol. But yes, film has always looked better.
@@TweetBomb Absolute crisis in movie lighting, in particular. No need to do an elaborate lighting set up, digital will capture everything! Most productions have that flat, low contrast, underlit look, as a result. And it's a two sided attack! Lower budget films do it for "a naturalistic look" and big budget films do it to make it easier to add CGI in post. Dire time. Everything looks like procedural television.
@@JohnnyCashavetes Don't get me wrong, I think that the convenience of digital imagery as well as social media is a dream for an independent filmmaker. It allows them the opportunity now more than ever to put their work out there for it to be seen by millions without having to break the bank on film. (very expensive for indie filmmakers, even 16mm) But for the life of me I cannot understand why as a professional you would choose to shoot on digital over film for any visual reason; it's literally only because of its convenience and "yOu HaVe MoRe To WoRk WiTh In PoST." What happened to putting an unparalleled amount of effort on getting the shot IN CAMERA? The most recent example of how digital is killing cinematography and cinema which is very much a visual medium, people often forget, (it's why we don't shoot movies on iphones) is Spider-Man: No Way Home. That production had a 200 million dollar budget and you cannot convince me that it was not shot by first year film students. It is the dullest, flatest, laziest highest grossing movie I have ever seen. They literally blued screened a cemetery LOL. Granted, the story was great and I enjoyed it in that regard but that doesn't excuse how boring and terrible the cinematography was in that movie. Contrast that to say the cinematography of TENET with the same budget, and you'd think NWH was just a really good fan film. Lastly, (sorry for rant) I will say the only digital camera that I really find visually pleasing is RED's first camera: the Red One Mx, most notably used to shoot the Social Network. It actually provides such a unique and cinematic look while still retaining a very nice level of softness that isn't overly digital. With these insanely high budgets, I don't know why more productions don't shoot on 65mm and 65 IMAX and release 70mm and 70 IMAX prints. Seems like it's really only Nolan, PTA, and Tarantino. 65mm and 65 IMAX produce the most gorgeous images and for the life of me I don't understand how a dp and director with 200-250 million dollar budgets choose to shoot on a those digusting ugly soulless Arri digital cameras. End of rant, lol. Also, your analysis is 100% spot on.
@@TweetBomb I think they thing about Marvel is that it has to do with the over lighting and improper color grade. Flat ultra neutral lighting makes digital elements easier to integrate. The Alexa is not inherently ugly or soleless and it is not what’s causing the downfall of cinema. Gifted filmmakers were able to use it to give us work like Moonlight, Ida, Green Room, Cold War, The Marvelous Mrs.Maisel (although that one is more about the great blocking and art department), The Shape of Water, You Were Never Really Here, Honey Boy, The Revenant, Nightmare Alley, I could keep going. I kind of resent the “cinema is dying or declining” argument because more often than not, it’s coming from people with a very narrow view on what cinema is and should be. Chaplin called sound the decline of cinema and Tarkovsky called color film the decline of cinema. Yes, the instant gratification formula of capitalism has made the form more disposable, but guess what, that happened to literally everything else. Our furniture, our food, our homes, our technology, our very lives are more disposable as we all just try to survive and work with what little we get to make something meaningful to us during it. Yes the Oscars are never going to pull in Super Bowl numbers again, yes, the majority of genuinely great, memorable films are more often than not going to be played on televisions, those movies will still exist and impact someone and there will always be a place for them in some capacity, just not in a multiplex or on a 35mm print. It’s a bummer but it’s the concessions cinema has to be willing to make to survive, just like the rest of us. Maybe a new radical shift will take place that brings some of the reverence for it back but planting your feet in the ground and refusing to accept what’s happening is only going to make sure it gets left behind and dies.
@@TweetBomb I pretty much disagree with everything you said. Comparing film to digital today, both when it comes to the ascetics it can produce and the capability of the medium, has reached its end. Digital won. Digital is better. That doesn't mean film cant look stunning, and OFTEN do. But it's a dead medium. And can we please stop referring to "film grain" as this magical dust that makes every shot beautiful. Film grain is simply an artifact of the first medium that could capture an image. Thats it. We don't see film grain in real life. If film grain was never a thing, and was introduced today, we would all agree it's completely distracting. The only reason some people still have this emotional attachment to it, is because it reminds us of our favourite movies. It's been romanticised completely out of proportion. Do many films today look like they were shot and color collected by the same team? Yes. Do many films today have "boring" cinematography void of any character that could have literally been shot by anyone? Yes. But that has nothing to do with digital, and everything to do with talent. If PTA shot his next movie digitally, he would make it look and feel like he wanted it to look and feel, because he care. Because he has talent. You dont remember the horribly boring looking films from the past, shot on film, because you look at the past through rose coloured glasses. Digital has won, because it has become superior in every aspect. Every single one. You can literally make digital look and feel like anything, even if you wanted it to look like film you could do so and make it completely indistinguishable from real film. I remember seeing a press conference with Tarantino where some students told him they were starting to use 8mm at heir film school and Tarantino smiled and told her that this was a wonderful thing. NO ITS NOT! It's a horrible thing. Film has become this illusion of talent that seems to brainwash so many filmmakers these days. Someone like Stanley Kubrick would have never touched film if he could have used a modern digital camera back when he started.
I honestly still find the film beautiful. It's not an 'accurate' image but has a surreal painting like look aesthetic to it. Specially the night shot. I can see how it can work for a specific look or a project.
I love crushed blacks from a print look, the saturation, and the highlights. It’s all pretty special.
As far as I understand Euphoria exclusively has access to Ektachrome in 35mm for motion picture. Meaning Kodak exclusively is sending them it in 400ft / 1000ft quantities. Ektachrome in 35mm is only available to the public for still 36x exposure photography. So if that's the case, it's not something that can be replicated today.
You're still able to get 16mm and S8mm for it. Also a big production like Euphoria could still request 35mm
@@ahmadbani1452pretty sure 35mm motion ektachrome is available to buy. I could be wrong, but I believe it’s available.
As far as i know you can order Ektachrome in 400ft rolls just by calling up kodak. Some ebay people already did so and are selling their home spooled 36 exp canisters
We'll see how "exclusive" it is when they get a little Kaczynsky letter.
It's available through Kodak directly, either through Rochester or the LA office.
Aspiring director here (only done a few low budget ads), I'm so happy youtube recommended one of your vids, I've watched them all, thank you so much for putting these out there for ppl to enjoy and learn.
Love the video! There really is no one else on youtube doing what you do, and as in depth as you do it. Always a treat when you upload
Thanks!
hard agree, but also shouting out wandering dp for the quality they bring in case you haven't seen their stuff
I'm glad they shot on 35mm haha. That grain intensity of the 16mm variant would've been so distracting. To the lighting part, I remember reading that they had to go crazy on the lighting budget to compensate for the limitations of the range that the stock is usable. Idk, it's an interesting looking stock, but I was much more fond of what you got from the Komodo, at least in these examples. The exception being the shot against the red backdrop; absolutely gorgeous. But at least I know for the future now that I'd rather go Vision3 neg if I shot film.
Appreciate you sharing this!
yeah... it's still gorgeous but wouldn't fit the show's crisp expressionist style
@@TheSwordfish009 Yeah, it felt like their textural direction was just as important as their color decisions.
It's important to note that the film stock is usually almost grainless on 16mm when processed as a positive. Negative processing completely destroys the fine grain characteristics and exceptional color rendering on 16mm. This isn't really a fair assessment of this film stock, when developed in e-6 it's truly one of the finest films Kodak has ever produced.
@@brilligfilms You are absolutely correct. I have shot a handful of E100 on 16mm and processing as a color positive gives very excellent fine grain. I was wondering why this looked so grainy!
The grain here, especially in the skies, is also being mutilated by the RUclips bitrate - even at 4K. I'm sure it looks much better in the original scans, although I'm a bit of a grain fetishist so take that with a grain of salt. 😅
They cross processed the Ektachrome 35mm which was brought back specifically for the show. E6 chemistry gives a more color accurate effect because that's its native chemistry. That being said, it's already an incredibly contrasty stock because it's reversal. I'd say you get about 7 stops of range with it. I always expose it 1/2 a stop under, rating it at 150 instead of 100. Unlike negative stock you do not have a lot of flexibility. I think filmmaking wise Euphoria is amazingly done. I know some of the key crew and they used Ektchrome for most of the show with some 500T as well. Really incredible!
I love that Bed shot Lewis, that was amazing!
They cross processed the Ektachrome? In ECN-2 or C-41?
The way film handles highlights is just stunning... what I'd give to have this on digital cams
I actually really like the shot at 5:39, the darkness looks quite interesting
Reminds me of fight club for some reason
I’d love to see a video on your exposure techniques for film! As someone who has yet to shoot film, I’ve always wanted to learn more about those exposure practices and apply them to a digital workflow. Almost as a way of practicing for film without having to shoot a whole bunch of test rolls. At the end of the day, I’d like to learn more ways to treat any digital camera like a film camera
Subtle flex in the background.
Your video topics are so well-chosen and documented it's INSANE. You're truly one of the most inventive, knowledgable, and digestible filmmaking storytellers on this platform right now. I cannot wait to watch you blow up as the year goes on. Grateful for all your knowledge and the joy that your uploads give me!
The best days are Lewis Potts upload days
I had no idea that they processed the euphoria film as a negative. Seems like more work than payoff. LOVED the tests you put out though. fantastic video.
Wouldn't it be less work considering labs are more likely to be setup for processing negative anyway?
Wow this was crazy informative. Loved the down to earth and calm nature of your delivery and editing style
Yeah, none of that "Whatsup guys!" Irritation
man that intro was mind blowwwwwwwinggggg
The shot at 5:40 has a more interesting look than the Komodo. It doesn't reveal as much as the digital shot. Also, I like the way the highlights on her arm look over the digital version, even though her arm was on a different posture the film version has a more paint like look to it.
You’re amazing man. Wonderful work. Really enjoyed this and so glad RUclips sent me over!
Thanks Caleb!! Appreciate all your work, I've got so much info from your videos over the years 🙂
Love the handheld shoot, glad youtube recommend me this channel and I'm a fan now! keep it rolling man! Love your work!
Gorgeous footage and colours! To answer your question, any decent look LUT designed for a Cineon scan is applying a film print emulation and is going to assume that the image is a traditional Cineon negative technical scan conforming to the spec, and not just a "flat pass" from positive film stock. So broadly speaking, given how front loaded the creative decisions are when shooting this way, what you're doing in post is correct as far as just doing minor tweaks. It could be beneficial to shoot with a filter since that saves throwing away more dynamic range in post when removing the green cast if the filter already offsets that. But then the question would be how much is the cross processing still contributing? It would be interesting to shoot a grey card with and without the cross processing, with and without correction filters to compare what you get and maybe design a technical transform based on that.
I agree! I would like to see camera tests comparing what different scenarios does to Ektachrome and decide what gives the best results. I’m sure the camera and lighting team on Euphoria did lots of testing, and I hope they would share it one day. I also asked the colorist for Euphoria, Tom Poole, what he did with the 500T and Ektachrome to make it look the way it did in the show, and he just said:
“I built my own LUT for the 500T
The x-process Ekta comes in super flat with green mids and magenta highlights. Was a lot of work, but worth it”
Now I'm very interested in a video going over Yedlin's image processing pipeline!
Really don't understand why they did this. The whole point of positive films is, well, that they're a positive. In the old days that meant threading a projector and being able to watch home movies you shot on Ekta/Koda-chrome.
Positives invariably have terrible latitude in comparison to colour negative (less than a third of the dynamic range or something like that) and look pretty bad as you showed when cross-processed. Not sure how they are in ECN-2, only ever really seen C-41 but I can't imagine there's a whole lot of difference.
I love shooting film but, eh, I'd just shoot colour neg and either filter it or grade and keep the shadows. And save money!
This was beautiful. I love seeing things truly fall into black and the discipline of getting the look right from the get go. I'd love to see more film videos from you when you have the time/resources/inspiration 🙏
this is great man, nice work!
Usually you cross process the positive because you want to keep the funky colors for a stylized look, not grade it out. They would do that a lot before there was a DI and utilize photochemical processes to achieve certain looks. Bleach bypass is a good example. You can get that same look now very easily in the DI, but before then it had to be done photochemically.
Also, loved the green tones in the ektachrome shot with the girl in the room with the 1200D punching through the window. Had a totally different feel to it and emotion to it. Love your vids Lewis!
Lovely video dude. Ektachrome looking good!
Having started my career on 16mm It’s the last thing I would ever want to shoot on in 2022, LOL. But I understand the curiosity and the very rare circumstance where it would be aesthetically perfect.
If you shoot on film do you need more light on set compared to using digital cameras?
@@smann7236 yes, you do.
Just found this channel and by far the best I have found. For your cinematography videos, can you do some with some diy/consumer setups? Love these vids
Love this video. Really cool to see the same shots in film vs digital!
Beautiful results! I tried shooting ektachrome on super 8 and found it very unforgiving
Another excellent episode Lewis! That Port Beach shot drags me back to 80s for sure.
Nothing can match the look the organic film provides, be it negative or positive. Its best to manually grade film footage. That how it has been done for decades, there was no LUT back then. You did it right!
Unbelievable timing.
Another classic, Lewis! I always love seeing your setups so much. Always a good day when you post. 🙏
Just waiting for your Merch drop to be your own film stock colab haha. Im here for it.
dude the 16mm gives that scary image, it like horror classic, we can see the pixel in pellecul that keep bomping sometimes, it get that grain frames, holly shut, dont joke with old stuff guys, todays camera like like angels not evils,
Absolutely LOOOVE that you did the same shot in film and digital to show the difference ❤
I love all your videos and am learning so much from them, but I often wonder about the process on your to-camera shots, because it's a beautiful look!
Thinking of starting my own clothing and this is what I want my look book to look like
wow, so beautiful, really helpful as a filmmaker in understanding what this film looks like out the camera
I love that u dont just hype the filmstock for no reason but talk very calmly and objective about it. youre awesome!
I don't think the shot of the person laying in bed is anything worse just because the shadows get cut out. To me a prime example of WHY to use film, that sharp transition from contrasty lights to pitch-black can't be digitally manifactured.
agreed
Lovely images mate!!
Hell yeah new film channel to binge unique vibe! I have ektachrome super 8 I’ve been dying to use but need to find a super 8 camera. Used 16mm bolex a few years ago with some normal stocks, so cool they got ektachrome now!
Very cool video Lewis, thank you for making this :)
I think the reason the LUT won't work is due to scanning being a variable process. Scans from different scanners and different places will all come out differently. It generally still relies on the operator setting the RGB light levels to illuminate the film, and setting the cameras gamma/gain level. It would only really work if these things were locked in, and the LUT was created from this. I think getting into the colour wheels/curves in resolve yourself is the best way to get the look you want. there will be a heap of range for adjustment.
We are at a place where film is not better just different. And even that difference can be emulated pretty well now because it’s a subtractive process from a digital file instead of an additive process with the film stock if trying to match digital for some reason. I like the film look but the dynamic range & latitude paired with easier workflow makes shooting digital the go to process. Would only shoot film now for the process but not for the end goal.
They've been using it for the Max (HBO) show "Winning Time" as well. Fits the 70's/80's LA time period perfectly.
Dude, your camera is not too shabby. As a matter of fact, that is a nice freaken camera.
Very emotional in film, really open my mind lewis, Thanks for VDO 😊🙏
I kinda wish they shot it on 16mm now - 35mm is nice but I find it offers diminishing returns with how good digital is now, and how close you can get it to 35mm. 16mm has a look that we haven't full captured with emulation. I've re-watched SPENCER like 5x now and I'm obsessed with that image.
Yeah man, Spencer is a great unique looking movie! I know what you mean by not getting there with emulation for 16mm, but I think you can get pretty close, you just have to add so much grain, blur and shit to the image that I think when people try it they don't commit 100% because you really have to destroy the image to get there hah
@@lewispotts yeah filmbox's 16mm is really great too. I got pretty close in my Taco Bell one but I probably could have pushed it further. ruclips.net/video/MyWRJshfYcg/видео.html
oh p.s. enjoy that studio display and Mac studio. I've been rocking it since it came out.
@@impatrickt Yeah man I tried out filmbox from a seeing that video of you talking about it, love it. Don't love the price tho.. fk
@@lewispotts I know the price SUCKS
Love your videos bro. No one else doing it like you. Genuine and knowledgeable, plus I'm from NZ so you just seem so much more likeable haha
film looks better. Nothing is more magical than getting back your negative and watching it for the first time. It feels like opening a treasure chest every time. It always looks better than you think it will and it always surprises you. Very sad that a whole generation of young filmmakers will never get to experience this.
Great video as always, I really enjoy the chill vibe and your cinematography. Quite a tall mac mini in the background there... Although I don't shoot analog I still want to pick up my camera and go try out some of your lighting techniques.
Really interesting to see Ektachrome being used on Euphoria and other TV shows, such as Atlanta and Succession, opting to shoot on film rather than digital. Donald Glover recently spoke about wanting season 3 of his show to feel "cinematic" which likely contributed to his and director Hiro Murai's choice to employ the medium. Funny that a format which has always brought incredibly rich images into movie theatres could now become the go-to for high-end television! Excellent video as usual Lewis, I'm going to pick up some Super8 Ektachrome now :D
Atlanta season 3 shot on ektachrome? Can’t find that info anywhere on the internet
@@juliank227 Not Ektachrome, just some stuff shot on Super16- I know in Season 2 they printed onto 16 to scan
This is so beautiful, I mean, it have a mood specific. It's amazing how the image becomes instantly full of an nostalgic emotion, as if our memories were.. like, fading into the messiness that is our minds while we getting older. But I'm curious, which lens do you use on your bolex? I loved it too
Excelent video, I love that you've shared your toughts on the stock and the obtained results in a truly honest way haha
Yeah, you have to overexpose by 1 to 1/2 stop. However, if you nail the exposure, it looks amazing.
This is fascinating, great video. I shoot a lot of film stills and genuinely love how larger formats look compared to their digital counterparts. For example a 6x7 negative out of say a Mamiya RB or RZ gives you something that I just love. Even with a Phase One digital back, which is the largest digital sensor available practically, the super sharpness feels a bit unreal to me. However, I came away from this thinking, wow the final graded Komodo footage looks incredible lol. I find myself asking difficult questions about why in stills I prefer analogue in larger formats, but when it comes to the moving image, something like the Komodo is a clear winner in this direct comparison. Admittedly, shooting in 16mm AND cross processing is asking something of this stock that it isn't really up to, but that's just my opinion. I guess we all just have to be Chris Nolan now and just shoot everything in IMAX on massive negatives. That's not too expensive or overboard for my corporate jobs right guys....right?
This is about cross processing Ektachrome 100D 16mm and your skillfull results. Wonder what a guy like you could do with correctly exposed and processed Ektachrome!
First rule I've learned is with negative you meter for the shadows you want to keep because there is much room for the highlights. With Ektachrome you more look after your highlights and enjoy the shadows going black if they want to so you have to avoid underexposure of important areas.
Love the opening shots
Nice work, always a cool atmosphere with your videos and a plethora of elements to learn from
Gorgeous video but I'm fucking stunned by the way you started a squarespace sponsorship what the fuck it was beautiful
+1 on the Yedlin philosophy. It relieves me to know that getting the film look is a weird obsession (albeit one I like) that is pretty unnecessary. Learning what you like in an image matters most, and learning to get your image there on set and in post is all that matters. Film has to be manipulated with formulas anyways, so create your own. I like knowing I can add grain and halation and hate weave if I want it to evoke a feeling, and use one of the many emulation plugins and powergrades out there that has matched film stocks close enough to give you some off the shelf options to then adjust to your liking.
Always a treat when a video from Mr. Potts drops.
Thanks for sharing! I’ve shot reversal film photography, by I’ve been wanting to try out some 16mm Ektachrome on my SR2.
Obviously lighting and framing is the biggest part of what makes your images look so good, but I like what you got with the film! 👏🏽
5:10 this shot is so fucking goooooooood jeeeeeeeeeeeeeez
Very off topic and not the important thing to take away but MY MAN GOT THE MAC MINI STUDIO how is it so far? Have you done work on it or is it a personal computer? It would be wonderful to know someone's experience with it in film/editing since that would be my use case if i got one (also which chip is it i guess is an importation question) Love your videos!
simply great content, lewis!
Been waiting for that Steve Yedlin video!!
Loved this!!
I think you probably have the best 'film / youtube/ creator' account.
Absolutely love your videos and how creatively you approach making ads interesting.
Don't have much to say except I love your videos. Love em. Thank you!
Been absolutely lusting for a bolex, such an amazing camera to compliment the film
5:10 that’s definitely a certain mood. It’s like she is in a lot of darkness. I can see the appeal for certain shots.
Great video. I love cross processing slide for still photography never thought of it for film. But of course its a thing.
Great video! Love that Ektachrome shot at 4:17
Hey Lewis. Huge fan of your work! Your content is so educational - thank you! I wanted to ask you if you could break down a short film that you shot? What were your thoughts on lenses/focal lengths in the different shots, lighting, blocking etc. That could be very interesting to see. Cheers from Denmark
I would love a video of you explaining Steve Yedlin's "On Color Science." I've read it 3 or 4 times and still have no clue....
Love color tones
Can you make more 16mm camera content
Love this video man!
thanks for sharing this vid Lewis. I recently shot on 200ft of 16mm 50D and 35mm 250D and 500T. It's still at the lab and I'm curious how it will look, there's one mistake I made which was having to use 250D for the final shots inside with Tungsten. Since they will convert the negative and balance for daylight, I hope it's not too hard to correct the ending portion of the film which will be all blue I think, (fingers crossed) I wanna make a video talking about it too hehe.
If I had to guess, I'd say there's not really a conversion to do (cineon or otherwise) since it's a positive film. My assumption is that it's basically "709" as-scanned.
best video I've watched in a while
Thank you.
i always hate when people say "oh but you can have the same thinh digitally" because it misses the whple fucking point of what makes film such a beautiful thing.
Lewis , thanks a lot for your content, it’s super helpful , aesthetic and the vibe is so chill ! Always waiting for the new stuff !
ugh this video really was delightful! (and nice Mac Studio u got there)
Amazing quality again 🙂
Long live film! Vision3 500T is a masterpiece film…..always the go to for me
Hey Lewis cool video and awesome work in general. What would you say where does the Ektachrome sit in terms of WB? Is it just a normal daylight stock? Or would you say in the end its so extreme it doesn’t really matter? Do you think by giving the film more light you could have gotten more out of the film in terms of color and latitude? If you eg underexpose vision3 that much, you also lose vital information in the negative. Are you planning on doing a non reversal process with Ektachrome as well?
You got the MAc Studio and Studio Display ?
Sale after this video finna jump
always exciting when a new video drops, love them, thanks!
I love your job!
thanks, Lewis.
Hey Lewis,
I am so in love with your work. It’s look all so easy but it isn’t. I shoot film too and I look up to you.
My new favorite channel
would love to see you make a video talking about Steve Yedlin's imaging pipeline processing though