I believe you touched on a topic that is kind of overlooked in the new filmmaker/dp/cinematographer department. There is no right way. There is no set law, rules or guidelines when it comes to film making. The point of the cinematographer is to help tell the story. So many young filmmakers get caught up in the "best lens" or "best camera" rut, when in reality, the focus should be on, "what is the best way to tell the story?" I love that Sandgren mentioned that he adapts to the director. He doesn't really have a style so to speak. I think that is a great principle of life, to adapt and change. Seeing it applied in film making creates magic.
Easily one of the most exciting and underrated DP's out there today. His work has tangible texture and feel that doesn't just feel like project selection or director choice.
Agreed. I have no doubt he will be recognized as one of the greats, and his best work is still yet to come. That’s a tall order considering his body of work, but Linus has a humility that allows his craft to perpetually progress.
@@s0olid He's underrated in the eyes of film fans at the moment. Most everyone knows who Chivo or Roger Deakins is at this point, but a lot of people don't know much about this guy yet. It's a shame, as I honestly think he outdid Deakins' work in Skyfall with No Time To Die (the film sucked, but it looked great). Roger's work hasn't been quite as good ever since he went full digital.
I've been looking forward to seeing you analyze Linus Sandgren. Definitely one of my favorites out there today, his style is so rich, immersive, and dreamlike to me, and I love his use of color, especially purple.
Excellent work sincerely capabilities, your way of narration and analysis of each cinematographic style is of great value to me, after seeing the incredible and style of this cinematographer I only have one request, seeing that there are several old school cinematographers who had a phenomenal job I would like to recommend for a future video ah Dean Cundey and his incredible performance in movies like Halloween or The John Carpenter Thing or also Jurassic Park, etc. It would be amazing to see a video knowing better about his past and his estimation of Cinematography from your perspective
could you do something a bit niche, would love to see the cinematography style of Mike Valentine. He does a lot of underwater shots. I know it's very niche but could be a fun watch.
So FIRST MAN mostly used handheld cameras? When I saw it, I remember the camera drifting around slightly all the time. After I had noticed it, I couldn't stop noticing it, and it drove me mad.
I have one question: does the exposure stay the same when you switch cine lenses but they are always set at the same t-stop (assuming the lighting setup remains the same throughout the shoot)?
You might get a slight change in light reaching the sensor or film if you have a large difference in focal length but the aperture setting remains the same. A switch to a longer focal length may let in slightly less light.
@@theowlfromduolingo7982 You might see a slight change between 25 to 85. That's a wide angle to a short telephoto. The extra expense of cinema lenses over photo lenses may reflect some more elaborate engineering to prevent that (as well as the extra weight), because using a zoom lens for cinema you don't want to have a slight change in exposure while watching playback. But in photo lenses you can get a slight increase in light with shorter focal lengths. That's just part of the physics of optics. In my own lenses there is a slight difference going from 200mm to 400mm. But it's only very slight.
Dude is this meant to be a collection of facile cliches and the absolute obvious. Completely shallow and meaningless comments that say nothing at all but maybe that is the point. There really is nothing to say about the creative process of filmmaking. It’s all so obvious. A dp talks to a director and incorporates that into the look of the film?! Are you kidding?!? Does that really need to be said.. seriously?!
Linus Sandgren is a great cinematographer, but I didn't like his work in NO TIME TO DIE. The soft lighting, the lens flare, and the blue color grading. All this textured imagery felt very uncharacteristic to James Bond, especially considering the movies are known for their sharp and clean look
That was the point, though. It didn't look like a classic Bond film because the character had changed, his priorities have changed, and the story had changed. It borrows a lot from old Cinemascope movies, romantic dramas because that's the style. Everything soaked in a stylized twilight because of the end. He was hired specifically because of the work "La La Land" (the purples) and "First Man" (contrast of grandness and intimacy).
Damn, I gotta concur to a degree. Was really hooked on the looks when I saw the trailers, but he seemed to have overdone the visuals, particularly on the color grading.
Take it up with Cary Fukunaga. Sandgren objectively photographed that film the way he was hired to do, and none of it was without skill. It's subjective. Many others feel his work was the best photographically on any Bond film since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. You may not prefer that strong a footprint, but make no mistake. It's not an error.
IMO, the script was not perfect, however some scenes were really intense and emotion invoking. You can't blame DP for color grading though - that's not his job. Suffice it to say, the Orange-Teal-Blue theme is annoyingly overused. Also, Daniel Craig is not getting any younger, and thus his character was inevitably on his way out of the Bond game. Surely that introduced the change and a much needed conclusion to his role as 007.
Can you do a 3 budget level video on Chazelle when Babylon comes out?
Necessary
Really it's something that can be done now with
-Guy and Madeleine at the Park Bench $60,000
-Whiplash $3.3 million
-La La Land $30 million
Whiplash, La La Land, and First Man seem to be enough for a 3 Budget Level video.
I believe you touched on a topic that is kind of overlooked in the new filmmaker/dp/cinematographer department. There is no right way. There is no set law, rules or guidelines when it comes to film making.
The point of the cinematographer is to help tell the story. So many young filmmakers get caught up in the "best lens" or "best camera" rut, when in reality, the focus should be on, "what is the best way to tell the story?"
I love that Sandgren mentioned that he adapts to the director. He doesn't really have a style so to speak. I think that is a great principle of life, to adapt and change. Seeing it applied in film making creates magic.
Easily one of the most exciting and underrated DP's out there today.
His work has tangible texture and feel that doesn't just feel like project selection or director choice.
Agreed. I have no doubt he will be recognized as one of the greats, and his best work is still yet to come. That’s a tall order considering his body of work, but Linus has a humility that allows his craft to perpetually progress.
I wouldn't call a Oscar winning DP underrated
@@s0olid He's underrated in the eyes of film fans at the moment. Most everyone knows who Chivo or Roger Deakins is at this point, but a lot of people don't know much about this guy yet. It's a shame, as I honestly think he outdid Deakins' work in Skyfall with No Time To Die (the film sucked, but it looked great). Roger's work hasn't been quite as good ever since he went full digital.
I've been looking forward to seeing you analyze Linus Sandgren. Definitely one of my favorites out there today, his style is so rich, immersive, and dreamlike to me, and I love his use of color, especially purple.
This man cannot stop making great videos
It's a good day when in depth cine releases a video
Can you do a 3 budgets on David Lynch?
GREAT VIDEO! Love all the incredible content you always make my friend :)
Excellent work sincerely capabilities, your way of narration and analysis of each cinematographic style is of great value to me, after seeing the incredible and style of this cinematographer I only have one request, seeing that there are several old school cinematographers who had a phenomenal job I would like to recommend for a future video ah Dean Cundey and his incredible performance in movies like Halloween or The John Carpenter Thing or also Jurassic Park, etc.
It would be amazing to see a video knowing better about his past and his estimation of Cinematography from your perspective
He also did Back to the Future if I'm not mistaken.
great video as always
LETS GO Ive been waiting for this
Love his philosophy ❤
Love these videos, so much great info
Great video with great in depth information😍🙏
Wonderful video
could you do something a bit niche, would love to see the cinematography style of Mike Valentine. He does a lot of underwater shots. I know it's very niche but could be a fun watch.
Loved the video.
Only thing : you didn't mention the 16mm camera when listing out the bodies he uses.
He did 11:08
His philosophy matches my own philosophy! ❤
what's the recommended camera for film academy students when doing group works?
Why are the website and store no longer up? Are there new ones? Really wanted one of those shirts :C
Do Dan Laustsen next!
Ive wondered what these jobs consisted of
Nice
So FIRST MAN mostly used handheld cameras? When I saw it, I remember the camera drifting around slightly all the time. After I had noticed it, I couldn't stop noticing it, and it drove me mad.
Can you make a video about IMAX?
Hi bro... Make it a video for Polly morgan cinematographer. "Quiet place 2" Where "the Crawdads Sing"✨✨
Cinematography style Stanley Kubrick & John Alcott. Since they worked closely together.
I have one question: does the exposure stay the same when you switch cine lenses but they are always set at the same t-stop (assuming the lighting setup remains the same throughout the shoot)?
You might get a slight change in light reaching the sensor or film if you have a large difference in focal length but the aperture setting remains the same.
A switch to a longer focal length may let in slightly less light.
@@gregorylagrange But if we have a lens set like 25, 50 and 85 all of them at T/4 it shouldn’t change too much, right?
@@theowlfromduolingo7982 You might see a slight change between 25 to 85. That's a wide angle to a short telephoto.
The extra expense of cinema lenses over photo lenses may reflect some more elaborate engineering to prevent that (as well as the extra weight), because using a zoom lens for cinema you don't want to have a slight change in exposure while watching playback.
But in photo lenses you can get a slight increase in light with shorter focal lengths. That's just part of the physics of optics. In my own lenses there is a slight difference going from 200mm to 400mm. But it's only very slight.
Ahh yes, Oscar nominated ‘Don’t Look Up’…
𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐦 🙌
Dude is this meant to be a collection of facile cliches and the absolute obvious. Completely shallow and meaningless comments that say nothing at all but maybe that is the point. There really is nothing to say about the creative process of filmmaking. It’s all so obvious. A dp talks to a director and incorporates that into the look of the film?! Are you kidding?!? Does that really need to be said.. seriously?!
Linus Sandgren is a great cinematographer, but I didn't like his work in NO TIME TO DIE.
The soft lighting, the lens flare, and the blue color grading. All this textured imagery felt very uncharacteristic to James Bond, especially considering the movies are known for their sharp and clean look
That was the point, though. It didn't look like a classic Bond film because the character had changed, his priorities have changed, and the story had changed. It borrows a lot from old Cinemascope movies, romantic dramas because that's the style. Everything soaked in a stylized twilight because of the end. He was hired specifically because of the work "La La Land" (the purples) and "First Man" (contrast of grandness and intimacy).
Damn, I gotta concur to a degree. Was really hooked on the looks when I saw the trailers, but he seemed to have overdone the visuals, particularly on the color grading.
Take it up with Cary Fukunaga. Sandgren objectively photographed that film the way he was hired to do, and none of it was without skill. It's subjective. Many others feel his work was the best photographically on any Bond film since On Her Majesty's Secret Service. You may not prefer that strong a footprint, but make no mistake. It's not an error.
Isn’t grading done by someone else?
IMO, the script was not perfect, however some scenes were really intense and emotion invoking. You can't blame DP for color grading though - that's not his job. Suffice it to say, the Orange-Teal-Blue theme is annoyingly overused. Also, Daniel Craig is not getting any younger, and thus his character was inevitably on his way out of the Bond game. Surely that introduced the change and a much needed conclusion to his role as 007.