[0:03] How often have you read a post, asking “how can I achieve a cinematic image”… ? 
[0:09] Most answers are usually that 
it is all about the……… lighting…
[0:16] Lighting is certainly very important… but what 
are the other ingredients in the “magic sauce”
[0:26] I have never seen an attempt to capture and 
answer the subject as a whole… and to provide  
[0:31] something like a recipe that might serve 
as a kind of shortcut to a much improved  
[0:37] result. And that’s why we set out to create a 
form of compendium that tries to do just that…
[0:45] See it as a very condensed curriculum of 
what a film school should teach these days. 
[0:51] This will include evaluating gear as well 
as expertise and some tips and tricks.
[0:58] Watch the screen little Starling
[1:03] If you are here, you are probably someone who 
sat in the cinema at some point and thought
[1:07] I. Want. That.
[1:11] I want to create these stories and 
these images that are so familiar,  
[1:15] yet so poetic, and powerful… just… 
magical in their very own way.
[1:20] Every image from the silver screen that 
burned into your mind poses the question…  
[1:25] what is the “magic sauce” that makes them so 
“cinematic”… are there secrets, and of course:
[1:30] How can I create those cinematic images 
myself… and where is the darn button.
[1:35] Depending on where you are on your journey, 
you might feel that what you get out of your  
[1:39] camera is not… well… cinematic in the 
way you saw it on the silver screen. 
[1:44] But why?
Sure, you don’t have  
[1:46] those fantastic actors, sets, costumes, lighting, 
and so on, but there are a ton of examples in the  
[1:52] history of film that show relatively mundane 
things that still look cinematic – while  
[1:56] yours look… well… they don’t look cinematic.
Is it really all about what happens in front  
[2:00] of the camera or is it, what happens behind the 
camera, is it where the camera is placed or how it  
[2:06] is moved, and how important is the camera itself?
Is it more about the lenses, the dynamic range,  
[2:14] maybe it about the codecs, color science, 
the grade, or some post production magic? 
[2:20] We are setting out to quantify the different 
elements of the magic sauce and provide  
[2:25] something like a recipe, or even a shortcut 
for those, who are on the journey themselves.
[2:31] We are going to evaluate all ingredients 
with examples and experiments.
[2:36] Did we arrive at a point where 
the camera is neglectable? 
[2:39] We are going deeper into technical 
qualities like resolution, dynamic range, 
[2:44] and of course we go into the relevance of 
lenses… anamorphic, vintage, spherical…  
[2:47] cheap and legendary… we are going to pitch kit 
lenses against vintage and cine lenses. Can you  
[2:51] tell the difference or is the lens choice 
largely irrelevant to an cinematic image.
[2:57] This episode is kindly sponsored by Dehancer and 
we will go into the post process and how Dehancer  
[3:03] can help you to create cinematic images… way 
beyond tuning the colors to look like film stock.
[3:09] Let’s start by meeting your “Lector” 
for all things cinematic with our spoof  
[3:13] “breaking the silence”… don’t go near the glass
[3:43] Hi, I'm Barney. He told you, 
don't get near the glass!
[3:47] If you want to now how to create a 
cinematic image he is definitely your guy 
[3:51] but whatever you do, don’t use the term lightly!
[3:55] He’s past the others in cell 667… 
the neighbour of the beast you know…
[4:25] Good morning.
[4:27] My name is Clarice Starling. May I speak with you?
[4:29] You are into filmmaking……… aren’t you?
[4:35] I am, yes.
[4:36] You are a student seeking to 
create a … cinematic image?
[4:43] Yes, I am a student, I am here to learn from you.
[4:48] Sit… Please
Now then, what does cinematic mean?
[5:04] Perhaps you care to lend us your view…
[5:07] Nothing… it means absolutely nothing!
"cinematic" describes something  
[5:14] as having the aesthetics of a film…
and isn’t that a complete circular reference
[5:22] I’m only asking you to look at this 
doctor. Either you will or you won’t.
[5:27] A director once asked me to 
make an image… more “cinematic” 
[5:32] I ate his liver with some 
fava beans and a nice Chianti.
[5:42] Let's try to deconstruct the meaning 
of "cinematic" little starling 
[5:49] fly… fly… fly
[5:57] This spoof was filmed in my living room and it 
fits so well to the original thanks to help of  
[6:02] the Dehancer film emulation plugin and there is 
a tutorial in the post section of this episode,  
[6:08] so stick around if you would like to 
create something like this yourself. 
[6:12] Our Lynch and Kubrick members will also 
get some project files for Resolve and  
[6:16] After Effect, as well as some footage 
to play with in their Action Packs
[6:25] The word “cinematic” describes 
very little but a feeling. 
[6:29] Fashion and technology has changed so much over 
a century of filmmaking that it is wild to still  
[6:34] see a connecting quality in the images.
Modern and old, analog and digital,  
[6:40] black&white and color, a highly stylised phantasy 
world, or the gritty reality in your back yard. 
[6:49] Even beyond cinema the term cinematic 
maintains its validity. Who would dare  
[6:54] to describe “Game of Thrones, Westworld, or 
Chernobyl” with anything else but “cinematic”. 
[7:03] High end advertising and music videos always 
had a cinematic approach even inspiring the  
[7:07] fashion of cinema… many fantastic filmmakers 
like Ridley Scott, David Fincher, Jonathan  
[7:13] Glazer, and Tarsem coming from that realm.
There is a thin thread that connects all… 
[7:21] A cinematic image is an image that is 
“subjective” rather than objective. 
[7:25] It is somebody else’s vision… and 
it has taken the shape and qualities  
[7:29] of that persons imagination… you could say,  
[7:32] it is reality that has been pre digested… 
or fermented if that sounds better to you. 
[7:38] We take on the view of a 
character that is never shown.
[7:38] We distilled that in the following mantra 
and use that on almost anything we shot 
[7:43] “A cinematic image is a visualised memory”. 
It shouldn’t be objective in every way. 
[7:48] A cinematic image is beautiful… even if it 
shows us terrible or ugly things… because,  
[7:53] it is crafted to be what it is. It is art.
[8:06] PART I: THE BASICS
[8:18] A film is made three times: First in the writing 
of the script, once again in the shooting,  
[8:25] and finally in the editing. This quote by 
Robert Bresson encapsulate the process very well 
[8:33] Talking to filmmakers you often hear that it is 
all about the story… which is true of course,  
[8:40] but paper and a pen will do in then, right? 
[8:44] In a cinematic context, there is obviously 
more to it. Cinema is visual storytelling 
[8:51] For this episode, we will put the story out 
of the “picture” … this will include the edit,  
[8:57] which is just as, and arguably more important 
than the filming itself for telling the story. 
[9:05] While we are talking about the image here, you 
should always remember that at the heart of it,  
[9:13] cinema is storytelling… and the 
image should tell the story.
[9:19] The most important part of 
a cinematic image is “you”.
[9:22] When we say “behind the camera” we 
are talking about the the filmmaker…  
[9:26] or the crew in a larger context.
The most important part of everything  
[9:31] is always the filmmakers …
For our context we will mean  
[9:34] “you” when we talk about the filmmaker and  
[9:36] what happens behind the camera.
A great filmmaker will always  
[9:39] create a better image than a bad one, 
even with limited resources and gear. 
[9:39] Therefore, the most important part 
of your journey should always be to  
[9:39] improve your knowledge and skill set… and, 
all the other components along your way.
[9:39] It makes a lot of sense to look at simple 
things that ruin a cinematic image… not only  
[9:44] to avoid those, but also to help us figuring 
out what makes an image more cinematic. So,  
[9:51] let’s get those out of our way, before 
we go into more sophisticated things
[10:07] This is the first film ever shot… 
it was not shot on a film camera  
[10:12] but with 16 photo cameras that where 
triggered, when the horse passed by…
[10:18] Since an early time in cinemas history,  
[10:20] the standard frame rate in 
cinema is 24 frames per second.
[10:24] If we play the 16 images at 24 frames 
per second it looks a bit choppy… 
[10:29] This is not, because there are to few frames.
This is how the film looks if we play the 16  
[10:34] images at 12 frames per second, 
and it it doesn’t look fluent 
[10:38] This is how it looks when we interpolate frames 
to 24 frames again, creating a slow motion.
[10:44] What is missing is the motion blur…
[10:46] Here we added motion blur in Post…
[10:49] When filming, every frame should be exposed halve 
the time of the frames duration, this will create  
[10:54] the most natural looking illusion of movement 
by blurring objects depending on their speed. 
[10:59] This is called a 180° Shutter.
[11:02] Of course one can have a smoother, 
sharper, and more realistic motion  
[11:06] by increasing the frame rate.
In this day and age, this is not  
[11:10] a technical issue, most cameras allow to 
shoot double or more frames per second,  
[11:15] but should you? There seems to be more to 
motion blur and frame rate than meets the eye.
[11:20] There have been experiments 
with higher frame rates again  
[11:23] and again over the history of cinema.
In the digital age, filmmaker Ang Lee,  
[11:27] who is famous for iconic movie like Life of 
Pi experimented with high frame rate movies.
[11:33] “Gemini Man” and “Billy Lynn's Long 
Halftime Walk” both used 120frames per  
[11:38] second during capture as well as during 
projection… and while you might think,  
[11:42] this doesn’t look bad right here it is a perfect 
example for the importance of frame rate.
[11:47] What you see here is 24frames per 
second as this episode is produced in  
[11:47] – you guessed it – 24 frames per second. 
We simply drop the additional frames.
[11:47] This is the scene at 24frames per second… 
and the link in the corner will get you  
[11:51] a HDR version with 60fps.
If you compare the two,  
[11:55] it demonstrates the problem.
While there is is nothing wrong  
[11:58] with all other factors that make an 
image cinematic like acting, lighting,  
[12:03] blocking… you name it, there is something wrong.
The 60fps version makes it real… arguably  
[12:10] to real. An aesthetic we are used to und 
therefore associate with broadcast programs… 
[12:16] While I totally get Lees approach to 
give Billy Lynn weight by making it real,  
[12:20] these high frame rate experiments 
didn’t find much love in the audience.
[12:25] When we talk about to avoiding high frame 
rates we cl early speak about how a film  
[12:29] is displayed in cinematic context. 
High frame rates are very valid for  
[12:33] acquisition of slow motion footage 
(snatch) or in sports and broadcast.
[12:39] It speak s for the validity of 
24 frames per second that it is  
[12:43] not based on technical limitation in 
these days, and there is more to it  
[12:47] than just the viewing habits we mentioned.
It is not only about the number of frames,  
[12:49] but about the motion blur that comes with 
180° shutter. It seems to be a sweet spot,  
[12:51] that leaves our brains enough room to interpret 
the image… as something… like… a memory. 
[12:57] The combination of 24fps with 
180° shutter is the classic look. 
[13:03] 25fps or 30fps will not look vastly 
different– many of us will remember  
[13:10] watching 24fps movies on a NTSC TV at 
60fps interlaced using a pull down…  
[13:15] looking quite cinematic. When modern TVs 
interpolate 24 fps to display high frame  
[13:25] rate, it ruins the cinematic look… 
everything looks like a cheap video.
[13:34] Importance to cinematic image: Very high
[13:37] The further we strive from 24fps we 
venture out of the cinematic sweet spot. 
[13:43] If your camera can do 24fps, and it doesn’t 
interfere with your lights or monitors… use  
[13:49] it. You can use the shutter angle to compensate 
monitor flickers and the likes. Stay as close  
[13:57] to the 180° shutter rule as possible, 
unless you have good reasons not to.
[14:04] You read it a hundred times on the usual 
platforms: Is this or that lens “sharp”, does it  
[14:10] stay sharp wide open, is it sharp edge to edge. I 
love to shot wide open … because I like it soft.…
[14:19] Almost everything you every saw in 
cinema is… not… really… that sharp. 
[14:24] This has a lot to do with technical limitation, 
or the process. But… even in modern cinema with  
[14:30] digital acquisition and 4K projection.
A “cinematic” image is in focus,  
[14:35] but it is not overly sharp, because it 
would break the magic by making it to real.
[14:40] Many of your favourite movies were 
shot on an Arri Alexa in ProRes,  
[14:44] meaning that the digital negative was 2.8K 
at best, and the master is usually 2K.
[14:50] Most people these days use hybrid cameras 
that are mainly designed for photography,  
[14:50] that means they are designed to look 
as sharp and clean as possible … some  
[14:50] leaving away the OLPF that makes 
an image a little softer in camera. 
[14:50] The result is an image that is much 
sharper in its appearance to what we  
[14:50] are used to in the analog realm.
We will later see if a classic  
[14:50] cine cam like the Alexa that has a 
strong OLPF makes a difference here. 
[14:50] With a very sharp lens designed 
for photography or broadcast,  
[14:51] this will result in an image that is unpleasantly 
sharp, detailed and … often less cinematic. 
[14:51] With digital imagining in cinema it is a lot about 
reducing the resolution in camera and in post,  
[14:51] but just using blur doesn’t look great either 
… Dehancer has a very cool feature here,  
[14:51] it can reduce the films resolution in the 
grain structure that we will show you later.
[14:51] Importance to cinematic image: High 
[14:54] In the sense that that there shouldn’t 
be to much perceived resolution.
[14:59] Always switch off all sharpness enhancing 
in camera, and don’t sharpen footage in post  
[15:05] unless you really have a good reason to do so.
There is nothing wrong with upscaling as long  
[15:12] as the chosen process doesn’t 
add details or sharpens edges. 
[15:17] Consider to reduce detail and resolution by 
filtration, by using vintage, anamorphic,  
[15:24] or detuned lenses. You can also 
reduce perceived details in post  
[15:29] without making the image look to 
soft – we will show you later how.
[15:34] Resolution in distribution is a 
completely different thing. But  
[15:38] not so much because of the resolution 
itself. Virtually all media and video  
[15:43] platforms like Netflix and YouTube allocate 
more bandwidth to higher resolution video. 
[15:49] Rather than the amount of pixels the higher 
bandwidth is what makes the image quality  
[15:55] better. Upscaling to a higher resolution 
can make a lot of sense in this context.
[16:02] Now that we got some basic “no no”s out of our 
way, let’s get more into heart of our subject.…
[16:07] Let’s start with what seems to be a super 
important ingredient… the gear. Camera,  
[16:13] lenses, and all the tools to put these into the 
right positions and movements.. the fun stuff
[16:24] Until the rise of digital acquisition in cinema, 
cameras were more about practical aspects than  
[16:29] about the image. The image itself was created by 
the film stock and its development. There were few  
[16:35] suppliers of stock – Kodak Eastman being the major 
player – and stock choices were usually limited  
[16:40] to color balance and various sensitivities. The 
chemistry of film got better and better over the  
[16:45] decades, meaning that higher ISO film with less 
grain was available. 2010s Shutter Island looks  
[16:52] very detailed … 1976 Taxi Drives look considerably 
softer. Both where shot spherical and are have a  
[16:58] nice master, it is mostly the chemistry 
of the film that makes a difference here. 
[17:03] As the negative was the limiting factor, 
lenses were usually “as sharp and contrasty  
[17:07] as possible” and not shot wide open unless 
necessary to get the right exposure. 
[17:14] Of course there were different film formats 
and variants with corresponding cameras  
[17:17] over the decades, to many to go through 
them here, but we have a pretty decent  
[17:21] roundup in our “SCOPE Chapter One if you are 
interested” Link is in the description. The  
[17:29] dominant format was and is 35mm film 
in different variants like Academy,  
[17:34] Techniscope, and Super35 that simply use more 
or less surface area from the same substrate.
[17:41] Besides the stock, Cinematographers could create 
their desired look with lighting, exposure, use of  
[17:47] different lenses and filtration, and different 
color timings or processes during development. 
[17:52] Film stock is said to offer a dynamic range 
of about 14 stops… depending on the specific  
[17:57] chemistry… and that is a lot. More than most 
digital camera offer even today. Highlights  
[18:03] clip late and the rolloff looks beautiful… on 
the other hand sensitivity is bad by digital  
[18:09] standards and under exposures quickly 
takes a toll. Super 35 is often stated  
[18:14] as having a resolution of about 4k, but that is 
largely dependent on the stock and generation. 
[18:20] 4K scans are more about preserving the 
grain structure that is important to the  
[18:25] perceived resolution. The resolution 
that a modern sensors deliver,  
[18:29] exceeds the theoretical resolution of a camera 
negative of the same size… and, the image is not  
[18:33] further degraded in a cine process requiring 
many generations from negative to screen.
[18:39] A digital 2K image has arguably enough resolution 
to preserve the details Super 35 can muster,  
[18:45] which is why it was the preferred resolution 
of masters in the digital intermediate process. 
[18:51] Analog TV cameras and Camcorders had 
much smaller formats and dynamic range  
[18:56] resulting i a very different look. Emulating 
the look of 35mm film was a sporty endeavour  
[19:02] for filmmakers including things like 
Depth of Field adapters and lighting  
[19:06] very carefully to stay within the 
dynamic range of the camcorders.
[19:10] This brings us to to the digital  
[19:11] revolution in cinema… or i it an 
evolution… I suppose it is both. 
[19:16] Here are some important steps in the 
history of digital cinema cameras
[19:21] The first cameras that where used in cinema 
and that where not video cameras designed  
[19:25] for broadcast, where Sony CineAlta cameras 
that had the same small 3 CCD technology used  
[19:31] in camcorders… requiring special lenses 
developed for the format. 2002 StarWars:  
[19:36] Attack of the clones was pioneering here. The 
CineAltas had very limited in dynamic range and  
[19:42] details … but the practical advantage to see 
what the camera was actually shooting and to  
[19:47] review takes without having to wait for 
dailies was undeniable from the get go.
[19:53] 2002 brought the Thomson Viper Camera 
that also used 3 2/3 inch sensors.  
[19:59] This camera was David Finchers digital 
gateway drug, and he shot “Zodiac” and  
[20:03] some scenes of “The Curious case 
of Benjamin Button” on the Viper.
[20:10] 2003 the first cinema camera with a single CCD, 
the Dalsa Origin, was released. A sensor size  
[20:17] similar to 35mm film allowed the use of regular 
cine lenses. It was very expensive and didn’t  
[20:24] score major credits in cinema except for a 
few FX scenes in James Bond: Quantum Solace.
[20:31] In 2005 the Panavision Genesis took the crown 
of digital cine cams. Ironically it didn’t  
[20:37] let crew review the shot material, taking 
away one of the major advantages of digital  
[20:42] production – According to Fincher, that was the 
reason he didn’t use the Genesis for Zodiac. 
[20:48] The Genesis was rebranded and 
updated to the Sony F35 in 2008. 
[20:54] Also in 2005, Arri introduced their first shot 
at digital cinema with the D-20. It only has  
[21:01] few credits, but among them is Guy Richies 
first digital film – 2008s “RocknRolla”
[21:08] 2007 was the year that red introduced the RED one. 
The relatively low price compared to cameras like  
[21:14] the Genesis made digital cinema accessible main 
stream… and, while it didn’t score blockbusters,  
[21:20] probably due to reliability issues, 
it forced the industry to move.
[21:26] 2008 brought the Silicon Imaging 
SI-2K a 16mm Sensor digital cine  
[21:31] cam with detachable head. It was used 
in Slumdog Millionaire to attract  
[21:36] less attention filming gorilla 
style through Mumbai’s streets.
[21:40] in 2010 Arris release the Alexa, 
that changed cinema on a larger  
[21:45] scale. According to many working DoPs, 
it was the first camera to exceed the  
[21:50] quality of 35mm film - technically speaking 
- delivering a dynamic range of 14+ stops.  
[22:00] Melancholia was one of the first credits of 
the Alexa… the famous slow motion sequences  
[22:05] of this movie where shot digitally, 
too, but on a dedicated high speed  
[22:09] camera… the VisionResearch Phantom.
Later Cameras from RED like the Epic,  
[22:17] Dragon, Helium, and V-Raptor have their 
fans among Directors and DoP. Especially  
[22:22] Fincher likes RED – he shot all of his films 
since “The Social Network” on RED cameras. 
[22:27] Still, the cinema mainstream clearly 
belonged to Arri and the Alexa.
[22:32] In 2012 the Empire tried to strike back and 
Sony released the F65… with little impact 
[22:40] It took five more years for 
them to gain relevant market  
[22:42] share with the 2017 release 
of their full frame Venice. 
[22:47] Arri themselves entered the 4K Full 
Frame game with the Alexa LF in 2018.
[22:53] Since then, there where evolutionary steps 
but no big revolutions that changed the  
[22:58] market significantly – except maybe 
a revived interest for analog formats  
[23:04] like 70mm and IMAX mostly thanks to 
Christopher Nolan and Hoyte van Hoytema.
[23:10] Meanwhile the high end cine cameras 
got new competitors from the lower  
[23:14] end market and mirrorless cameras.
The sensor market collapsed to only a  
[23:18] few major player left in the competion with a 
clear dominance of Sony that supplies sensors  
[23:24] to the majority of camera manufacturers.
From the entry level Full Frame Camera  
[23:29] up to high end Cine Cameras… the sensors are 
surprisingly similar in design and capability.  
[23:35] Mostly Bayer CMOS technology delivering 
very similar dynamic range and sensitivity. 
[23:40] It is amazing how indistinguishable 
the images tend to be at first  
[23:45] glance and in the final result.
Advances seem to be so incremental,  
[23:50] that even a decade old digital cinema 
camera can hold up to modern ones.
[23:55] There are a ton of subject that are 
interesting in the camera section… 
[23:59] Rolling shutter versus global shutter, 
readout speeds… you name it… not to  
[24:04] mention practical aspects that can 
easily outweigh pure image quality. 
[24:09] But we want to stay focussed on the cinematic 
qualities of an image, so, we will talk about  
[24:15] aspects that are most relevant to that.
While it is not necessarily important but  
[24:21] we know this will come up… let’s start with the 
sensor size… or better the format in general.
[24:30] You often hear the notion of a “large 
format look” … to be clear straight away:  
[24:35] No format has a specific look. A large format 
doesn’t inherently look different to a small one,  
[24:41] as long as equivalent lenses are used. Of course, 
it is simpler to produce a shallow DoF with large  
[24:48] format v or a deep DoF with a smaller one 
in the very extreme ends of the spectrum,  
[24:53] but in a cinematic context that hardly ever 
matters, unless you go really big or small.
[25:02] With analog formats, a larger negative was and 
is used to reduce the grain size and increase the  
[25:09] resolution in larger projections. IMAX requires 
a nine times larger negative than 35mm because  
[25:15] it is designed to fill the peripheral view of 
the audience for a more immersive experience.  
[25:21] If you frame IMAX like a normal film, you 
are much to close to the subject… giving  
[25:26] you a “first row” cinema experience.
You could argue that Christoper Nolan  
[25:31] uses large formats up to IMAX because only a 
very large negative will deliver a comparable  
[25:37] quality to smaller digital sensors while still 
having the organic qualities of film… besides…  
[25:40] it is a good story to use IMAX and Nolan is a 
lot about marketing. Success proves him right.
[25:47] Digital formats are different as they 
are not restricted by chemistry. A  
[25:50] smaller sensor can potentially outperform 
a larger one, given the used technology. 
[25:56] Sensors are bound by physics, though. 
For example, a smaller format can not  
[26:00] increase the resolution without running into 
diffraction at a lower and lower f-number. 
[26:04] This is why a tiny sensor will never 
have a higher resolution image compared  
[26:09] to a large format… unless the 
image is computized of course. 
[26:13] Sensor sizes are very much about 
fitting the lenses one desires to use. 
[26:18] For our use case in a cinematic 
context, the sensor size is largely  
[26:22] neglectable – Micro Four Third, Super35, 
Full Frame – you can make everything work. 
[26:23] Danny Boyles upcoming “28 years later” 
shows how good an iPhone 15 can look…  
[26:28] that is, if you pull every trick in the 
book, like using large cine lenses… hardly  
[26:33] practical… while being 15 years old, Alexas 
Super 35 sensor still creates better images.
[26:40] Importance to cinematic image: Low
[26:47] RED has been pushing the importance of 
resolution from the start of the digital  
[26:52] revolution. Filmmakers like David Fincher 
love to crop and reframe in post to support  
[26:57] their style of filmmaking, and it makes 
a lot of sense in that context to start  
[27:01] with a sensor that has a high resolution.
Arri on the other hand followed another  
[27:07] route. The ALEV III was specifically designed 
to suit imaging in a cinematic context and  
[27:08] that is not requiring very high resolutions.
The ALEV III sensor has a resolution of “only”  
[27:10] 3.4K, and it only has that when shooting 
in Open Gate modes, which is rarely done. 
[27:16] Most things you have seen and loved 
is shot in 2.8K sensor crop with a  
[27:20] 2K master… and it looks great.
Some later productions squeezed  
[27:27] every bit of quality out of the ALEV III 
by shooting in 3.4K and mastering in 4K. 
[27:34] Looking at what the old Arri Alexa can do,  
[27:37] it is very hard to argue for missing resolution… 
at least in the context of the final delivery. 
[27:43] The Revenant mixed images shot in different 
resolutions combined in a 4K master. The  
[27:48] Alexa 65 uses 3 fused ALEV III for 6.5K. The 
Alexa XT and XT-M use one ALEV III with 3.4K.  
[27:58] What you see here is a big resolution different 
in the source material. It speaks volumes that  
[28:04] you can’t identify which was which by just looking 
at the shots even in the best viewing conditions.
[28:13] Our “The Killer” masterclass was shot on in 3.4K 
on the Alexa, while the original is a crop of the  
[28:19] 8K RED V-Raptor… the crop is probably around 
6K. Does 4 times the amount of pixels show? 
[28:27] The high end sector cared little about resolution 
until Netflix put their foot down and demanded  
[28:32] “real” 4K acquisition for their own productions… 
unless your family name is Coen of course. 2018s  
[28:39] Netflix movie: The Ballad of Buster Scruggs was 
shot on Alexa in 2.8K and masters at 2K. Still,  
[28:50] Arri kind of gave in to the markets 
pressure and release the ALEXA LF  
[28:54] in 2018… two fused ALEV III sensors 
providing 4.5K resolution using the  
[29:00] same proven colors, codecs, and workflow.
More resolution is not always “better” in  
[29:03] a cinematic context, and a higher resolution on a 
smaller format will always reduce the size of the  
[29:03] sensels… that is a pixel on a sensor. That again 
will reduce the potential quality of each pixel. 
[29:03] It makes a lot of sense to weigh 
the benefits agains the penalties  
[29:03] that come with high resolutions.
For a narrative context that doesn’t  
[29:05] require the ability to punch into the image a 
lot… resolution beyond 4K makes little sense. 
[29:11] Of course and as always… the technology 
behind the sensor has a lot of impact,  
[29:15] and there is nothing wrong with high 
resolution on a modern hybrid camera.
[29:19] Importance to cinematic image: Low
[29:26] One of the specs that is very often stated as the 
most important ability of a digital camera is the  
[29:31] Dynamic Range. This means the difference between 
the brightest parts of an image before the image  
[29:39] “clips” and darkest parts of the image before 
information disappears into the noise floor. 
[29:45] The difference in-beetween values 
is measured in stops of light… so  
[29:49] doubling or halving the amount of 
light from one stop to the next.
[29:58] The Thomson Viper used in Zodiac 
had a Dynamic Range of about 10  
[30:02] stops. That is a bad performance by today’s 
standard, but as you see, it looks great. 
[30:11] These scenes from 2014s “It follows” have 
a similar lighting mood and are shot on  
[30:16] an Arri Alexa that has over 14 stops dynamic 
range. While the image looks more detailed,  
[30:22] the huge difference in dynamic 
range isn’t that obvious. 
[30:27] Here is something in the same mood we 
shot on a MAVO LF II that has 12+ stops. 
[30:32] This proof that dynamic range is a lot about 
the contend of the scene and you don’t need  
[30:37] great values to create a cinematic image. Still, 
a higher dynamic rage can make highlife “roll  
[30:43] off” better, so transition into the midtowns 
in visibly softer ways … if exposed right.
[30:50] A larger dynamic range allows to capture images 
that have more natural difference in brightness…  
[30:56] like with windows in a dark room, without having 
to ND the windows or light against the sun. 
[31:01] A better dynamic range can also make exposure 
much simpler as there is headroom to change the  
[31:07] exposure in post, or to create High 
dynamic range or short HDR content. 
[31:12] Looking at an image straight out of the 
camera … the dynamic range is often one of  
[31:16] the first noticeable differences between cameras.
The most sophisticated technical trick to improve  
[31:22] the dynamic range, is to use Dual Gain Output or 
short DGO sensors… the sensor records two images  
[31:29] with different gains at the same time. These 
images are combined in the camera … and… presto:  
[31:34] You have the expanded dynamic range of 
a darker and a brighter image in one. 
[31:39] DGO sensors are found for 
example in the Alexa cameras,  
[31:43] the Ursa 4.6K, and some Canon Cine Cameras.
They are more expensive to develop and produce,  
[31:50] they need more power to work and better cooling.
For most application including cinema,  
[31:55] normal sensors are good enough and even cameras 
like the Sony Venice don’t have DGO sensors. 
[32:00] Cameras from all classes including hybrid camera 
are surprisingly close in terms of Dynamic Range. 
[32:06] There haven’t been huge jumps in what dynamic 
range sensors deliver in a quite a while with the  
[32:12] exception of the Alexa 35 that is what happens 
when a modern sensor is combined with DGerO 
[32:18] As dynamic range is such a sought after spec, and 
there are different methods to measure dynamic  
[32:22] range manufacturers can be kind of spin doctors.
It is great to have a recourse,  
[32:28] that measures Dynamic Range and Latitude 
with the same process – this will  
[32:32] provide numbers that make cameras comparable.
Cine D has a very good Lab Test section on their  
[32:37] website comparing most important camera in the 
field – from consumer camera up to the higher end.
[32:44] They where so kind to allow me to use 
their results for this episode – thank  
[32:48] you so much Cine D … there is a link to their 
Lab Tests with way more details and interesting  
[32:53] discussions in the description. If 
you don’t know it, check it out.
[32:59] Importance to cinematic image: Medium
[33:02] Keep in mind that dynamic range is not everything… 
some amazing shots have been created using older  
[33:08] cinema cameras with limited dynamic range, and 
even modern high speed cameras like phantom  
[33:13] Phantom only sport about 10 stops dynamic 
range. We shot our new Logo animation with  
[33:18] a Phantom and even with the difficult lighting 
you get from fire, 10 stops are very workable.
[33:25] There are many other technical aspects 
that make for a great image… or a bad one. 
[33:30] Colors & Latitude, Sensitivity & Noise, 
Codecs , LOG RAW, Color sampling, Bit  
[33:36] Depth … but we want to keep such very technical 
details out of this episode. If you want it,  
[33:41] we can do that in a sequel to this one.
For our little cook book… here is very  
[33:43] condensed practical advise.
Use the best codes that the  
[33:47] camera you are using is offering and a LOG 
profile with at least 10bit – or RAW. This  
[33:55] will provide you with a digital negative that 
leaves enough headroom to create powerful looks  
[33:59] in post. Something that most movies do these days.
Only shot fully manual… your camera doesn’t know  
[34:06] what looks good, and what is 
important in a given context. 
[34:10] This is true for exposure as well as focus.
Learn how your camera behaves over- and  
[34:13] underexposed, expose according 
to the desired look and camera.
[34:30] Even with different formats, variations, 
technologies, and specs, sensors have moved very  
[34:37] close to each other in terms of image quality.
We reached a point of sophistication where it  
[34:43] is a fair ask: does the camera even matter 
any more? Should I as a filmmaker invest  
[34:49] in expensive cameras, or is there a more 
effective way to get to a cinematic image. 
[34:56] As usual there is no short answer 
to that and practical aspect are  
[35:01] as valid as they where since the dawn of 
cinema – which can go both ways as size,  
[35:07] weight, codecs and many other aspects strongly 
influence the whole workflow and infrastructure.
[35:15] To test the subject, we prepared a shootout 
using three very different cameras but,  
[35:20] before we go there, we have to 
talk about lenses first as they  
[35:23] are an important ingredient in our magic 
source and an integral part of our test.
[35:28] Cine lenses are important for filmmaking… but 
how important are they for a cinematic image? 
[35:35] Should you invest in cine lenses… are vintage 
photo lenses a good alternative… or can you  
[35:42] even use the kit lens the came with your camera.
Ahhh… I can see that that idea is “upsetting” you. 
[35:52] In our shoot out, we put that to the 
test… purely optical perspective.
  
[35:59] Talking about the character of lenses is 
a lot like talking about wine… it is very  
[36:05] subjective and and often depends on circumstances 
that have little to do with the lens itself. 
[36:12] Competing manufacturers try to strengthen 
their profile with colourful language… 
[36:19] Claims that lenses “make the whole world 
cinematic” are marketing with little substance, 
[36:28] Cine lenses provide practical and technical 
advantages and I will not deny that certain  
[36:35] lenses have certain looks… but that is mostly 
subtile and it is safe to say that no lens  
[36:41] delivers a “cinematic look” besides maybe 
anamorphic lenses and only in a narrow way. 
[36:50] Historically the choice to shoot 
on Panavision, Zeiss, Cook,  
[36:54] or Angeniaux lenses had little to do with the 
look and a lot with “where” you shoot a movie. 
[37:01] Cine lenses are optically not “necessarily” 
better or even different than photo lenses.
[37:09] Cine lenses have been specifically designed for 
cine productions and their requirements… in a  
[37:14] nutshell this means that they are fully mechanical 
and have hard stops. They have gearings on the  
[37:19] focus, Iris, and zoom for motorisation and the use 
of follow focus systems. Focus through is usually  
[37:25] much longer than on a photo lens… especially 
modern auto focus lenses, that have short  
[37:29] throws so the servo motors can focus quicker.
There are more traits of cine lenses that are  
[37:34] not always given, depending on the specific cine 
lens. Usually, cine lenses have unified positions  
[37:40] of the gears and the same front sizes for quicker 
lens changes, internal focus so the lenses don’t  
[37:46] change their lengths which is bad for Matte Boxes, 
and many cine lenses are correct for breathing,  
[37:51] so the lens doesn’t have the subtile focal 
length changes that come with pulling the focus. 
[37:57] Traditionally cine lenses are build 
sturdy to survive the rental gear  
[38:01] requirements and to allow easier servicing.
Cine lenses would have the sturdy long flange  
[38:06] mount systems of the cameras of their 
time, and maybe most importantly, the are  
[38:10] collimated and shimmed to have precise makings.
This was so important, because the focus puller  
[38:16] wouldn’t see the image that an analog camera 
films. The camera man himself would look through  
[38:21] the optical viewfinder for framing, but not the 
focus puller. Even later film cameras that used  
[38:27] video systems in the viewfinder wouldn’t deliver 
an image good enough for critical focus . Focus  
[38:33] pullers used tapes and markings to hit the right 
focus distance without visual confirmation… which  
[38:39] is hard to do and requires a lot of experience.
(Brother where art Thou) This explains why so  
[38:44] many old and even relatively modern 
movies have scenes that are obviously  
[38:48] out of focus… sometimes because the subject 
is moving… and sometimes… well, shit happens. 
[38:55] If the distance markings on the lens were 
off… so would be the focus. Only precise  
[39:00] shimming on the lenses as well as the cameras 
mount allowed for reliable focus pulling. 
[39:05] You can imagine that using normal photo 
lenses would be futile in those times. 
[39:11] Digital cine cameras changed that 
a lot… today, focus pullers usually  
[39:15] work visually by using monitors, focus 
assist features, and tools like CineTape. 
[39:20] This makes correct markings less critical, 
but a good cine lens will still be precisely  
[39:25] shimmed. When we change the mount on the camera 
or the lens, use adapters etc. that quickly goes  
[39:31] down the drain – you just don’t really notice 
it when pulling focus using your monitor and  
[39:37] peaking. This is why cine mounts and lenses 
come with shimmes but it requires experience  
[39:41] and tools to adjust the back focus precisely.
Auto focus systems like PDAF use the image of  
[39:49] the sensor to determine the focus distance, 
so correct markings are less important.
[39:55] Today, most new cine lenses are designed 
for Full Frame cameras and there is a  
[39:59] trend to lighter designs optimised for 
short flange systems like E, RF, and L.
[40:04] For a filmmaker today, the relevance of 
cine lenses is primarily about practical  
[40:09] aspects. Pulling focus on a shot, especially 
when performed by the camera man himself is  
[40:14] much easier with the right cine lens and a 
follow focus. Only this will allow to guide  
[40:19] the eyes of the audience to what matters. No 
auto focus can know the story, the relevance,  
[40:24] and the mood of what you are filming Of course you 
can attach focus gears to your auto focus lenses,  
[40:30] but it is cumbersome and the missing hard 
stops don’t allow you to develop a muscle  
[40:34] memory to where the focus distance is at what 
hand position. Vintage photo lenses are manual  
[40:41] with hard stops and work much better with added 
focus gears. Besides their interesting look,  
[40:46] this is what makes them a popular 
budget option for filmmakers.
[40:50] Most modern lenses are designed 
to be as contrasty, bright, sharp,  
[40:53] and clear as possible, and there is nothing 
wrong with that… we call that a transparent  
[40:58] lens, as it doesn’t add anything to the image.
As digital images tend to look a little sterile  
[41:04] vintage and anamorphic lenses had a revival. 
These lenses can introduce characteristics  
[41:09] and “flaws” like optical aberrations, 
interesting flares, highlights blooming,  
[41:14] and sharpness falloff lending an image a poetic 
note. We produced episodes about two legendary  
[41:20] vintage lens families. The Contax Zeiss vs 
the Zeiss Super Speed following The Shining…  
[41:27] and the Canon FD versus the K35 following 
Aliens… check those out if you want to know  
[41:34] more. Anamorphic is a whole world to explore and 
we have our SCOPE series following Blade Runner  
[41:42] exploring the history, technology, and fashion of 
wide screen cinema. We also have several episodes  
[41:48] testing modern anamorphic cine lenses, check out 
our Masterclass episode where ewe recreate David  
[41:53] Finchers The Killer using anamorphic cine 
lenses. If you are interested in the art of  
[41:57] rehousing a photo lens to a cine lens… we have 
the REHOUSING episode that gives you a ton of  
[42:03] interesting insights including, how to evaluate 
the quality of a lens, and how to judge defects.
[42:10] Importance to the cinematic image: Medium
For a filmmaker it makes a lot of sense  
[42:15] to play with all kind of lenses to get a feel for 
what works best given the story he wants to tell. 
[42:23] It may make sense to look into filtration 
to add a certain vibe to the image. 
[42:28] While you can add a very personal note 
with a lens choice you can create a  
[42:33] cinematic image with any lens.
Embracing the look of a lens  
[42:38] is more important to you, and maybe to other 
filmmakers, than it is to a general audience. 
[42:45] Having said that… practical aspects are 
very important to streamline a workflow 
[42:51] or just to improve storytelling 
with a much better focus precision… 
[42:55] and, if you have been on this channel, 
boy… we are suckers to fast glass.
[43:10] The first contender in our shout out 
is the heavy weight of digital cinema,  
[43:13] the legendary ALEV III sensor inside an ALEXA 
XT-M. Heavy weight is quite literal as full  
[43:19] size Alexas are huge and heavy… but the M version 
of this camera has a detachable head that needs  
[43:25] to be tethered with a fibre cable to a full 
size body. XT stands for extended technology,  
[43:31] which was Arris denomination for their 
second generation of Alexa classic cameras  
[43:36] featuring on board RAW recording with 
high speed XR cards and Open Gate modes,  
[43:41] allowing to record in 3.4K instead of the 
first gen limitation to 2.8K. The camera  
[43:47] was originally intended for 3D rigs but also 
used for action shots, Helicopter gimbals,  
[43:53] and whenever light weight cameras came in handy.
It has the exact same image quality that the  
[43:59] normal Arri Alexa XT delivers… so you can 
look to all those gorgeous productions like  
[44:04] Blade Runner 2049 to see what this camera 
can do . The Revenant utilised the Alexa  
[44:10] XT-M a lot to be able to get the “up and 
close” handheld shots you see throughout  
[44:15] the movie… shots that would been hard or even 
impossible to pull of with the full size XT. 
[44:21] As the Alexa 65 can’t be over cranked, The Alexa 
XT or XT-M where also used for the slow motions.
[44:29] The XT-M was also used for many scenes in 
Mad Max: Fury Road where it helped to catch  
[44:34] some of the very dynamic shots in the battles 
and in confined spaces. Roger Deakins used it  
[44:40] in Skyfall for some shots… for example the 
escalator scene… they’re a few cooler than  
[44:45] Roger as this BTS shows… and, there is the M 
in his skilful hands. For us the M is such an  
[44:51] ideal camera as we didn’t have to invest 
in our gear… our light tripods, sliders,  
[44:56] and even Gimbals are strong enough to 
carry the head… try that with a full  
[45:01] sized Alexa. Our version of the XT-M has 
a modified tether that was designed for  
[45:02] helicopter gimbals and unlike the normal SMTP 
version, that tether doesn’t power the camera,  
[45:02] so we power the head with either a power cable or 
from a v-lock battery. The single link fibre cable  
[45:02] is super light but doesn’t have the sturdiness 
of the SMTP connection but with a good cable and  
[45:02] some tricks it is workable and can be a s long 
as 1 kilometre… not that that makes much sense. 
[45:02] The camera has exactly two buttons… one 
to power the head up and down and one  
[45:07] to run and stop recording.
And that is… actually kind  
[45:10] of liberating. It reduces your process to 
what it should be – as manual as it get’s
[45:16] A bit of rigging makes the 
head almost as practical as  
[45:19] the Alexa Mini camera and it has some advantages. 
[45:22] It can record open gate uncompressed RAW up to 
75 frames per second unlike the Minis 30 fps 
[45:30] Most Ms have been used on helicopters – like ours 
was. And that means very low operation hours. 
[45:36] Ours came in with 500 hour which is nothing 
to the Minis usual 5–20K hours in rental use
[45:43] We added the DJI focus pro to give the head auto 
focus capabilities… wich is really just awesome.  
[45:52] We have a whole episode about the Focus Pro 
using the Alexa and other camera… check it out. 
[45:52] Of course it comes with a ton of quirks you 
have to work around… like the lack of SDI  
[45:52] out on the head and especially XR cards 
and readers are expensive. It doesn’t  
[45:53] record audio in RAW modes, so you have 
to work with time code if you need audio.
[45:53] If you are thinking “practical” this is NOT it…  
[45:57] this camera is like a classic car and as such you 
will have oily hands if you know what I mean… but  
[46:04] boy… if you drive it… it is something.
If you ever wanted to be an Alexa Owner  
[46:09] Operator… this is a very affordable way to 
become one, and the low used price around  
[46:14] 6.000 USD makes the Alexa the highest end 
but medium priced option in our shootout.
[46:21] We decided to do a litte extra 
episode on the Alexa XT-M. 
[46:21] How we are rigging and working with it. And 
especially, how we figured out to refurbish  
[46:21] the XR cards with our own modern media. For 
Lynch and Kubrick members there will be a  
[46:21] tutorial on how you can do that yourself.
It will not be released together with this  
[46:21] episode, so, if you are interested subscribe 
and hit notification so you know when it is  
[46:21] ready. If it is already out… link is 
in the corner and in the description.
[46:21] Our second contender is the Kinefinity MAVO LF 
MK2… the second generation of Kinefinetys MAVO  
[46:28] Full Frame cine cam. The MAVO is and has been 
the camera that we use the most on this channel,  
[46:37] and boy did it have to take a beating, including 
removing the sensor for our f0.7 project and many  
[46:43] other things that are quite dangerous. It is 
to the credit of the MAVO LF that it has never  
[46:48] failed us… even under those circumstances. The 
image quality is very good and the 6K dual ISO  
[46:54] delivers amazing sensitivity… using back 
illuminated Sony sensor it can easily deal  
[46:59] with 10.000 ISO. A very practical surmount 
system makes the camera super flexible when  
[47:08] it comes to lenses… PL, LPL, EF, E… just go for 
it. Ideal for our use case. Using NVMe media,  
[47:11] internal ProRes up to 4444XQ, at about about 
any format you can think of, all desqueeze  
[47:18] options… a strong OLPF, SDI, timecode, genlock, 
and much more… the MAVO LF mk2 is a real cine  
[47:25] work horse perfect for productions like ours.
Being designed and manufactured in China it  
[47:29] hasn’t really penetrated the western cine 
landscape… which is a bit of a shame. B&H  
[47:29] lists a MAVO LF mark 2 body at 9.000 USD
[47:34] Our third contender is the Panasonic LUMIX S5IIx a 
classic mirrorless hybrid photo and video camera…  
[47:41] it is the the entry level full frame option in the 
LUMIX lineup and the “x” indicates some advanced  
[47:47] features like ProRes 422 to an external SSD 
and in cam streaming capabilities. It comes  
[47:54] with an L mount that is very versatile.
Unlike other big players in the market,  
[47:59] Panasonic has a great track record for making 
their cameras very capable for filmmaking. It  
[48:04] has very good PDAF auto focus and an amazing 
3 axis in body stabilisation, Dual ISO,  
[48:10] anamorphic modes, V-log, Full size HDMI out…
It has all those simple things like a shutter  
[48:13] angle option. FX3 users had to wait three years 
to get that basic film feature in a Firm ware  
[48:13] upgrade… Unlike the FX3 it can record video in 
Open Gate mode… meaning you get all of the 6K  
[48:19] glory internally in h265 420 on two SD cards 
for continuous filming or mirrored for safety.  
[48:27] It doesn’t have an OLPF so it is very sharp… great 
for RAW photography… not so great for filmmaking.  
[48:34] Still, If we need something that basically shoots 
by itself… especially on things like gimbals our  
[48:40] S5IIx is our go to camera at the moment.
For single shooters and out of the box,  
[48:45] it is the most affordable and 
practical system in our shoutout. 
[48:48] The image is great for a camera in 
the class and it will be interesting  
[48:52] to see if it can compete with the over four 
times as expensive MAVO or even the Alexa.
[48:58] A camera is nothing without a lens… In 
our mix of setups, we have modern cine  
[49:03] lenses with the DZO Arles, vintage photo 
lenses with our Canon FD and Contax Zeiss,  
[49:10] Anamorphic lenses with the DZO PAVO, 
and somewhere in-between all these,  
[49:15] there is the most uncinematic lens 
you can think of… a kit zoom lens.
[49:21] We purposely chose to shoot something relatively  
[49:24] mundane as we don’t want to distract 
from what this comparison is about.
[49:28] I simply walk through the studio and different 
lighting situations and temperatures – from side  
[49:33] light, to back light to top light the camera.
We shoot the same scene over and over,  
[49:39] but with different cameras and lenses tossed up.
[49:42] The rules for our Shootout are as follows.
[49:44] We are shooting all cameras with the best 
internal codec available to the system. 
[49:49] That is H265 on the LUMIX,
ProRes4444XQ on the MAVO 
[49:56] and uncompressed ArriRAW on the Alexa.
We match the colors in post… as far as  
[49:59] that is possible. Dehancer will help us with that 
as all three cameras are available as an Inputs. 
[50:00] The practical light and the shadows should tell 
you something about dynamic range and noise… but,  
[50:00] even that is besides the point.
While you can take this sporty  
[50:02] and try to guess which camera with what 
lens is used our intention is simply for  
[50:06] you to decide for yourself, which 
shot looks more or less cinematic…  
[50:11] or if there is any such distinction at all.
Shots are numbered and you find camera and  
[50:16] lens combination for the fitting 
shot number in the description.
[51:29] Let’s go…
[53:24] Did you get diffrent cinematic 
vibes from the images?
[53:27] And, if yes… how much of that was 
from the camera, from the grade,  
[53:31] and how much was that from the lens choice.
Let us know and discuss in the comments 
[53:36] We will finish up with a side by side 
comparison of the Lumix S5IIx with the  
[53:42] kit zoom next to the Arri Alexa with 
a DZO Arles… and if you can immideatly  
[53:47] say which is which on a larger display, 
the much higher investment in the Alexa  
[53:51] is worth it for you – and if you can’t, 
this should be an encouragement for you.
[53:57] Importance to cinematic image is medium
While there is a clear advantage when using  
[54:03] higher end camera, sensors, and codecs 
the impact on the cinematic quality of  
[54:08] an image is little. Every modern camera is more 
or less capable of capturing a cinematic image.
[54:17] We still voted the importance at medium, because 
a decent camera will clearly impact the filmmaking  
[54:24] process… this will include things like 
that Alexa footage is easier to grade. 
[54:30] To be very clear, there are many reasons 
to use cine cams beyond the image quality,  
[54:35] they are built to fit the workflows and the 
workload of a professional shooting. Also,  
[54:41] it really helps if crews and DoPs are used to work 
with a camera and know how far they can push it.  
[54:49] And, if something goes wrong, there is usually a 
cine rental with a replacement camera close by. 
[54:55] For independent filmmakers these 
things might not be that important.  
[54:59] If you want a cinematic result, the 
camera is not what holds you back.
[55:18] It is very obvious that what happens before 
the camera is essential to a cinematic image…  
[55:24] more than the camera or the lens for sure. This 
will include the location or set, the actors,  
[55:31] the costumes, the make up, the lighting……… and 
even the sound design and score and music as that  
[55:37] is what tunes you into the feel of the image.
This doesn’t mean that you need to build a set  
[55:44] with a truckload of lights and a large crew, but,
filming something with your partner in your  
[55:50] living room or backyard will always look kind of 
mundane … at least to you… so we would avoid that.
[56:00] Let’s start with simple things every 
beginner can do and scale up from there.
[56:42] A charismatic face and captivating performance 
can be at least as important to a cinematic image  
[56:49] as everything else… actors allow the audience 
to connect to the image on an emotional level. 
[56:58] As a filmmaker choosing and communicating with 
your actors can be challenging. I think there  
[57:05] are as many approaches, needs, and styles as 
there are directors… and actors. Both can be  
[57:13] difficult and – There is no lack of horror 
stories… but that doesn’t necessarily ruin  
[57:18] a movie. Tension can be the anvil on which 
a great performance is forged and there are  
[57:24] many examples for difficult work relationships 
leading to great movies. A positive productive  
[57:31] collaboration can do the same thing. 
It is up to the filmmaker to find out,  
[57:36] who he is and what works best with a 
given project, actor, or situation.
[57:43] From Method acting to the Stanislavski's method… 
there is a whole list of acting techniques.
[57:51] From a filmmakers perspective there are techniques 
to get to the desired performance as well.
[57:58] In American Psycho Willem Dafoe plays 
a detective with erratic behaviour  
[58:02] towards the protagonist. Sometimes 
he appears to believe he is innocent,  
[58:09] sometimes he is ambivalent, and sometimes he 
is clearly just playing with his obviously  
[58:17] guilty prey. His attitude switches often 
and seemingly unpredictable from shot to  
[58:23] shot – This leaves the protagonist as well as 
the audience in a very uneasy state . The trick:  
[58:29] Director Mary Harron had Dafoe play each 
scene three times completely emerged in  
[58:34] only one believe state… and edited the different 
behaviours together to one scene – brilliant.
[58:41] If you never heard of the Kuleshov effect, 
let us change that as it is a powerful tool  
[58:42] for every filmmaker and every actor.
The Kuleshov effect describes a mental  
[58:44] phenomenon by which the audience derives 
meaning more from the context than from the  
[58:49] acting itself… Alfred Hitchcock understood 
the Kuleshov masterfully. In Rear Window,  
[58:55] Jimmy Stewart's performance was shot without 
Steward being aware of what his character  
[58:59] would look at in the movie… with the voyeuristic 
undertones of the situation and clever editing…  
[59:06] all that you read into Jimmy Stewart reactions 
is conjured up by you… and the edit of course. 
[59:16] Let’s reedit this to create an emotion… let’s say 
Jimmy is a Vegan… do you see disgust in his face?…  
[59:33] it is not really there… in the movie he looks 
at this… now his reaction looks very different.
[59:39] The Kuleshov effect allows you to 
create the performance in the edit.
[59:41] Some actors leave the emotional reaction 
completely to the audience, you can change  
[59:47] the narrative from love to hate without any 
problems… which of both of these was the original?
[60:17] One very interesting technique could be 
seen as the the directors equivalent to  
[60:21] “method acting”… let’s call it “method directing”.
[60:25] The idea is not to explain to 
actors how they should perform,  
[60:29] but to put them into a state 
where their performance is real.
[60:32] Here is a simple but great example:
[60:35] When Hans Gruber falls to his death in die 
Hard, the impact of this scene has a lot to  
[60:39] do with Allan Rickman’s performance… he looks 
genuinely shocked… because… he actually is! 
[60:45] Rickman was droped from a considerable 
height into a green screen air bag 
[60:50] The special effect crew told Rickman that they 
would drop him at the count of three… To Rickman’s  
[60:52] surprise, the dropped him at the count of two…
Simple and Effective… and… a bit mean!
[61:03] Famously, Stanley Kubrick shot the Staircase 
scene in the Shining again… and … and again…and  
[61:08] then again… and again… until Shelley Duvall 
mentally broke down from exhaustion… so,  
[61:13] what you see here is not regular acting but 
a real person suffering from real “abuse”. 
[61:19] Effective… but … really mean.
You shouldn’t traumatise  
[61:22] your actors for arts sake.
BTW, Kubrick denied that this was a method act.
[61:30] Method Directing can do way more… it 
can potentially change the meaning of  
[61:34] a whole movie, by sharing completely 
different visions with the actors.
[61:38] Here is a theory:
Blade Runner is  
[61:40] written in a way that Deckard could be human or a 
replicant – According to several interviews with  
[61:47] director Ridley Scott, Deckard is a replicant.
He is put in place by Tyrell and the Blade Runner  
[61:53] police force to hunt Nexus 6 replicants that 
pose to high of a risk for human blade runners.  
[62:01] All this is experimental and to assure his 
allegiance, he doesn’t know he is a replicant.  
[62:11] He doesn’t have obvious super human abilities as 
those would give away his nature to himself. But,  
[62:17] he is designed to withstand attacks from combat 
replicants, and he has a very high pain tolerance 
[62:23] Harrison Ford always pushed back against the idea 
Deckard was a replicant. He is on record saying  
[62:28] that Blade Runner would need a human protagonist 
to connect with the audience. According to Ford,  
[62:34] he had discussions with Ridley Scott that ended 
in the agreement that the character was human. 
[62:40] Characters like Bryant and Gaff seam to treat 
Deckard as a human… but undertones of distrust,  
[62:45] lack of respect… and the famous unicorn 
origami strongly imply they know he is  
[62:50] a Replicant, but have to play along with 
the experiment… while being totally aware  
[62:54] of his fate in case of a failure.
Given the reactions alone it seams  
[63:01] to be clear that Deckard is a replicant, or 
are we just victims of the Kuleshov effect?
[63:07] If you where the director… what would you do to 
foster all these very authentic performances.
[63:14] If Deckard doesn’t know he is a replicant – A 
good way to strengthen Fords performance is to  
[63:19] make him believe that he actually plays a human.
Ridley Scotts discussions with other actors  
[63:25] might have ended in the agreement 
that the character was a replicant. 
[63:29] To be clear, I don’t know if Ridley 
Scott did any of this – but it would  
[63:32] be a brilliant way of guiding your 
actors by misguiding them consciously.
[63:37] Sharing alternative visions of 
your movie can be a powerful tool. 
[63:41] Just imagine telling your protagonist that they  
[63:43] are the the antagonist and the 
antagonist being the protagonist… 
[63:48] We will revisit “Method directing” in 
the “Composition & Staging” chapter.
[63:53] Think about how you could use things like 
the Kuleshov effect and Method Directing to  
[63:53] get outstanding performances… or maybe you 
come up with something completely unique.
[63:53] Good general advice is:
Have a clear vision. Cast actors that  
[63:59] share and enrich your vision – give the actors 
space to explore and express their characters 
[64:06] Be well prepared for every scene on 
your schedule and keep the overarching  
[64:11] story and character development in mind.
Feed your actors and the rest of the crew well 
[64:18] … and always be the captain of your ship. 
There can be only one captain and one vision.
  
[64:27] The Next chapters will not be about fancy studios, 
soundstages, a ton of space, truckloads of lights,  
[64:33] the ability to lock down parts of a city.
If you have the budget to built a replica  
[64:38] Sistine Chapel, or a massive studio that 
can be digitally extended to look like  
[64:43] the Sistine Chapel… and you have the guts to 
blow the thing up… what are you doing here?
[64:48] This chapter is for the mortals and dreamers… and 
how to make the best out of basically… nothing.
[64:56] As an overarching theme, you should 
develop a color palette for your film. 
[65:00] In movies this is part of the concept and 
pre-production phase, which is then realised  
[65:05] by the art direction and costume departments. 
Certain colors are placed and others are  
[65:11] avoided. This can be extreme or very subtile.
Color palates can and should be represented in  
[65:14] the sets, in the costumes and props, and 
can be emphasised by lighting as well as  
[65:19] in post. Beyond the movie itself… it can be 
a recognisable hook in things like posters  
[65:25] or even merch. Just like in this example of “the 
conclaves” dominant and almost monochromatic red.
[65:32] Colors can be utilised to enhance 
storytelling… in Drive, the criminal  
[65:36] and violent world of the driver is shown in 
cold blue and teal while Irenes world of love  
[65:42] and positivity is held in warm orange an brown .
When they meet, their color schemes dominate the  
[65:49] backgrounds in a metaphorical and literal way. 
When the driver is absorbed into Irenes world,  
[65:55] he takes on her palette, when Irene is pulled 
into the drivers world, she takes on his palette. 
[66:02] The conflict of good and evil is symbolised 
in the teal and orange palette, that extends  
[66:07] into intro, trailers, and posters.
Pallets can swap within a movie to  
[66:12] go with a change in the location, story, 
timeline… it can do whatever YOU want.
[66:18] If you have been around this channel you  
[66:19] might have realised that our episodes 
follow their individual color themes.
[66:24] That is true for their main parts, but 
extends into B-Roll, Talkies, graphics,  
[66:29] and Behind the Scenes .
The f07 episode has the  
[66:35] honey golden palette of candle light.
The DryforWet episode the deep blue of the ocean. 
[66:46] The Macro episode has muted 
and desaturated colors. 
[66:55] The f03 episode the green turquoise tint 
of the forest and the bottom of the lake.
  
[67:03] This shows that you can utilise palettes even if 
you don’t have complete control over locations,  
[67:08] sets and costumes. If you think of your next 
film… think of a color… or maybe two… and let  
[67:13] it flow from there. Maybe you have a theme or 
location that lends itself to a certain color…  
[67:19] in cases like this, let the rest of your 
production go along with that color theme.
[67:28] A very simple tip for beginners is to go 
through life with open eyes and and an open  
[67:32] mind. Look for locations and situations 
that have their very own cinematic charm,  
[67:37] meaning that they are handsome and not to 
mundane unless that is part of the story. 
[67:42] A back alley, a staircase, a facade 
… all relatively mundane things that  
[67:48] look so cinematic when shot right.
If you live in cinematic places like  
[67:52] New York or have amazing nature like a 
desert or a salt lake close by, you are  
[67:57] in luck… chances are, you are not. I feel you.
Still, most locations have opportunities that  
[68:03] are for you to discover and even simple 
locations can look great in the right  
[68:07] circumstances. It can be almost anything… 
just imagine how it will look in context. 
[68:19] Generally, places that have some perspective 
depth to it work better as they allow for  
[68:24] layering your composition. As a filmmaker 
you are always also a photographer and you  
[68:29] can start by looking for a great 
stills frame and work from there. 
[68:33] Just filming against a wall can be very boring 
unless there is wall has it’s own graphical  
[68:33] quality… like this wall of an arcade that we just 
happened to walks by shooting guerrilla style.
[68:34] Lighting a public space usually means 
that you have to deal with permits,  
[68:38] and powering the lights can be difficult, too. 
Ideal are places that have their own interesting  
[68:43] lighting as that will mean you can work with 
the light that is already there. Fast lenses  
[68:49] and a decent camera can help a lot with that – 
good reasons NOT to shoot with a phone camera.
[68:54] Given the right context, you can even think of 
some props as locations… like for our Mindhunter  
[68:59] recreation we used an open reel recorder 
and a skull… basically as the location.
[69:07] Maybe you have friends or family that have 
handsome assets you can use – like houses…  
[69:11] or special cars… pools with underwater 
windows… or maybe there is just a nice  
[69:16] forrest or park not to far away… it is unlikely 
that there is anything there for a random idea,  
[69:24] the trick is to work the other way around.
See and recognise cinematic locations or  
[69:28] assets that are in your reach… develop 
your ideas around the possibilities they  
[69:33] give you. Be creative… Think about 
what in your reach could work for  
[69:37] a scene… built a concept and a story 
around that… and you are on your way.
[69:42] When choosing a location you should always 
think about lighting at the same time 
[69:47] We like the look of the Elbtunnel in 
Hamburg… again, around the corner for us  
[69:50] and public. Would it be much better without 
the other people… sure… you know the gist. 
[69:57] The Lights on the sides can be used to 
illuminate your talent… all you have to  
[70:00] do is to get in the right position.
We will talk a bit more about  
[70:04] that in the chapter “lighting”.
One thing that is easily forgotten  
[70:10] it the sound. If you need to record 
sound, make sure that your location  
[70:14] allows you to do that as noise is virtually 
uncontrollable, especially in public places.
[70:38] Costumes are an integral 
part of telling the story. 
[70:42] They sell the characters to the audience and 
can make a vast difference on how your film is  
[70:46] perceived. They can be a story inside the story… 
did you know that for the original Dune movie,  
[70:55] they made these space guild suits out of 
real body bags and didn’t tell the actors?! 
[71:00] We would dare to say that Costumes 
are the most neglected ingredient to  
[71:04] a cinematic image in low budget productions…
Good costumes and some great props can make  
[71:09] a huge difference for a cinematic image.
This doesn’t mean you have to stick your  
[71:13] talent into a space suit… although you can…
You can utilise normal cloths the actor  
[71:18] wears every day, but assembled in a way that 
doesn’t drag your audience out of the story.  
[71:23] If you don’t have a great idea or specific 
needs, avoiding small patterns is always  
[71:27] a good idea as the can cause Moire .
For our Blade Runner and Alien spoof,  
[71:31] we replicateded various costumes with very 
simple things and basic clothing For our Lt.  
[71:46] Gorman costume we used a olive overall and 
stitched on some badge replicas we bought on  
[71:52] eBay… combining that with a vintage headset made 
it almost complete, but what really sold the the  
[71:58] character was that I had my hair shaved off. How 
would you sell being a Marine with long hair?
[72:05] For the Leon character in our Blade Runner 
spoof, we got a cheap chem suit and again,  
[72:10] enhanced it by removing the arms and stitching 
on badge replicas. Getting a rasin replica of a  
[72:17] COP Derringer also know as “mother’s defender” 
and to paint it black like the gun featured in  
[72:22] the movie sells the character, even when the 
costume doesn’t even attempts to be identical
[72:42] What would be the Bryant character without a 
moustache, and how cheesy does a fake moustache  
[72:47] look? The simple solution … grow one.
We made a custom stencil to replicate the  
[72:55] pattern of Bryants shirt… and, we got a holster 
that looked close to the one in the original.
[73:05] For this episode, It was quite a bit of effort to 
find an overall that would look close the prison  
[73:10] jumper Hannibal wears in Silence of the Lambs.
We bought a few overalls that all looked nothing  
[73:15] like the original on camera, 
no matter what we did with it. 
[73:19] We ended up buying a vintage overall 
for women… which explains why it is way  
[73:23] to short for my 6 foot 2. Thank god that 
doesn’t matter in any of the spoof shots 
[73:28] Washing it with bleach a dozen times gave 
it the look of being old and worn and, we  
[73:33] printed the prisoners number in with 
letter stencil sheets and textile color.
[73:38] We mention all of this to encourage you 
to pay attention to detail and invest  
[73:42] into costumes and props, small things can 
make all the difference to sell a character 
[73:48] See, if there is a company in your 
vicinity that rents out authentic costumes,  
[73:52] and if there is not, or you have very 
specific costume needs… get creative.
[74:00] Make up falls in line with the costume… again,  
[74:03] we are not talking about effect make up or 
prosthetics… although it can be absolutely  
[74:08] awesome to put that into your production.
Sometimes it is simple and effective to  
[74:12] just spray some easy to mix artificial 
sweat on your talent to sell the story.
[74:18] If you are not familiar with make up… usually 
the female members of your family, girlfriend,  
[74:22] or wife can help to choose the right product for 
a desired effect, and know how to apply it, too
[74:29] Details are important and you 
should always include costumes,  
[74:33] props, and make up in your thought process.
With all your efforts… try to be as authentic  
[74:39] as you possible can… and, don’t use 
halloween costumes and the likes
[74:49] In cinematography and Photography, the artist 
tries to recreate a three-dimensional world on a  
[74:55] flat surface… your screen.
Painters developed our eye  
[74:59] for “contrast” … meaning the difference 
between light and shadow in this context. 
[75:07] The first artist to come to mind is Rembrandt, 
and his style of lighting his characters and  
[75:11] scenes. This type of lighting is named after 
him. When Rembrandt was born, an other artist,  
[75:17] Italian painter Caravaggio, already 
explored three-dimensional lighting  
[75:21] and perspective in extreme and beautiful ways. 
We can learn a lot from these mans body of work.
[75:31] Lighting it is obviously a very complex subject… 
It can be almost scientific and you can treat it  
[75:37] as such. There are many different approaches 
to lighting… technical, emotional, practical.
[75:44] Film lights are lights sources that are 
explicitly set up to illuminate your scene. 
[75:50] Lights that are not explicitly supplied by 
the cinematographer like sunlight, street  
[75:55] lights, or lamps in a public building are 
referred to as ambient or available light. 
[76:00] Lightsources that are visible in the frame – 
usually not film lights – are usually referred to  
[76:06] as practical lights and as far as they illuminate 
the scenes they count as available light, too.
[76:13] When we think of cinema, we often think of 
gigantic light setups with powerful sources…  
[76:19] and many scenes, old and contemporary 
show the fingerprint of gigantic lights,  
[76:24] sometimes right out of frame – like here 
in fight club, or here in angel heart,  
[76:32] or here in a Clockwork Orange. Historically, the 
use of very bright lights had a lot to do with  
[76:38] the low sensitivity of the film stock. The cast 
and crew of the Wizard of Oz was cooked because  
[76:44] of the demanding Technicolor process, the 
actors in the monkey suits from 2001 worked  
[76:50] always close to a heat stroke because the 
projectors and light created a hellish  
[76:55] temperature. The costumes didn’t help for 
sure… maybe that is why they are in a bad mood.
[77:01] With technological advancements like higher 
sensitivity film and sensors, faster lenses,  
[77:06] and more power efficient lights like HMI and later 
LED, lighting progressively becomes more and more  
[77:12] about aesthetics than technical necessities. That 
doest mean that huge powerful light disappeared,  
[77:18] they are still absolutely necessary for high speed 
– I am on such sets a lot – but for general use,  
[77:24] these kinds of lighting became unfashionable 
– unless you shot on film of course.
[77:29] Some DoPs swear on a natural look, some go 
for more dramatic and or technical approaches,  
[77:35] and there are films that have been shot almost 
exclusively with natural light…… or practicals…  
[77:41] some scenes are shot just with candlelight … 
some with Bunsen burners right out of frame…  
[77:46] there is no right or wrong. It depends on the 
scene, the approach, and the budget of course.
[77:51] Let’s get some inspiration from the greatest 
cinematographers and their different approaches.
[77:56] John Alcott shot many iconic 
Kubrick movies like Barry  
[77:59] Lyndon… The Shining… Clockwork orange, and 2001.
after Alcott passed away, Kubrick shot Full Metal  
[78:09] Jacket with Douglas Milsome. Milsome is on record 
saying that Alcott lit like no other cameraman,  
[78:16] so effectively with little or no light. Most of 
his lighting went into one suitcase. I guess that  
[78:23] was a very big suitcase for 2001- Still, just 
like Kubrick conceptional approach to projects,  
[78:29] Alcotts efficiency was very inspirational for 
me. You don’t need much light for most things.
[78:32] Milsome and Kubrick shot most of Full metal jacket 
with practical and available light to support the  
[78:37] documentary look. Using super speed lenses wide 
open and pushing 400ISO stock to 800ISO made that  
[78:44] possible. Something that is easily outperformed 
by affordable digital cameras these days.
[78:51] Roger Deakins is famous for complex setup 
with ring lights that can be individually  
[78:56] dimmed like he used excessively in Blade 
Runner 2049 or his “light cove” that you  
[79:01] find in many of his films like here in Skyfall.
Deakins can surely be very efficient, too, Still,  
[79:08] he seems to have fun with massive installations 
and the results are absolutely beautiful.
[79:13] Hyote Hoytema shots on large format film a 
lot, and that means he has to use a lot of  
[79:19] light. For this scene in Nope he used massive 
crane based soft box to illuminate the house. 
[79:27] Robert Richardson did similar lighting for 
night exteriors in Django Unchained… it is  
[79:32] amazing that it is so obvious and is still 
accepted by out mind as real moon light. 
[79:37] Hoytema used another approach to light the 
desert for night exteriors… he used the sun. 
[79:43] This shot was films in daytime with a technique  
[79:45] called “day for night”. There is 
a lot of post involved in this.
[79:50] Darius Khondji lit the faces in 1991 
Delicatessen soft, while lighting the sets hard. 
[80:02] For Se7en Khodji created a very 
different look that is just amazing.
  
[80:09] Eric Messerschmid light the sniper scene in “The 
Killer” almost exclusively with the practical  
[80:14] lights that you see in the scene and some LED 
panels in front of the windows. We replicated  
[80:19] those scenes for our free cinematography 
Masterclass “The Killers” using a more  
[80:24] complex setup but with very similar results, 
showing that you can get similar things with  
[80:30] different approaches. We used Erics work 
again for our Mindhunter recreation… the  
[80:40] simplicity that is at the heart of this kind 
of lighting and the small scale lends itself  
[80:46] to beige recreated… even if you just have 
your living room and one light to work with.
[80:51] Ridley Scott is a Director of course but is very 
much based in cinematography and lighting. His  
[80:57] collaboration with Jordan Cronenweth brought 
us the immortal beauty that is Blade Runner. 
[81:04] They approached lighting by 
switching more and more lights off,  
[81:07] until they got the one light left that is 
the only important one. This famous scene  
[81:12] from Blade Runner uses one big light from 
the back… a bounce on the right and haze  
[81:17] reflects the light to fill the shadows. BTW… 
did you know that Fight Club was shot by Jeff  
[81:25] Cronenweth… the son of Jordan Cronenweth … 
a dynasty of exceptional cinematographers.
[81:33] Of course one can rely on natural light like  
[81:36] Emmanuel Lubezki did for The Revenant … 
that requires a lot of planning, time,  
[81:41] luck… and using a lot of post to get 
the result you experience on screen.
[81:46] What does this all mean for a 
filmmaker starting out? What  
[81:46] is a recipe for your own approach.
Obviously there is a lot to learn  
[81:48] and that can be intimidating… at 
least that is how I feel about it.
[81:53] It is almost dangerous to give “rules of 
thumb” to work with for people that start out. 
[81:58] There are so many different situations and 
requirements … from beauty to product shots,  
[82:03] from gritty street lights and car 
interiors, to stylised approaches… 
[82:07] and there are so many techniques and qualities 
to lighting … direct, indirect, soft, hard,  
[82:13] color schemes… it is a wide field that 
would deserve many episodes just by  
[82:18] themselves and there are many great resources 
on YouTube that we encourage you to check out.
[82:23] But let’s give you a tiny bit to work from.
[82:27] Start with what emotion a light evokes 
in you, and how that serves the story. 
[82:32] How does the light look, what 
quality does it have – meaning,  
[82:37] is it soft… or hard… from what 
direction does it come and why. 
[82:42] What is the justification for a light… 
meaning, is it believable in context.  
[82:47] This is called motivated light.
Does the lighting fit the staging  
[82:51] and blocking… will your the movement 
in the scene obstruct a light.
[82:55] You don’t need a truckload of light for a 
cinematic image. Small mobile lights and  
[82:59] even available light can do magic if you know 
how to use it – If John Alcott could light  
[83:04] out of a suitcase using film… you can… well… 
learn that, too? Just try to bebBe efficient. 
[83:11] If you rely on available light, you are 
forced into a spontaneous and quick working  
[83:16] style as natural light tends to change 
and ruin your continuity … and it also  
[83:21] limits the predictability of a shots look. 
Replacing available light with artificial  
[83:28] light will add a lot of control and freedom 
to concentrate on other things like… acting. 
[83:36] Sometimes available light like street lights 
and practicals like the headlights of the  
[83:40] car … and just adding something very 
small and very mobile can do the trick.
[83:45] If you have a situation like a build set in a 
studio… playing with light can be just awesome,  
[83:50] and lights can be very handsome, not 
only to illuminate but as practicals.
[83:55] Create depth and shape with lighting…
Back lighting tends to look more  
[83:59] cinematic than a flat light from the 
front… three point lighting like you  
[84:03] do it in an interview rarely looks cinematic.
Haze can make light visible and create depth in  
[84:10] the simplest of setups… hazers are cheap and 
simple to use… don’t forget to switch off or  
[84:16] remove smoke detectors for your shoot, and 
don’t forget to reinstall them afterwards. 
[84:21] If you look at a scene in a movie and you 
like the lighting, it is not to hard to  
[84:25] figure out how it was lit… or at least, how 
to build a tiny setup in your living room or  
[84:30] garage that will produce a similar result.
All you need to do is look at the face  
[84:35] of your talent… or for lack of alternatives 
yourself, and the actor in the original scene. 
[84:40] What quality and direction has the light? 
Is it soft or hard … meaning, does it cast  
[84:45] a hard or a soft shadow and in what direction. 
How bright is it relative to other lights and  
[84:51] the ambient light. What color does it have?
Put your lights in the same places. If it is  
[84:56] a very hard light, use a point light source, 
if it is a soft light prefer a light panel  
[85:02] and/or add a large diffusion. Use grids to 
direkt soft light and prevent spill … most of  
[85:08] the time you are already there – the eye is 
easily fooled even with very simple setups.
[85:17] The first time I tried to emulate the lighting of 
a movie scene, it was for our The Shining Spoof…  
[85:27] and for a first time, I think it came out 
nicely… no expensive lights, no studio, just,  
[85:33] using what I had… and that should encourage 
you. Obviously, it get harder when you have  
[85:35] to light a whole scene or group and not just a 
person and a green screen. That includes having  
[85:40] to use much more powerful lights at a larger 
distance, but the principles remain the same.
[85:49] Importance to a cinematic image is … very 
high! But that doesn’t mean that a lighting  
[85:54] setup is very complex or expensive…
I think that many of our spoof and  
[85:59] recreations over the years proved that.
Always keep in mind… light should  
[86:05] serve the story that you try to tell.
Think about the lighting… but don’t overthink it.
[86:52] Having all ingredients to make a film in place, 
it is time to start cooking your magic sauce. 
[86:58] Of course you would start a film by 
putting concepts and a script together,  
[87:02] but as we are only talking 
about the image, we will leave  
[87:05] that out… and start by
composing the image.
[87:09] Just like with a painting, a composition 
is everything that is on the canvas so in  
[87:17] the frame. Unlike a painting a film 
can change the framing over time. 
[87:24] Composition describes your image in 
terms of what is in the frame… and where. 
[87:26] To create a composition you put your 
characters, props and camera in the  
[87:31] desired positions. This called Staging.
This might be static, or it might be  
[87:37] dynamic when characters, props or the 
camera moves. Moving characters is  
[87:41] often also referred as blocking but staging 
and blocking can be also used synonymously. 
[87:47] The composition and staging can be used 
to gives subtext. It can direct attention,  
[87:53] imply power relations, show alliances, help 
with orientation… or disorientation, and many  
[88:00] many other things without a line of dialog.
Staging does not only include the relative  
[88:07] position of characters to each and 
the stage, but also the position of  
[88:11] a character to himself. Simple body language is 
a form of staging. Staging can extend the set,  
[88:18] for example by clever placement of mirrors putting 
all relevant parts of the story into one frame. 
[88:24] Composition can be done very formal 
and it can be done intuitive. 
[88:29] It is the filmmaker job to tell the story 
through his composition. To maintain a  
[88:34] certain style of composition and staging 
can work as a trademark of a director,  
[88:38] like Wes Anderson’s obsession with 
creating 2 dimensional compositions.
[88:43] Staging is not only useful for 
composition and for subtext,  
[88:46] but it can also be a great tool to 
direct the actors… well directly. 
[88:51] We have spoken about “Method directing” 
earlier… this can be a way to apply it. 
[88:56] A director can put an actor in a relaxed or 
in an uncomfortable position by staging… as  
[89:01] a result the actor has less “acting” 
to do and behaviour is authentic. 
[89:06] Practically this can mean to put 
the actor in an open space to make  
[89:10] him or her feel unsupported and vulnerable,
or putting putting him or her in a comfy chair  
[89:16] behind a desk and therefor in a place of power…
This authenticity will help the audience to  
[89:21] emphasise with the character on a basic 
lever… and give the story more impact.
[89:28] The Silence of the Lambs is an example for this. 
In the first meeting, Starling is sitting most  
[89:33] of the time while Lecter is standing. In this 
context, that gives Lecter a natural dominant  
[89:38] position – he is the teacher… he is in charge. 
Unlike bars, the glass “disappears” in our mind  
[89:42] and ads to Starlings vulnerability. Lectors 
reflection in the glass sometimes overlaps  
[89:48] Starlings face, implying his powerful influence on 
her. Lector comes very close to the glass invading  
[89:55] the personal space of the camera and therefore 
Starlings… and the audiences. What you only  
[90:01] realise when analysing the staging, is that the 
“point of view” often switches from a third person  
[90:06] view to a first version view… but that is only 
true for starlings point of view. Suddenly we,  
[90:10] the audience, are Starling and we are the 
ones who are influenced and threatened. 
[90:15] This is the power of staging.
We replicated this effect for the spoofs in  
[90:17] this episode… when Starling is absent, I look into 
the camera… when Starling is there I look at her…  
[90:24] the close ups always look into the camera. 
You become Starling. This sounds trivial,  
[90:31] but it is actually quite difficult 
to get the eye lines right.
[90:36] It makes sense to give newcomers some 
inspiration and something formal to work with. 
[90:41] A good starting point is to 
compose an image for aesthetic  
[90:44] impact utilising design principals of visual arts.
There are easy to apply rules of thumb that make a  
[90:49] composition work.
Like, the rule of thirds or the golden ratio
[90:50] If you are a photographer, 
graphic designer, or painter,  
[90:54] this might come very natural to you, but 
if you are not, these principals are highly  
[90:58] formalised. We encourage you to invest time 
in studying and using these principals – and  
[91:04] to throw them out of the widow, too. 
Anarchy can be a very valid approach.
[91:09] One formal form of staging in a 
cinematic context is the 180° “rule”
[91:30] This is usually used for dialog 
with static camera angels… 
[91:34] One character always looks to the right… one 
Character always looks to the left… in our minds,  
[91:40] the characters look at each other. This is 
achieved by keeping the camera always on  
[91:45] one side of the imaginary 180° line.
If the camera moves over that line,  
[91:51] the eye line is broken… these 
people don’t look at each other. 
[91:56] The camera and characters can cross the 
imaginary line within a shot as you see  
[92:01] that crossing happening. You could also break 
the rule to intentionally disorientate the  
[92:06] audience. The most famous example for this is 
the bathroom scene in Kubrick’s The Shining,  
[92:12] that we showed in the camera comparison earlier. 
Here we switch from one side to the other to  
[92:17] make the audience experience Jacks confusion. The 
sequel “Doctor Sleep” one ups that effect by not  
[92:24] only switching the side, but also the position 
of the characters… with the same sub context.
[92:30] Beyond dialog, the 180° rule can 
be applied to almost anything to  
[92:35] help with spacial orientation. 
Fraction A shoots to the left,  
[92:39] fraction B shoot to the right… these characters 
are shooting at each other. Even in Close ups  
[92:45] you can instinctively tell which character 
belong to which fraction by its orientation.
[92:51] The highest form of staging is to combine a 
series of shots into one seamless sequence… Steven  
[92:57] Spielberg is a master of this technique. His 
movies often contain sequences that link 4 or 5  
[93:04] different shots, each with their own compositions, 
into one continuous scene. Single, over shoulder,  
[93:09] inserts, wides, close ups, all flowing together. 
To pull something like this off is very complex  
[93:12] for your actors and your crew. Blocking, 
Framing and timing has to be extremely well  
[93:18] choreographed to make this work… but if it does… 
it is fantastic. If you try something like this,  
[93:24] always shoot some alternative angles so you 
retain the option to edit the sequence in post.
[93:30] Generally, a good staging enhances your 
storytelling… while a bad one confuses  
[93:35] your audience unintentionally.
How would you compose your image  
[93:39] and stage your scene to tell your story?
A strong vision will guide your production.
[93:58] A huge ingredient in the magic sauce 
is the post… this is where a good  
[94:03] image turns into a phantasic image.
Shooting digital in a cinematic way  
[94:09] does not mean that you have to mimic the 
look of analog film… it is about finding  
[94:15] an aesthetic that works in context.
Still, film emulations are often part  
[94:21] of our grades using and abusing the 
visual trigger that comes with them. 
[94:27] With or without the typical artefacts, 
like grain, damage, halation and jitter…  
[94:32] from a subtile shift in the colors up to 
emulating a specific stock and process.
[94:40] As mentioned we will leave the edit out of the 
picture and focus on the image itself. We will  
[94:44] also leave out complex CGI that can basically do 
anything and everything if it is done well… and  
[94:50] that is a big IF of course.
Composting can do a lot.  
[94:54] Like extending you set… putting in layers… 
combining different shots… or removing unwanted  
[95:00] elements… our episode contain a lot of compositing 
and we will get into a tutorial on how we created  
[95:06] some of the FX for this episode in a minute. But 
let’s talk about the look of the image first.
[95:13] When you see a movie and you are 
stunned by the beauty of the shot
[95:13] Movies look different than reality… 
just like paint on a canvas,  
[95:18] the cinematic process creates a poetic 
layer between the artist and the audience. 
[95:23] Black & white film, a technicolor color 
process, or even modern color film… 
[95:28] Each process and chemistry had its own look … 
and non of what you see through the history of  
[95:32] cinema resembles what you see in your daily life. 
This wasn’t even intentional but a side effect. 
[95:40] Cinematographers could change how a certain stock 
looked by filtration, pre flashing, Varicons,  
[95:45] and many other techniques… including post 
effect like altering the photochemical  
[95:50] process and color timing. Imagine Saving 
private Ryan without the Bleach bypass that  
[95:55] desaturates the colors and increased contrast.
Scanning the negative and altering the colors  
[96:03] with computers gave filmmakers way more freedom 
and control over colors while retaining the  
[96:08] original character of the film stock.
Digital acquisition changed that a lot. 
[96:13] While different sensors can 
be seen like different stocks,  
[96:16] this doesn’t have as much impact on the image as 
analog film had. The poetic layer gets thinner. 
[96:24] Most cinematic images in the digital age, 
have been processed a lot to look a very  
[96:29] specific way – this can be subtile (the 
menu) or extreme (fury road). We call this  
[96:35] process “grading”. In the professional 
landscape this is done by a Colourist. 
[96:40] This can lead to very unique looking images, that 
have little in common with traditional film stock. 
[96:45] Still, there is often a longing for the poetry 
that analog film has… so, let’s dial fury roads  
[96:51] extreme grade back and apply a film emulation 
in post. You can see it as anachronistic or  
[96:58] you can see it as the power of reality… just like 
listening to vinyl records, or tapes… it is hard  
[97:03] to deny the emotional impact that the analog world 
has… by the way, this is really analog film from  
[97:09] Mad Max: beyond thunder dome now. If you didn’t 
notice the transition… Dehancer did a great job.
[97:15] Denis Villeneuves Dune was shot digital on Arri 
Alexa LF. The RAW footage was printed to film  
[97:21] and then scanned back to digital. When you look 
carefully you see typical artefacts like gate  
[97:27] weaving, meaning that the image jumps a tiny 
bit between frames, and a very mild film grain. 
[97:34] This process seems excessive for something that 
has such litte visible impact – most production  
[97:40] will use film emulation software like Dehancer.
Adding grain is always a very poular choice,  
[97:46] as it adds life to digital images…
Alien Romulus looks quite clean,  
[97:51] but you can see another artefact: Halation… 
meaning, a red-orange halo near the contrasting  
[97:57] boundaries of over-exposed areas.
Still, shooting film does have  
[98:02] its magic and Dune part three will be 
shot on newly developed IMAX cameras.
[98:07] If you are an upcoming filmmaker. chances are you 
don’t have a colonist at hand … so, you might have  
[98:14] to do the grading, film emulation, and compositing 
yourself. It is a learning curve for sure, but it  
[98:20] also fun. Everything you see on this channel is 
self thought, and if I can do, you can do it.
[98:29] I love the look of the older movies, they 
looked so unique and beautiful … you just  
[98:34] want to take any frame from them and hang it on 
your walls. If you want to copy the look of a  
[98:39] movie of even put yourself or others into them 
you have to start like with any other movie,  
[98:45] by recreating the lighting, sets costumes etc.
In this tutorial, we don’t need the sets, because  
[98:52] we work with green screen, but you still need 
the costume and and you have to light according. 
[98:57] To get to the look of the 
analog film we use Dehancer. 
[99:01] It basically does what they did with Dune,  
[99:03] printing and rescanning the film … 
but in a purely emulated fashion.
[99:08] We love Dehancer and have used it on 
about everything we did in the past  
[99:12] years… so we speak with quite a bit of experience.
[99:15] Dehancer is a Plugin that is available for 
the major video platforms Davinvi Resolve,  
[99:21] Adobe Premiere & After Effects, and Final Cut Pro 
[99:25] There is also a stills version for 
Photoshop, Lightroom, Capture One Pro,  
[99:29] Affinity Photo, and there is even a 
mobile iOS and a browser based version.
[99:34] For our task it is great that we can use 
Dehancer with the same settings and interface  
[99:38] inside Resolve and in Aftereffect… it 
makes a lot of sense as you will see.
[99:43] So, what does Dehancer do exactly?… well, it is 
more a collection of tools than just one tool.  
[99:50] Together these tools create a very sophisticated 
film emulation suite that lets you emulate more  
[99:55] than 60 film profiles of different stocks 
with different inputs from different cameras. 
[100:01] Simply choose the camera you shot 
on… and apply a stock option… done. 
[100:08] You have some thing specific in mind? You can look 
up the stock that a film used on IMDB, and choose  
[100:13] a similar one in Dehancer, or you can just play 
around until you find something you like. But,  
[100:19] the colors are just a tiny part of the emulation 
you can dial in Film Grain, Halation, Bloom, Film  
[100:25] Breathing and Damage, Gate weaving, Overscan and 
many other things that give your footage a unique  
[100:30] … and analog feel. From a vintage super8 look 
to 70mm glory, Dehancer offers a lot of presets,  
[100:37] but you can also customise about everything.
While it is simple to use Dehancer…creating  
[100:42] the technology and profiles behind the interface 
is everything but simple. All available stocks  
[100:48] have to be shot, scanned and color matched with 
3D color morphing. It is necessary to interpret  
[100:54] sampled data using nonlinear algorithms 
to obtain satisfactory perceptual results.
[101:01] Lets go a bit deeper into grain.
Grain isn’t just overlaid on the  
[101:05] image. Image consists of grain. A “grain” 
is like a pixel in a digital image,  
[101:11] except that form and size varies. One of 
the key points that follows from this is  
[101:16] that image detail depends on grain size, and 
visible details do not exceed grain size. 
[101:22] Dehancer managed to create a reliable 
mathematical 3D model that allows to  
[101:27] generate flexibe analogue-like grain. Unlike 
overlaying an image of scanned analog grain,  
[101:34] it respects the thickness of the film emulsion 
and generates grain based on local colour  
[101:39] and brightness characteristics of the image.
This allows the user to dial in the perceived  
[101:46] details, not only overall, but separately 
in shadows, midtones and highlights. 
[101:52] Remember the beginning of this episode where 
we talked about your image being to sharp?  
[101:56] This is the sophisticated method to reduce the 
perceived resolution to something more cinematic.
[102:02] When you found I look you love? You can generate 
LUTs for the color information (not the grain)  
[102:07] right in Dehancer. You can use those to 
monitor during production… this helps to  
[102:12] get the lighting and exposure just right for 
the look you are trying to achieve in post.
[102:17] Now, Dehancer offers a lot of bang for the 
bug… still, it is not what I would call cheap.  
[102:23] A lifetime version for two seats is 449 USD – 
that is for each host application - apart from  
[102:30] Premiere and After Effects that share the same 
plugin. There are also rental options for 3,  
[102:35] 6, and 12 months if you need 
Dehancer for a limited time.
[102:39] So, can you do film emulation without it? 
Sure, Resolve has the Film look creator  
[102:44] that offers a similar set of features, although 
less sophisticated without specific film stocks  
[102:50] and it also lacks specific camera inputs. 
A really important benefit of Dehancer is,  
[102:55] that you are not bound to the Resolve Platform… 
you can use the same plugin and setting across  
[103:00] different host applications – Which is super 
important if you don’t do your comps in Fusion.
[103:06] Dehancer likes our litte spoofs so they sponsored 
this episode… thank you so much Dehancer,  
[103:10] I think they deserve some of our a love for that.
If you want to try Dehancer there is a free  
[103:15] 2-week trial version for download, and if it 
works for you, we also have the promo code:  
[103:20] MEDIADIVISION will give you 10% off for 
all Dehancer products (except the iOS app). 
[103:26] You will find all the links and the 
Code in the description of this video.
[103:30] Let’s get you into film emulation and compositing 
with our “Breaking the Silence” tutorial.
[103:36] We are not going to do the intro sequence, 
which is quite complex as the camera is moving. 
[103:41] But this one… and, no the camera is not moving… 
[103:44] and, we are going to talk about one 
of the much simpler talkie setups.
[103:48] We are going to use DaVinci Resolve, Adobe After 
Effects, and Photoshop… but of course you can use  
[103:53] other apps. If you are familiar with 
Fusion you can stay within Resolve,  
[103:57] and if you use Premiere you can stay in the 
Adobe Suite… both make it easier, I guess.
[104:04] If you are a Lynch or a Kubrick member of this 
channel you will also get the Action Pack with  
[104:08] the Timelines and After Effects Projects 
to play with. You can find the download  
[104:12] links in the community tab of this channel… 
they will only pop up if you are a member on  
[104:17] the respective tier. This will also contain some 
green screen footage with the Dehancer settings,  
[104:23] so, if you want to do this yourself you can 
simply drop in your own green screen footage,  
[104:28] and maybe something you want to run on 
the TV to show in the reflection. Non  
[104:32] of them will contain footage from the 
original film, for copyright reasons.
[104:36] Let’s start with the simpler 
one, the wide angle talkie setup.
[104:40] We are going to use this original scene 
from the movie, which has the benefit,  
[104:44] that you have different lighting situations 
that one can use for different scenes.
[104:49] You simply take the original 
scene and reduce grain in Resolve  
[104:53] using Temporal Noise reduction. This works 
fabulously as the camera is not moving. 
[104:58] Now export a frame without 
motion blur and an PNG file. 
[105:00] Import the frame in Photoshop and use generative 
fill to edit out Lector… edit out Starling and  
[105:06] edit in things she was covering… again generative 
fill helps but here you will have to use some  
[105:12] conventional stamping and extension.
You do the same with the air holes,  
[105:16] the TV reflection, and you mask 
out the table, and the bench. 
[105:18] Use the original air holes to create 
a layer with just the air holes.
[105:18] Export the whole scene without 
the air holes as a PNG… 
[105:22] And air holes, bench, and table as separate PNGs 
with alpha channel to keep the transparencies.
[105:29] Import all on these into After Effects.
[105:32] Double the backdrop and put it in the front.
Mask out the window, and the TV set… make sure  
[105:40] that your masks are feathered fitting 
the blurriness of the respective object
[105:45] Now, if you put something in front of the backdrop  
[105:47] but behind ind the rest of the things. 
It looks like it is inside the cell.
[105:51] Here you built a new TV  
[105:53] reflection… it’s just a comp that is 
mirrored and contains a distorted video. 
[105:58] Mask some holes in it that fit the 
air holes… holes are non reflective. 
[106:03] In our action pack comp, you can replace the 
video by dropping your own in the according comp.
[106:10] Now we shot what we want to place 
in the cell. In this case… me. 
[106:14] Costume is important here… refer to the 
according chapter for information on this one,  
[106:19] but you can get creative and do 
something completely different. 
[106:22] When you want to film something to 
match a backdrop, you should try  
[106:26] to match the lighting as good as possible.
We see in the original… there is top light  
[106:31] on the right… a soft spot on the left, another 
toplight in the center, and a general soft fill. 
[106:40] My living room is a bit small, but 
we can get away with this setup. 
[106:44] There are narrow LED panels from the 
top center and from the top right. 
[106:48] A small flexible panel light 
create the left soft spot,  
[106:51] and you see a big diffusion 
that will give as a bit of fill. 
[106:54] These lights will simultaneous 
illuminate the green screen quite evenly. 
[106:58] The Green screen itself is 
just paper taped to the roof.
[107:02] On of the most important things for a green screen 
effect to be believable is how to position the  
[107:06] camera, it should be at the same angle, height, 
and distance as the camera in the original. 
[107:12] Only these properties influence the perspective, 
so it doesn’t matter what focal length or sensor  
[107:17] format you use… simply choose a focal length 
that has a framing wide enough to allow the  
[107:22] desired movement. In our case and with a Full 
Frame Camera that is a Canon FD 55mm lens.  
[107:29] The Talkies where shot on our Kinefinity Mavo.
As Lecter is very static in his movements you  
[107:34] can simply set the focus and be done with 
it. Of course we use LOG and a 444 color  
[107:40] sampling for a good key and I hide a tiny LAV 
mic in the prison jumpsuit to get good audio.
[107:46] To keep the eyeline right we look into 
the lens when Starling is not in the  
[107:50] room. A nice big monitor helps us to 
see if we are in the right spot from  
[107:54] far away. This is the Portkeys MT22DS … a 
really nice monitor with cool features… it  
[108:01] is really recommendable and 
we are working on a review.
[108:04] Now, we just record whatever we want 
to say… no second operator required.
[108:10] After we are done we import the footage 
into After Effects, we apply a rec709 LUT  
[108:15] so the footage can be keyed better. Then we apply 
Keylight, a Key Cleaner and a spill suppressor. 
[108:22] Now we drop the green screen comp into our 
Cell comp and mask out the remaining stuff,  
[108:27] and resize and position it until 
it fits the cell correctly.
[108:31] Looks OK so far… but as you see, Lector 
sticks our as he doesn’t have the right  
[108:36] colors… and, he is way to detailed 
in relation to the surrounding image.
[108:41] Now let’s do some film 
emulation magic using Dehancer. 
[108:44] And we will keep it amazingly 
simple for this task. 
[108:48] Before we apply the Dehancer plugin, 
I like to put a Gaussian Blur and  
[108:52] a Lumetri Color in the the Effect stack.
If you decrease the resolution in Dehancer it  
[108:57] will not affect the mask of the green screen, 
but if we use a gaussian blur it will blend  
[109:02] Lecter into the backdrop, just like missed 
focus would. We have so much detail to burn,  
[109:07] that we will still reduce detail with 
Dehancer, as well. We set some basic  
[109:12] contrast, and color balance, you can do this 
within Dehancer, but I prefer Lumetri here. 
[109:18] In the Dehancer Plugin we use the Kodak Vision 
250D stock … D stands for Daylight and our camera  
[109:24] was balanced for the LEDs with 5600 kelvin. We 
set some other factors until it looks just right…  
[109:31] you will have all the specific settings in the 
action packs, including this green screen footage.
[109:37] Now, what is missing here is the grain and the 
gate weaving that you also see in the original,  
[109:44] you can now add an adjustment layer and again use 
the dehancer plugin but disabling the film stock  
[109:51] and only have grain and gate weaving enabled… you 
can look at the original scene to match the grain,  
[109:57] or do something that looks a little less 
ruff and is more compression friendly. We  
[110:02] actually recommend to not do the last step in 
After Effects BUT in your NLE… this allows you  
[110:08] to change grain and weaving for all scenes 
without having to pre-render. This shows how  
[110:14] important the cross app capabilities of 
Dehancer are. Dehancer is fast enough in  
[110:19] Resolve to display emulation in real time, 
so this is a very convenient thing to do.
[110:24] And… done!
[110:24] Let’s go right into our second scene 
that poses a very different set of  
[110:27] challenges and will utilise a different 
workflow. It is a close up, and we want to  
[110:33] do a lot more with the face… this is why we 
will do our grade and emulation in Resolve. 
[110:39] This is the original scene that we want to 
recreate… and as you see, the camera is moving,  
[110:44] which makes the whole thing a lot more complex. 
In the original intro scene this is a dolly shot,  
[110:50] and here you basically have to move the camera 
to match the change in perspective… which we  
[110:55] did with a slider. As you see, we used our Alexa 
for the main spoof. The movement for the scene  
[111:01] we have here is more of a pan and tilt, so we 
can get away with something much simpler. The  
[111:06] camera we shot our green screen footage on is 
actually static on a tripod. The Trick is to  
[111:11] reframe the image to mimic the cameras action… 
we will show you how we did that in a second
[111:16] We use the same lighting setup as in the 
intro sequence, but we also put in a card box  
[111:21] that will be a stand in for the cells window 
frame and it will cast the shadow on Lecter,  
[111:26] which will look a lot more realistic than to do 
that in post. If you can go practical… do it.
[111:33] We import the green screen footage in 
Resolve I have all the Nodes we need  
[111:37] already in , and I will show you. what each does.
To see what you are doing, you can use an overlay  
[111:42] of the original scene, but as the lighting changes 
throughout the scene, I prefer to see the original  
[111:48] clip as a sequence… You can do that by putting 
it under your footage on the timeline. Now in  
[111:54] the Color tab, we add an alpha output to the image 
and we also add a second node with a rec709 LUT,  
[112:01] followed by a node with a 3D keyer. This doesn’t 
have to be great, it is just for the workflow. We  
[112:07] will do our key later in After effects. We also 
add a node with a mask to get a garbage matte.
[112:13] We can not only see the 
original behind our footage,  
[112:16] but it will also move along with our 
footage, and we can see how well our  
[112:21] footage is blending into a similar backdrop 
later. If you reframe fore– and background,  
[112:26] it helps you to have moving scopes to 
match your footage, too. Super practical.
[112:31] I like to put general grading in front of 
the Dehancer Pluging that is in this Node,  
[112:37] we again use the Kodak Vision3 Profile. While 
you can do most of the grading inside Dehancer  
[112:42] we opted to only use it for the stocks color 
emulation in this part of the workflow… grain is  
[112:48] disabled and we will add that in After Effects.
We work by setting up Dehancer and then adding  
[112:54] nodes around it to get to the desired result. 
Our first node is just balancing and getting  
[112:59] the exposure right… the waveform helps a lot.
In the next one we change my eyes to match  
[113:05] Lecters pale dead eyes – we didn’t do that in the 
talkies as it would have just made it so much more  
[113:10] complex. We simply draw litte polygons around the 
iris… and use softness and curves to lighten the  
[113:17] eyes. In the tracks window we track each iris 
– help manual in frame mode when tracker looses  
[113:24] the iris in the turn. Leon from team 2 films 
will surely tell me how stupid I do this and  
[113:30] show me a more efficient way… BTW shoutout to 
team 2 film… a great resource here on youtube,  
[113:35] especially for all things Resolve – Check it out. 
Next node takes care of the prison jumper – even  
[113:42] after 20 washings with bleach the color is 
still to vibrant, so we pick a color range,  
[113:46] and now we can dial that down just a tiny 
bit and we also push the shadows a little.  
[113:55] We already went through the heart of this 
grade… the film equation using Dehancer  
[113:59] with a Kodak Profile. Coming out of Dehancer 
we are way to blue in the highlights and we  
[114:04] correct that with a post emulation node.
I came out a little to shiny for my taste,  
[114:11] so we are using the face refinement 
Effect from Resolve to track my face,  
[114:15] and we apply a bit of shine removal… this will 
make it look like I was wearing a bit of make up,  
[114:20] just like Anthony did in the original. The 
next and last node takes care of the spill  
[114:26] from our green screen. We simply drop 
greens in our Hue vs Saturation curve.
[114:30] We can now deactivate our alpha 
output… and export or grade with  
[114:34] a high color sampling… like ProRes444.
As 10bit log footage is a bit heavy,  
[114:41] I also included a rec709 file 
for keying in your ActionPack.
[114:46] Now we switch into After Effects – yes Leon, I 
am sure you can do this in Fusion… but I can’t. 
[114:52] Looking at the original scene it is obvious that 
we can’t remove Anthony for a clean background,  
[114:58] so what are we going to do? We simply export an 
image where the window frame is in focus, and an  
[115:05] image where the background is in focus… and we do 
some photoshop magic. We extend the bar … which  
[115:11] is the easy part… and the background… which is 
quite painful. You will see that the drawings  
[115:17] in the background are not complete in this scene, 
so we searched for other scenes where they kind  
[115:21] of are… and matched them to this scene. I will 
not bore you with the Photoshop process here.
[115:26] In After Effects, we track the foreground… one 
of the screws in the frame will work fine. We  
[115:32] apply the tracking dat to a null object.
We also track the background… parts of  
[115:38] the wall will work… again, we apply 
the tracking data to a null object. 
[115:44] We import our foreground… that is 
just the frame bar in this case…  
[115:48] and position it to match the original. We 
choose the foreground Null as a parent. 
[115:54] We also made a file for the glass in the 
foreground… a bit of dirt and fingerprints…  
[115:58] it is just there to sell that Lecter is 
actually behind glass. We also choose the  
[116:03] foreground Null as a parent.
We import the wall and  
[116:08] position it to match the original.
We choose the background Null as a parent. 
[116:15] Now we import Lector as the green screen version 
and in the graden version and pre comp them.  
[116:25] In the new comp we apply keylight to the 
rec709 version and mask out the garbage,  
[116:31] including the card box.
In the graded footage below  
[116:37] the keyed footage we choose the keyed footage 
as a Track Matte and now we have an excellent  
[116:43] Key on our grade without having to think 
about the grades impact on our green screen. 
[116:49] Now we scale and position 
the comp to match the scene,  
[116:53] and we choose the foreground Null as the parent. 
[116:57] As Lecter is walking to the back… we have 
to reposition him at the end of the fake  
[117:02] camera movement. Set a position keyframe 
at the start and at the end of the camera  
[117:07] move and change his position at the end… ease 
the movement in and out in the Graph editor.
[117:13] That looks already quite good, but what is 
missing is the depth of field effect we see in  
[117:17] the original. That is an easy fix… just apply the 
lens blur effect to the background. Set a keyframe  
[117:28] for blur radius at the end and at the begging of 
the focus pull. we set the radius to 40 at the end  
[117:31] and zero in the beginning. We apply the same to 
the frame bar and the window, but here we keyframe  
[117:37] the radius in reverse order. And there you go… as 
a litte extra we did the reflection in the mirror…  
[117:46] we just matched the original reflection in, 
but that is to boring and complex to show here.
[117:51] Now we are done… one cool thing about having 
everything done this way is that you can just  
[117:54] drop whatever you like into the wall image of 
the background. Lets say Lector is a huge fan  
[118:00] of the Band Kiss… just drop a poster on 
the wall … and presto… now Lectors cell  
[118:05] has a lot more rock and roll in it.
 
Again, you can find all the footage,  
[118:20] projects, timelines, settings you’ll need in the 
action pack of this episode. Not the copyrighted  
[118:25] parts of course. To get the action pack you have 
to be, or become a Lynch or Kubrick Member (rest  
[118:32] in peace sensei Lynch). Contend is the same 
here but if you are a Kubrick member you also  
[118:38] get consultation… so, if you have questions 
about this or anything else film related,  
[118:43] you can always hook up with us, and we we help 
you… if we can. You will also need Dehancer if  
[118:49] you don’t want to try something else yourself… 
there is a free trial version and we will put  
[118:53] a link to that in the description. If you want 
to buy dehancer, don’t forget that we have a 10%  
[118:58] off deal with our prome code MEDIADIVISION… 
again. you’ll find that in the description.
[119:04] Have Fun with that and create something 
outstanding… be sure to do it in a  
[119:07] transformative way that honours and elevates 
the legacy of the original “Silence of the  
[119:12] Lambs” movie. We strongly believe that it 
is the kind of engagement that keeps a movie  
[119:17] alive as a relevant piece of our culture 
and carries it from one generation to the  
[119:22] next – this is what makes a movie a classic! lt 
benefit us as filmmaker’s, a general audience,  
[119:29] the creators of the original, as well as the 
copyright holders. What is wrong with that?!
[119:37] We came full turn and gave you our recipe on 
how to create films that look cinematic… and  
[119:43] show a production value that looks way higher 
than the tiny budget that these actually had. 
[119:48] Within this recipe you can 
easily dial up and down aspects. 
[119:53] Maybe you have access to better camera and 
lenses… maybe you can only use a phone. 
[119:58] Maybe you have a little crew and some lights,  
[120:01] maybe you are alone and have 
to work with available lights. 
[120:05] Maybe you have great sets, and maybe 
you have to look for cool public spaces 
[120:10] Wherever you are in the spectrum and 
wherever your expertise and budget is,  
[120:14] we hope that we where able to encourage you to 
give it your best – and show you, that you can  
[120:19] do incredible things with very little.
Just lacking in one or two of the many  
[120:22] departments we talked about, will still allow 
you to create film that is worth watching. 
[120:22] The most important ingredient is you!
In the end, you can really feel the  
[120:25] love and effort that is poured in to every 
frame – into every aspect of it – ultimately,  
[120:25] that is what makes an image cinematic 
in every way that it can be perceived. 
[120:25] So, do just that… think about the 
details, give it all your love, make the  
[120:25] best out of your circumstances and your budget.
Filmmaking is a journey. When you start out your  
[120:27] results are usually far away from your vision – 
and then comes a time later on, where your results  
[120:33] are better than what you imagined… and that 
is a wonderful feeling worth working towards. 
[120:38] Keep your goal in sight but concentrate 
on the steps… just like in a marathon,  
[120:44] only this will keep you from loosing heart. And, 
if your results aren’t what you where hoping for…
[120:52] Learn from your mistakes… life is long 
and you will get better and better
[120:59] Which everything we have gone through 
and explained in this episode,  
[121:03] let me take a big step back… and qualify 
some things from a personal standpoint.
[121:10] If you look at cinematography or videography, 
how it is practiced especially in lower end films  
[121:17] today, don’t you have the feeling that most things 
tend to look the same… follow the same recipe… and  
[121:24] often fail to create an interesting vision.
It is easy to fall in that trap. Knowing  
[121:31] everything about lighting, framing, blocking…… 
and doing all the right thing… it often gets you  
[121:39] the same uninspired and boring image.
Perfect can be the enemy of good.
[121:46] Looking at the scenes of cinematic 
history that moved me the most,  
[121:50] I often see that they are not perfect, 
and maybe not intended to be. Sometimes  
[121:56] leaving something away can be very 
powerful… that is true for any art. 
[122:02] To “reduce” the things until the important parts 
become visible is a whole school of thought.  
[122:09] Artist like Rick Rubin, Alberto Giacomett, 
and Ridley Scott are guided by that principle.
[122:15] Filming should leave room for 
spontaneity… and at least for  
[122:20] me… letting go a bit and not overthink or 
overplaning things created my favourite shots. 
[122:26] Still, the image has to serve the story 
and not the other way around. A good  
[122:32] movie is a great story first..
And… what makes a great story?
[122:39] Once upon a time there was a witch and she 
had a golden lasso that made her immortal…
[122:49] See… a good story is one where 
you want to know how it ends.
[122:54] I want to thank Dehancer for their 
support and making this episode  
[122:58] possible … I think they deserve a bit 
of love for that, so, check them out. 
[123:02] Lynch and Kubrick members of the channel can 
download the action pack that includes some  
[123:06] footage from our spoof and project files from 
Resolve and After Effects including the nodes  
[123:10] and effect setting that we used – you can play 
around with that to your hearts desire. If you  
[123:15] just love our content and you would like 
to support our mission to bring passion  
[123:19] and education to the filmmaking community, 
you can do that by becoming a Scott member.  
[123:24] 99 cents per month is probably nothing for you… 
but if enough of our audience does it, it could  
[123:30] make this channel a viable business model… even 
with the tiny community that we filmmakers are. 
[123:35] Lynch and Kubrick members do more and they also 
have access to all ActionPacks of the past.
[123:41] For those who are in the mood for a classic 
Cine Cam like an Alexa… we are working on an  
[123:45] upcoming stand alone episode about what it 
means to work with it and some DIY tips on  
[123:50] how to refurbish Alexa cards to make the 
whole thing way more budget friendly… and  
[123:55] will give you all the run times and high 
speed RAW options you ever dreamed of.
[123:59] We will including an advanced step by step guide 
with components list for our beloved members…  
[124:04] and talking about beloved members… these 
Kubrick members made this episode possible.
[125:17] Thank you so much… you are incredible. 
The Media Division salutes you!  
[125:23] Of course we love all our other 
member, too – this is for you!
[125:28] If you like what you saw and you got 
something out of it… please leave us a like. 
[125:33] Consider becoming a member of 
this channel as that will allow  
[125:37] us to create more of the complex 
content we want to produce for you.
[125:43] This is it for our condensed film 
school curriculum and we hope that  
[125:47] it will help you to create a 
cinematic experience yourself.
[125:51] I am your “Lector” Nikolas… signing 
out with nerdilishious wished.
[125:57] Shoot something amazing.