---
title: 'Create CINEMATIC Films – A Deep Dive into how you can create Movie Magic yourself'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=BFaV-mVLFpE'
video_id: 'BFaV-mVLFpE'
date: 2026-06-28
duration_sec: 0
---

# Create CINEMATIC Films – A Deep Dive into how you can create Movie Magic yourself

> Source: [Create CINEMATIC Films – A Deep Dive into how you can create Movie Magic yourself](https://youtube.com/watch?v=BFaV-mVLFpE)

## Summary

This video aims to deconstruct the often vague concept of 'cinematic' into a concrete, actionable recipe. It explores the various ingredients that contribute to a cinematic image, including the filmmaker's skill, fundamental technical settings like frame rate and exposure, camera and lens choices, and art direction. The video culminates in a 'shootout' comparing a high-end Alexa, a mid-range cine camera, and a consumer mirrorless camera to demonstrate that the gear is less important than the overall approach.

### Key Points

- **You are the Most Important Ingredient** [9:22] — The filmmaker's skill and vision are the most important components; a great filmmaker can create a better image with worse gear.
- **Frame Rate is Crucial** [10:20] — 24fps with a 180° shutter is the classic cinematic look. Higher frame rates (e.g., 60fps) look 'too real' and break the illusion.
- **Avoid Over-Sharpness** [14:19] — A cinematic image is not overly sharp. Avoid digital sharpening and consider using softer lenses to reduce perceived resolution.
- **Cameras are Converging in Quality** [34:40] — Modern sensors are surprisingly similar in performance. The camera choice matters more for workflow than for ultimate image quality.
- **No Lens is Cinematic** [36:28] — Lenses have character, but no single lens creates a 'cinematic look'. Practical aspects like focus pulling are more important.
- **The Shootout Reveals Little Difference** [53:24] — A shootout between an Alexa, MAVO LF, and Lumix S5IIx showed that differences are subtle, and the camera is not the primary limiting factor.
- **Lighting and Color are Everything** [64:56] — Develop a color palette, use backlighting for depth, and consider the motivated light (justification) for a cinematic look.
- **Staging Tells the Story** [87:09] — Composition, staging, and blocking are powerful tools for storytelling, influencing audience emotion and understanding without dialog.
- **Post Kills the Digital Sterility** [93:58] — Post-production grading and film emulation (like Dehancer) add the final 'poetic layer' to the image, emulating the look of analog film.

## Transcript

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