Freeway lit up at night for Once Upon a Time in Hollywood shoot

You can rent The Matrix highway set in Australia if the Los Angeles County won't give you permit to shoot in the middle of the night.

This thread is proof you contrarian faggots will literally complain about fucking anything

if tarantino wasn't such a hipster faggot and had shot on digital he wouldn't have needed those fuckhuge crane mounted lighting rigs

What do you expect from neckbeards who complain all day about how a movie looks but can't even take a proper picture if their old bike to sell on Craigslist?

You’re probably the same type of homo that complains that modern cinema tries too heavily on CGI. Go suck a dick, gayboy.

no one cares if some wagie is late work work fag

Film crews are a serious inconvenience man, they take up a shitload of both time and space to work. If they're in your way or on your street you're fucked for like 10 hours minimum

look here fucko, some people I never met and don't care about hypothetically were a few minutes late for work and I will NOT stand for it

>digital needs less light

Is this what retards who's never even touched a DSLR think? He would have needed twice as many lighting rig to get the same picture if he were shooting on RED Dragon vs Kodak Vision3 500T film.

>if tarantino wasn't such a hipster faggot
sure
>and had shot on digital
nah. film > digital even though I like both

My dad grew up in LA. he said he got used to entire sections of the city being closed down for whatever film was being filmed at the time.

Its dark at night time user

woah complaints btfo I guess I love being late for work now so that Tarantino can put a 20 minute Margot Robbie feet scene in his movie

>This is why some movies with hardly any CGI cost $100M+
Big name actors is why movies cost $100M+

>He would have needed twice as many lighting rig to get the same picture if he were shooting on RED Dragon vs Kodak Vision3 500T film.
Retard here, I thought film was less sensitive to low light which is why Kubrick had to get NASA lenses to shoot candlelight scenes for Barry Lyndon
I don't know if they've had a massive technological leap in film stock since the 70s

was it actually filmed in LA? seems like a dumb decision

you flyovers know they just don't "shut down" the freeway out of nowhere right

Your dad sounds like a cuck.

Some people have to go to work at that time you piece of shit

Why not just shoot during day time fucking retard

That's the 90, aka the shortest and least vital freeway in all of los angeles, especially at night. Probably my all time favorite though.

>This thread is proof you contrarian faggots will literally complain about fucking anything

>This thread is proof you contrarian faggots will literally complain about fucking anything

Attached: 11286600.jpg (592x570, 62K)

like all the people manning those lights fucktard. pick literally any other city if you don't want filmcrews in your way.

>This is why some movies with hardly any CGI cost $100M+
That and shooting on film, and also a casting budget of about $30 million, I would estimate.

>b-but muh night job!
should've stayed in school cuck

Not bright enough. You need way more light to expose a camera properly and not get a potato-quality image.

Hollywood transplants can all go back to New Jersey or whatever. Why should I leave?

Seething wagelet

>move to a city famous for making movies
>complain that it’s always difficult to get around because they’re making movies
You should leave because you’re retarded

>Transformer movies. 6 movies total. $1.107 billion total budget
>Star Wars movies since Episode 1, but not including Rise of Skywalker. 7 movies. $1.531 billion spent
>Avatar. $237 million
>Disney Marvel movies. 23 movies. $4.493 Billion spent.

Yeah. CGI is a real money-saver. Don't even try to pretend that there's hardly any CGI in those films. You could fill a New Delhi phonebook with all of the names of the credited animators.

>Is this what retards who's never even touched a DSLR think? He would have needed twice as many lighting rig to get the same picture if he were shooting on RED Dragon vs Kodak Vision3 500T film.
Filmmaker fag here. This is absolutely false. The best digital cine cameras nowadays are getting clean images at up to 3200 ISO and above, sometimes. Digital kicks the ever-loving shit out of film for shooting in low light.

I never moved here retard. Do you know what transplant means? The Hollywood people are the ones who moved here in the first place.

> Rooftop scene in LA, the actual setting.
> Nah let's bluescreen it anyway.

Attached: room-main.jpg (934x623, 133K)

watch the water scene of 2049 again and show me a dimly lit film that clean

t. borderline color blind who can't tell dynamic range difference for shit

Don't bother, user. Dude doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

Digital sees into shadow and film is the highlight king. Anyone who knows a single fucking thing about cinematography knows this. This is fact and not subjective opinion. It can be measured scientifically and has been done so many times. Watch any one of the hundreds of videos on YT demonstrating this, fucktard.

not kino enough

best kino is darkness and rain.

Haven't we had cameras for 200 years now? Why are they still shit?

They aren't shit. We have 4k to 8k digital cine cameras with 15 stops of dynamic range that capture amazing color quality, which can be changed to anything you want in post. Cameras are so fucking good that Internet bandwidth and consumer TV quality literally can't keep up. If you saw uncompressed 8K footage on a calibrated 8K HDR display, you'd probably shit yourself.

>dude, should we take our time and set the shot up properly?
>nah fuck it we’ll fix it in post
Digital is the death of actual talent

I was stationed in San Diego in the Navy years ago, and drove back to base bordering on blackout drunk from a house party, having to merge onto several busy freeways along the way, and get past a gate watch to get onto base. To this day, I don't know how I manage to pull that off. I just woke up passed out on my bedroom floor in the barracks. I promised never to do that again.

Film is a tool and digital is a tool. Both have artistic and technical advantages and disadvantages. Stop thinking one vs the other, like every other zoomer and millennial faggot.

it would cost a whole lot more to shut down the freeway in the daytime

It's inconsistent if the shoot takes a lot of time

I thought that part was filmed in the USA somewhere?

I like it. It's a small spectacle in such a shit world we have now.

I just saw this movie yesterday and I literally can't remember a highway night scene. What a forgettable piece of trash.

SFX shots

Attached: EBn0zFOWwAYD45h.jpg (996x1024, 102K)

So this shit is why modern movies all have that even light awful look to them? I really miss older movies where when a car drove down a street the character would constantly be shifting in and out of light it helps making things look really seedy.

instagram.com/gracebalsamo/

Attached: EBn0zFOXkAILaL5.jpg (1020x1024, 145K)

Yeah, it's weird how these things still need light. Someone should invent a camera receives smells instead of light. haha imagine pointing that thing on some random cunny haha

I think the movie was meant to take place in SF

Attached: OUTIH-04-QT9_16329-x_248ed78b6649d6cda0fcadc1ac9bc23e.jpg (1200x800, 227K)

Attached: OUTIH-10-P1050563-x_248ed78b6649d6cda0fcadc1ac9bc23e.jpg (1200x675, 214K)

>I really miss older movies where when a car drove down a street the character would constantly be shifting in and out of light it helps making things look really seedy.
I agree. One people get wrong about the "vintage" or "retro" look is the lighting. The common mistake is to over-light everything. People forget how dark movies used to be. Almost everything is so bright and sharp/clinical nowadays. I fucking hate it.

Attached: OUTIH-06-QT9_18277-x_248ed78b6649d6cda0fcadc1ac9bc23e.jpg (1200x800, 241K)

If you film within 30 miles of the LA area, you dont have to pay extra money to the LA crews

I was sitting in my mom's basement years ago, and posted bordering on blackout drunk on a Yea Forums thread

Love the wireless transmitters on the boom mics. It's crazy how many mics they'll use on a simple 2-person scene. Each actor probably also has a lapel mic hidden somewhere on their clothing, too.

How do you think they work on the freeway at night?

Isn't the end product essentially real as realistic as possible? I can see the 24fps and filters for movies. But what is the actual goal of camera technology? I'm not sure the human race can advance/appreciate/perceive past a certain clarity or resolution. Am I wrong? Will we pass a point where most of the human races eyes are too shit to even bother? My grandpa enjoyed broadcast TV, but his eyes weren't the best. If he were alive today a 4K would be like giving a hearing impaired person a FLAC copy of their favorite album.

Based

fuk u

Why should it stop at replicating human vision? Why not a camera you can just point to without a thought and you can zoom in until you can see the pores on a girl walking past across the street at night?

I think this movie saved lives. Think of all the accidents avoided, how we altered time to where a person crossing the street isn't in that nanosecond window of time to get run down and a father is home to save his child from choking.

No extra money, no per diem, they have to transport themselves to the shooting location, you can skimp on the catering services, etc... It's a sweetheart deal if you're a producer.

The goal of camera technology is to provide a high quality, high resolution, high dynamic range so that the filmmaker can capture what they want and have the flexibility to color correct and color grade it in post to whatever look they want. Or to do CGI, motion graphics.

But you always capture in a format that is superior to the delivery format. Always. 8K to 4K deliver. 4K to 2K delivery. Uncompressed (or lightly compressed) to the shitshow that is 8 bit Internet compression. Etc...

Everything you want on the internet is piece of shit 8 bit compression with 4:2:0 sampling. Original footage is 12-16 bit raw with up to 4:4:4 color sampling.

Banding, aliasing, moire, macroblocking, color clipping and washed out tones are all results of compression. We are doing basically nothing to solve the compression problem that plagues delivery formats. What you are watching on YT and Netshits, etc... is all shit quality compressed video. 4K and 2K Blu-ray is currently the best quality you'll get if you want to watch kino in your home.

Well of course there is scientific and military uses. There is a glass ceiling though. T-shirts hit it at two arm holes.

>We are doing basically nothing to solve the compression problem that plagues delivery formats.

The problem is that broadband internet speed is not increasing fast enough and plebs can't tell the difference. AVC and HEVC codecs can already do 4:4:4 deep color well if given enough bitrate.

why didn't he just call malick to film it?

I think that most people are plebs or watch on small devices, where the difference is harder to see.

But for instance, a movie on Netshits is probably in the 3-5gb range, whereas a blu-ray is like 25gb. The difference is significant. The uncompressed (or "lossless") files they sent to movie theaters can be anywhere from half a terabyte to near 2 terabytes per movie. That is the shit quality the consumer gets. "Here's your 300 to 1 compressed piece of shit, user!"

KEK

for you

So that's the bit-starved meme I heard so much about, after everybody got over how cool streaming was and started in with the gripes. And gripes is a good thing, don't get me wrong it helps advancement and R&D of new tech. But why invent a better light bulb when you can buy one for 10 cents?

cameras really like their light
there are special low light lenses, and slow exposure, but that's a whole other can of worms

easier to set up massive floodlights everywhere, especially with powerful LED chips being cheap as fuck

>But why invent a better light bulb when you can buy one for 10 cents?
The same reason you pay more for any product ... because you want higher quality.

Filming movies feels like such a pain, imagine doing all this shit just to shoot one scene. Also, how do city scenes being filmed interfere with the work of the regular person?

>cameras really like their light
This. Modern, digital cine cameras can shoot in low light much better than film cameras every could. But if you want a clean, relatively noise-free image, you still have to shoot at a low ISO setting. And on film (which Once Upon a Time in Hollwood is) you need about twice as much light as digital would require.

It wasn't until some user posted those identical scenes from the original Terminator and that shit one with what's her face side by side that I realize how truly awful modern/digital lighting is. It was the scene where a naked Arnie walks up to the punks and steals their clothes. They recreated that scene in the sequel and the lighting was atrocious compared to the original.

>implying there's a single human being in the whole state

>get to tell your boss you were late cause of a movie.

How is this not a perk? If you work this late no way there's significant traffic to make you that late.

Why don't they hire cheaper ones? I never understood why is someone raking millions for playing pretend. Every fucking sociopath can do that.

>especially with powerful LED chips being cheap as fuck
So again, where does the $100M come from?

Pitt, di Caprio, Tarantino salaries, and recreate whole sections of LA in the 60s

She's fucking hot

seething wagecuck LMAO

gives subjective opinion
>this is fact and not subjective opinion

also everywhere uses leds now with different colour temp

heh somebody's late for work

but movies though

Have you driven in middle of night in cities?
There's fucking nobody out there, the ~5 people can go around on empty surface street.

We need to put everyone on interleaved Dymaxion sleep schedule so that there's economic activity 24/7 and traffic is spread out, decreasing infrastructure and real estate space needs while drastically increasing economic output.

Imagine having that much money to spend and being so autistic that rather than using a digital camera with great low light performance to film a highway normally, you waste millions on this shit.

>idiot talking about shit he doesn't know
This is why people call filmfags pretentious dipshits

I can't tell if you're being genuine or sarcastic. But cgi is an incredible money-saver for real

This is a pretty normal lighting set up for what's being shot

No way are those LED lights. They make massive LED banks, but the lights they rig up to cherry pickers like that and then diffuse the shit out of are typically 18 KW HMI lamps. New bulbs are thousands of dollars, each lamp has a dedicated operator making at least $500/day in each of those rigs. Renting the lights and the cherry pickers and the diffusion cloth and the generators to run it all and it adds up quick. Hell you got 15 precision stunt drivers driving period cars probably making $1000/day. This is why movies are expensive.

this
Cameras have gotten so much better it's pretty unbelievable if you don't pay attention to the scene.
Before digital, the only improvements that could be made were to the film itself and how it was processed - along with cosmetic things like autofcous and burst speed.
Since digital, the tech has progressed at an exponential rate. You can now buy a camera for 2 and a half grand that will out-perform the best cinema cameras from ten tears ago (that would've cost around 50 grand) and that is a quarter of the size. And ironically, that tiny digital camera could have shot the scene in the OP without having to use all those giant lights.

not to mention the cost of blocking off an entire highway and filling it with 50s and 60s cars. people underrate the realism that older cars can bring to a period piece. A modern car ruined Wolf of Wall Street for me

nobody cares about "people trying to get to work". Im one of those people and you should just shut up

He's literally arguing the opposite. He's saying digital is better, which would mean he prefers CGI too (both statements are cringe and stupid). Are you retarded or just bad at reading?

holy shit she's huge

>Love the wireless transmitters on the boom mics.
huh I'd imagine they are recording it directly

4u