How Roger Deakins shot Blade Runner 2049

Blade Runner 2049 has set a new standard for Sci-Fi cinematography, Roger Deakins use of lighting is some of the best we've ever seen, how he utilised colour is mesmerizing, and the way in which he moves the camera helps tell so much of the story.
In today's video, I look at what equipment Roger Deakins used, how he lit scenes by looking at his lighting plans, as well as how he created an original look to what Cronenweth did in the '80s.
I've tried to cut down on the text that pops up throughout the video due to some viewers finding it distracting, so let me know what you think. As always, If you have any ideas for films you would like to see a video on, let me know below!
Timeline:
00:00 Introduction
00:42 Equipment
02:16 The Lighting
07:46 How he created an original look
11:12 Conclusion
Instagram - / angusdaviesdp
Letterboxd - letterboxd.com/Angus_D/
Twitter - / angusdaviesdp
Website - www.angusdavies.com/
Source: www.arri.com/news-en/lighting...
Source: www.rogerdeakins.com
Music:
A Stranger Thing - Bruno E
Eine Kleine Nachtmusic - Mozart
Waltz of the Flowers - Tchaikovsky
Lord of the Dawn - Jesse Gallagher
Dulce Reggaeton - An Jone

[@AngusDaviesDP]

What did you think of Blade Runner 2049? I loved every aspect of it, but from what I've heard, it's quite controversial.

[@thechromeangel5559]

I think it is sequel that respects what came before it and builds and expands on that. I wonder if there are ways to DIY build some of the lighting rigs for independent productions? The Cove lighting trick for example can be emulated at a lower budget.

[@KidFresh71]

A modern day classic. One of the few movies of the past 25 years where immediately after viewing, I thought to myself "that's a 10 out of 10 film." The Matrix, No County for Old Men, Inglorious Basterds, The Will Be Blood, Interstellar, Mad Max: Fury Road and Children of Men would also make this short list of "perfect films."

[@williamcurwen7428]

I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis about Deakins’s cinematography on 2049. This is a film I have watched many times and consider it to be the equal of the original Bladerunner. There is a relief in saying this, I loved the original, especially Cronenworth’s work, and this time around 40 years later it is only Deakins who could have pulled it off. Apart from the graphical sense of composition, which is wonderful, is the breathtaking use of luminosity and colour harmonies to create a vision of the future that satisfies my critical thinking and yet is deeply emotional and moving. The very best of everything in a vision lasting three hours, I simply cannot get enough of it.

[@AngusDaviesDP]

Thanks! It really does the original justice, which is something you can't say for a lot of other sequels (or even prequels). As Deakins says himself, you can't top Cronenweth's work on the original, but I really don't think there's another DP alive who could have created such a perfect world. It's incredible.

[@harywhiteproductions]

Thanks for making this! Great video

[@Mike_v_E]

Blade Runner 2049 is definitely the best film I’ve ever seen. What Roger Deakins, Denis Villeneuve and Hans Zimmer created is an experience of pure art

[@garrisonk8627]

what a fantastic video. thanks for making this

[@fabianklw]

Love your videos, a technical view of cinema is something unique in the video essay space

[@AngusDaviesDP]

Thanks so much!

[@northlight2061]

loooooove your vids and love bladerunner so this is perfect

[@Dullfang2]

Fantastic video. wish it had been longer

[@moviemazlow]

Wonderful video, Deakins is just incredible!

[@AngusDaviesDP]

Thanks!

[@AllThingsFilm1]

Thanks for this awesome breakdown. In another KZbin video about the production design for "BR2049", it was mentioned that the color yellow was incorporated in the set designs to suggest danger. As you'll notice in the opening scene, K enters the replicant's home that has an entryway that is predominantly yellow. And if you look at the "water room" scene, the overall color tone is yellowish. This is where the Rachel duplicate is killed and where Deckard meets Niander Wallace, the replicant manufacturer. Someone who could be considered dangerous. Deakins' naturalistic approach to cinematography always manages to make the worlds he creates completely immersive. What may sound like a simple approach to lighting, ends up serving the story in a way no other DP has been able to achieve as consistently as Roger Deakins. I can watch hours of anything about Roger Deakins. There is so much to learn from his approach and techniques to lighting.

[@AngusDaviesDP]

Glad you liked it! The production design in this film is such a huge reason as to why the cinematography looks the way it does. Ah ok, thinking back that definitely makes sense. I don't know how he does it!

[@AtticTapes14]

Dont forget Jordan Cronenweth, the cinematographer for 1982 Blade Runner movie. Don't even forget. In fact, do a video on Jordan's work on 1982 movie.

[@ElieDubois]

Hi, thank you for another really interesting breakdown. I was wondering where do you find the plans with the lighting setup ?

[@AngusDaviesDP]

Glad you liked it! It's all on Roger Deakins' website! He has a mountain of information on there, from lighting plans to in-depth forum discussions.

[@ElieDubois]

@@AngusDaviesDP thank you very much for taking the time to answering my question :)

[@TheHardSteppa]

@@AngusDaviesDP Thanks for the headsup. Really interesting website!

[@gavenevans]

A video on the cinematography and lighting of True Detective would be pretty nutty 👀

[@AngusDaviesDP]

I’ll add it to the list! Really need to look at a few more shows.

[@SHDEdits]

wait I'm confused, if you gel your lights to only emit green, and then use red filtration on your camera, then no light would be captured.

[@Nick_Lavigne]

I prefer the taller IMAX version by a significant amount.

[@AngusDaviesDP]

I'd love to see that 1.43:1 version some day!

[@Nick_Lavigne]

@@AngusDaviesDP saw it twice, then saw the wide version in theaters and felt like it was missing a lot (lol like 26%)

[@ed1rko17]

You really wouldn't think to shoot a Blade Runner sequel the way Roger did. The original was shot on film and anamorphic, which is so integral to how that film looks - particularly it's dreamlike quality. But what I realized is that when I saw the film for the first time, what really struck me about it was the sharpness and precision of the images. Everything looks so clean and methodically composed, not when you're watching the film, but when you analyze it. When watching it with a fresh set of eyes, it just completely immerses you. I like how it has it's own distinct look, it's as beautiful as the original but in a totally different way. I still don't know if I agree with the aspect ratio though. I saw the film in 1.9 or maybe it was 1.78 in theaters, at home I've seen it in 1.78, and I've also seen it in the 2.4 aspect ratio both in cinema and at home, and the taller frame enhances the experiences. Not only does the taller frame put you right in the film, it also helps you feel the verticality and scale of the world. When you are framing a metropolis, you want a huge frame to show the height of the buildings and the cityscape. Widescreen is great for deserts because they are flat. Now the 2.4 version feels like it's constraining the image and I just want to see what's under those black bars. I feel the same with Denis' Dune. But regardless, BR2049 blew my mind, it's one of the most strikingly shot films I've ever seen.

[@janvalis727]

there are no black bars in the cinema, which is the medium it was made for.

[@ed1rko17]

​@@janvalis727 What? That made no sense.

[@janvalis727]

@@ed1rko17 2,40 version isn't constraining anything, it's the way it was shot. It's what director and dop had in mind. Anything bigger is just marketing, that was made after the main edit. And your sentence "I want to see what's under black bars" doesn't make sense, since there are no black bars in cinema. 2,40 is projected in a Scope DCP standard.

[@ed1rko17]

@@janvalis727 You don't understand the way aspect ratios work. The film was shot in 1.9 or at least 1.78 aspect ratio, which means that yes, there is photography underneath black bars at the top and bottom of the image. When you shoot at 1.78 and then present your film at 2.4, all you are doing is putting black bars over the top and bottom of your image. I've seen it. I own a copy of 2049 in the 1.78 version, and that's the only difference in terms of composition and framing. Underneath the black bars, there is more to the image, including completed VFX work and everything. It was presented in cinemas this way, it's been presented at home in some formats this way. You don't know what you are talking about.

[@janvalis727]

@@ed1rko17 I know aspect ratios since it's part of what I do for living. Plus I am writing my disertation thesis on comparison between Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049. They shot on Arri Alexa on it's 1:1,55 open gate ratio with Zeiss Master Prime spherical lenses BUT they framed the image ON SET for a 1:2,39 theatrical aspect ratio (that is what they saw on monitor). All other aspect ratios were done in postproduction, recomposed from the original 1,55 ratio and remastered for IMAX version and what not under Deakins' supervision. But even Roger Deakins in his American Cinematographer's 7 part interview said that they shot the version in 2,39 and everything else was done extra, as a part of marketing. His stand on this was "whatever makes audience happy". So my issue with saying the higher one is better and should be shown more often, is that it was not intended by the authors as the preferred aspect ration and that decision should be respected.

[@skysedgeproductions6170]

As an aspiring filmmaker i learn so much from your videos. Thanks a million.

[@AngusDaviesDP]

Glad you like them!

[@christopherkline4042]

Where do you find the lighting plans?

[@AngusDaviesDP]

rogerdeakins.com It's one of my favourite resources!

[@randomfilmstudent2584]

How chivo shot the revenant next

[@AngusDaviesDP]

Really need to do more surrounding Lubezki!

[@natefryzek2316]

That would be amazing!! Great video thanks for making it.

[@faranji1809]

Love the channel, nice work! If you're looking for a video idea, I'd love to see some kind of response to Steve Yedlin's Display Prep Demo and Res Demo. More to the point I'd be interested to hear if you disagree with anything about his methodology or conclusions, and if so, why. These presentations have been around a few years now but I'm surprised how little discussion I see about them. Some of the implications if he's correct are potentially major in terms of what cinema equipment should be used going forward. Since you have a channel talking about the equipment used to film movies, Yedlin's conclusion that a camera like the Arri Alexa doesn't even really have a "look" and that camera selection either doesn't matter at all above a certain resolution or barely matters, given that the real "look" of footage depends on the post pipeline... well this seems like something that needs addressing if you're going to be talking about equipment selection. I don't know if Yedlin is right, but he is a major cinematographer, and reading or listening to him I do tend to get the sense that his technical understanding surpasses that of Deakins or his other contemporaries, regardless of what you think about his image-making talents more broadly. Yedlin made that Display Prep Demo using camera, lens, and scanning equipment way beyond the reach of individual or student filmmakers, but after watching, it left me wondering what would happen if he had included some consumer level cameras, like a Sony A7SIII or whatever is popular now. I wonder whether you would really be able to tell the difference between one of those and an Arri Alexa given the same post-production treatment. I'm also left wondering whether the 4K resolution we've settled on is enough to render the differences between some of the various fancy cinema lenses you mention in your videos. I come from the still photography world and I can say from experience that only the most rigorous testing can really reveal any meaningful difference between kinds of lenses that vary wildly in price (high-end Zeiss primes vs affordable Nikon or Canon glass vs cheap vintage lenses etc). And these differences are only apparent at resolutions that far exceed the resolutions used in cinema. 4K in still photography is barely anything, but in cinema it's all there is now. Unless you're talking about things like maximum T stop, focus breathing or serious optical flaws, what aspects of lens lens selection do you think even matter at 4K? And then there's the film vs digital thing. Check out Yedlin's use of IMAX. Steve Yedlin and Christopher Nolan can't both be right...

[@AngusDaviesDP]

Thanks! I'm going to need to do a lot of research into that, but it sounds like an incredible idea for a video, and I really want to learn more about it. Steve Yedlin is such a talented DP in every way and has mountains more experience than I do, so I don't really know how to counter his argument, but I'm going to spend the next few weeks reading up on it. But you're right in the fact that I should address it if I'm to be talking about the equipment used. And I do think a filmmaker would be able to tell the difference between a consumer-grade camera and something like an Alexa, audiences however...

[@faranji1809]

@@AngusDaviesDP I realize these are incredibly technical and complicated topics, not something you could just bang out a quick video about. Maybe that's why nobody seems to have tackled it yet. I just find it interesting that Yedlin's presentations are out there, and nobody seems to have presented a rebuttal to his key points, yet the industry seems to be going along with the same attitude towards camera selection and resolution as if the presentations didn't exist.

[@AngusDaviesDP]

I just had to go back and watch a couple of the presentations, so now I'm hooked on the topic, but as I said it's going to take a bit of time, and a lot more research.

[@pedroesteves3018]

my god, deakins is the best. i would love to see what he would do if he was the dp on Dune

[@AngusDaviesDP]

He would have been incredible, but Fraser did an outstanding job! Glad to see he was nominated.

[@pedroesteves3018]

@@AngusDaviesDP for sure, he will win too

[@voyagerdefault8986]

Have you thought about analyzing the cinematography of Godzilla (2014)? I would really like to hear your opinion on this.

[@reptongeek]

I'm confused. You say earlier it didn't have anamorphic cinematography but later you state the aspect ratio is 2.39:1, which is anamorphic

[@AngusDaviesDP]

So 2.39:1 isn't actually just for anamorphic lenses. Anyone can set their timeline to that ratio in the editing room and just compose for that ratio on set through their monitor. Using an anamorphic lens only means that that ratio is native.

[@reptongeek]

Was that still the case when we shot and finished on film, pre 2000. I know you had Super 35 but you did an optical step for that

[@AngusDaviesDP]

I think so! I've just been looking through shotdeck, and there are multiple films in 2.39:1 shot on spherical lenses.

[@biggles258]

Please lose that really annoying grey on white animation in the background; it's incredibly distracting, especially when the foreground is in a wide aspect ratio. I struggle to understand how anyone who is commenting on visuals thought that was a good idea.

[@AngusDaviesDP]

All comes down to copyright

[@biggles258]

@@AngusDaviesDP Aah, OK, the 'framed picture' thing. OK, if you can't lose it, how about reducing the flicker?