Do Cinematographers Like Lens Flares? Textured vs Clean Images Explained

[@RodanTVK]

As someone with astigmatism, lens flares are the most accurate depiction of what I really see day to day.😅

[@zf1711]

This is the first time I've heard something that's given me a picture of what people with astigmatism deal with.

[@RodanTVK]

@@zf1711 I've thought about this before, but this video opened a new perspective for me for how certain DP's and cinematographers depict what they choose to see or how the see certain things.

[@charoleawood]

I'm nearsighted, I also have astigmatism and "floaters". Anyway I walk around with glasses, I have lenses on my face most waking hours, with my lenses I see red and blue chromatic aberration on high contrast edges. Chromatic aberration is something that comes out strong in some video and celluloid capture and I understand that people don't like it, but to me it's accurate to how I experience reality. Even when it comes to videogames I don't tend to like most blur but I do like chromatic aberration, it gives scenes a kind of photographed look and lends them verisimilitude.

[@woodsmokedrasher1577]

Wait, are my eyes not meant to flare light? Am i meant to see the world kind of how Blade Runner 2049 was shot?

[@zacharyantle7940]

@@charoleawood Same! Ao imagges likw that are how i nirutally see the world, and love it when movies look like that :)

[@TheRiptideRaptor]

I've had glasses for forever and can't really see anything in focus without them, so I just realized some people see the world like clean images. I'm so used to the flares around the edges of my glasses, or the bloom when I've smudged them, that textured images are closer to reality and clean images feel artificial, cold and clinical.

[@janmelantu7490]

I have a pretty strong prescription, and chromatic aberration is just a fact of life. Edges are always blue or orange depending on which part of my lens I’m seeing it thru

[@2424rocket]

What’s happening is you’re buying cheap crappo glasses. Talk to your optometrist about getting you very high-quality, and yes they will be expensive lenses… And the flaring and the aberration will be cut way way way down. The difference is day and night. The lenses in my glasses are about $700 and I don’t get any of the imperfections you’re talking about.

[@janmelantu7490]

@@2424rocket my prescription is so bad that I have to get the expensive glasses. There’s just a fundamental problem of optics

[@2424rocket]

Really sorry to hear.

[@alinkbetweengames4328]

I've also had glasses for many years, and I often enjoy seeing high-quality clean images because they are unlike what I am able to see in my day-to-day life.

[@kartanosaka]

Personally I like textures images more. They transport another layer of style and atmosphere, that a clean image just can't provide. And if you've got a minimal budget, a clean image is harder to achieve, than to lean into the dirt, and embrace the visual/technical "imperfections". But for me, it is, at the end of the day, a question of "what helps convey the story in a better way?".

[@grantkaufman2088]

I'd like to say "it depends on the project", but more and more, I find myself "dirtying" up the image for a more textured look. I find that it not only adds a more organic and lively touch to the images, but it allows the film to take on its own character and separate itselve from other, "cleaner" films.

[@DerFinder]

I just love grain. Grain and a good bit of haze/bloom! Lenseflares look nice most of the time but I watched some movies in which I thought they didn't really fit so it kinda depends. I really see the argument that it makes the audience aware that it's filmed and that this might not be desired. That said I think too many movies today have a too clean/perfect look as they fear a more experimental vision (cough Marvel cough cough)

[@QKvox]

Vintage lenses make such a big difference in adding texture

[@HGQjazz]

I'm definitely in the "clean" camp. I love the "cooke look". Though, some of the "dirty" things are desirable if used sparingly. One thing I can't get on board with is the overdone anamorphic streaks. It comes across as pretentious. Subtlety and purpose is the key if you choose texture.

[@familygonzcartwright]

That overdone use it's a extreme. Look at Martin Scorsese's Silence or any film shot on anamorphics by Spielberg from the 70s and 80s. That overuse isn't there and the image is quite clean without losing that alive look.

[@TheMrawesomest]

It seems like the anamorphic lens flare style has somewhat faded. It became too much for a while. Like the Wilhelm scream, which really pulls me out of any serious drama or horror scene.

[@arthurjames9807]

I think the best way to think about it is “does it serve a purpose to the story” the two films I can think of that use different styles to immerse you more are probably Blade Runner 2049 and The Batman, one is a story about an artificial being questioning it’s identity with a backdrop of a dystopian world we’re technology and advertising has consumed the human race (clean) and the other is a detective noir style murder mystery set in a city that’s always raining full of crime and corruption and a lead character struggling with temptations of anger and vengeance (dirty) those are two films I think use there very different styles well to serve the story

[@TinLeadHammer]

Blade Runner 2049 pushed all the buttons to pull the look, feel and emotion of the original, but in the end it is just a formulaic sequel of a great film. RIP Vangelis.

[@C1ockwork]

Exactly

[@charoleawood]

​@@TinLeadHammer I don't think it pushed any of those buttons and it turned out to be a bad sequel to a great film because of it. Whereas Scott's Blade Runner uses plenty of color and contrast and dense set design, 2049 does the complete opposite to dish up a dull presentation to a dull story. I was bored to tears by 2049. Good to see I'm not alone. RIP Jordan Cronenweth.

[@joelmercado1099]

@@charoleawood Jordan Cronenweth doesn't get the credit he deserves

[@pseudonymousbeing987]

​​@@TinLeadHammer No it didn't. They are vastly different design languages and atmospheres. Intentionally. You're just making yourself sound blind. Both are sublime.

[@ltg_dp]

I think dp’s should be open to anything, just depends on the subject matter

[@charoleawood]

And the happenstance of the shoot.

[@ltg_dp]

@@charoleawood so true! If it looks right it looks right!

[@caleblatreille8224]

Texture is also heavily used to foster a sense of nostalgia. Whether recreating the limitations of consumer-grade cameras (home movies, family photos, etc.) or just emulate films from the past, which by necessity were all shot on film. I'm curious how aesthetics change as digital filmmaking matures, since the whole next generation of filmmakers will be raised on a new, crisper set of reference points.

[@konserwowy1092]

I don't think it will change much. Old movies aren't going anywhere and they still will serve as reference points, being taught in film schools and such. On the contrary, it seems Hollywood made "degrading" digital to look like film stock a standard procedure. Early digital films all look unnaturaly sharp (2009 "Public Enemies" is an especially atrocious example), when watching John Wick 4 I was almost fooled it was shot on film.

[@johnnysimes5082]

Seems that the argument for "clean=reality" falls apart when using extreme focal lengths, wild color grades, or music. Note the ultra-wide lens used in The Revenant or the orange-brown color grade in Blade Runner. I dont follow the "like reality" idea when shooting other than a normal lens (35mm to 50mm). Image quality, like focal length, like color, etc. are just creative choices. Use the ones that advance the story and don't get hung up on reality. Love the anecdote from David Lynch's DP: "If the shot is supposed to be like real life, then where is the music coming from?"

[@tyrongeorgetown6378]

I honestly I don’t Cinema is ever about capturing “reality”, it’s about hyper reality realism is more or less another element, sound scores can never be a distraction cause it tells the viewer how to feel, it’s hyper reality!

[@charoleawood]

And I feel that texture can bring reality, to make you feel like you are actually there with the subjects of a scene. How bizarre would it be to watch a news cast where on the ground photage is being shown of a hurricane in progress but the image appears completely clean? Water and dirt will hit the lens, if there's a light source in frame it will illuminate those water droplets and dust particles. There's been a language of "being there" that's been established for viewers by documentaries and live television --- pristine images in fictional films aren't going to make us less aware that a camera is there. We are used to transporting ourselves through the texture of the environment on the lens, we ARE the camera and though we may be invisible we are still affected by the elements of nature, by gravity, and by the play of light in our eyes. And if dust sprays us, we blink and rub our eyes. One doesn't have to intentionally add these elements, but if they do happen while filming they should not be looked at as mistakes.

[@charoleawood]

@@tyrongeorgetown6378 I frequently find film scores a distraction and prevent me from experiencing the hyperreality that you get from the same music.

[@famberlight]

Not really a fun of lens flares (though they can add a lot to the picture at specific scenes) but I love grain, it gives the image a feel of life and makes an illusion of more details than there actually are.

[@Quesbe]

I really like both looks. I think both have their place, and each one can be used to reflect a different feeling, a different atmosphere. A clean image is a way to tell a story in a realistic and immersive way, while a textured image can have an emotional impact, it can make a scene warmer or cooler, it can give the image a dreamy or fantasy appearance. Vignette and edge blur can bring the focus at the center of the frame. On my side, I like to keep my image in the middle. Clean, but I don't mind the occasional lens flare, chromatic aberration and grain. I use my crappy lens and my crappy sensor without purposely adding or removing artifacts.

[@DANAMIONLINE]

This video has made me realize I’m a textured person. I’m reminded of past graphic designs I created for myself always included textures to add depth. Now I’m trying to create textured moving images.

[@blainemarcano]

Thanks for making this video. It helped me to understand a bit more about why people like the textured look. As someone who’s always preferred and adored a clean look it puzzled me.

[@Nell_Sandrenberg]

I ABSOLUTELY prefer clean images!!

[@sameerbaria]

As always, a beautifully crafted video, please keep these coming

[@petergivenbless900]

I think either approach should be used for its expressive or aesthetic impact; something I don't like in modern cinematography is an over dependence on a consistent look for a film (especially in films that have been digitally graded to create an unnaturally consistent palette), so varying the look for expressive effect for individual scenes (or even shots) is something I would like to see more of in cinema. While a clean image may read as more realistic, it can also suffer from revealing the technical limitations of the image presentation; no projector can match the dynamic range of real light and the human visual response to it, so clean images may read a little flat as a result, whereas textured images can signal ranges of light that exceed the capacity of the medium and communicate a sense of light beyond what is actually projected.

[@charoleawood]

And even when texture is not purely intentional it's still useful, a shot may not indeed be "ruined" by texture creeping in where it's not intended. Unintended texture can add character and variety, using a shot that has this then is an intentional choice when other, cleaner images of the same scene are also available in editing.

[@jaihunter3229]

Hands down the best KZbin channel out, have learnt far more than any film school

[@marcusdekker]

I love your channel!!! Great content!!! As a beginning video-photographer, one man production center (docs and commercial promotion videos for companies), your video's are gold. Thanks.

[@CinemawalaGuy]

Thank you.

[@HassaelMartinez]

When blurays came out I was marveled at all these imperfections like the flares and the grain because you could appreciate the texture, I always felt this kind of look doesn't go well with lesser resolutions like a DVD or even streaming, and cleaner images look better in those cases.

[@brunobilandzija1823]

Great video as always! Thank you!🍀

[@shirishdesai8328]

Both the forms are useful in appropriate conditions

[@bobpowers9637]

Really appreciate your videos

[@sashs8461]

Honestly the human eye is susceptible to flaring out and artifacts tho. Just look at a source and slowly start squinting and witness the textured glory hehehh. Zeiss ultra primes on modern format sensors is so crisp it's nasty. Great video by the way!!

[@inthecenteproductions1262]

I think every work has its own identity. Depending on the purpose you can choose one or the other. The amazing thing about this is that there are not bad resources, just bad decisions.

[@recipetodelicious5791]

I think that it depends on the project, but for my own work, textured. I've been working on developing my own techniques for flares (without putting out big bucks for anamorphic lenses) and want to include them on my channel when I (finally) get it going.

[@michaelcookfilm]

It’s funny because I would say my favorite cinematographer is Deakins (very original I know) but my own cinematography I very much cater to having a very dirty and textured frame. I’m absolutely in love with flares I love obscuring the frame, I don’t know what it is but I always find myself putting a spotlight or something in the back of the frame. I like calling attention to the fact that there is a camera, I want the audience to remember they’re watching a movie

[@alfredbass]

well, for me, it depends on what I'm shooting, sometimes I want a clean image, and sometimes a textured image is more appropriate to tell the story. In fact, I use a little hack to create some Halos in my photos to give a special look, and its becoming part of my "signature"

[@charoleawood]

What if texture creeps in when you are trying to aim for a clean looking image? Do you throw away the take? Surely it's good to loosen up and to not always go in with strictness.

[@alfredbass]

@@charoleawood well as I said, it depends, if adds character to the photo, it will stay, ,but if i want a clean look ill do my best to achieve it.

[@T0xicZ]

I have a heavy preference for certain types of lens flare. When the lens is dirtied so it looks like there are little orbs of dust in the image, or when light captures water on glass or a filter. Almost like a natural aberration. This was used recently in that Batman film, not sure how. I believe video games use them a lot too as an "immersive" camera trick. Either way, it is the only lens flare I enjoy as it is just really beautiful and natural

[@JalaGames]

I've always preferred images that have a slight haze and expand the bloom of bulbs. it oddly matches the way the world looks when I wear glasses. Despite this Clean images to me have always looked odd, I appreciate the all the hard work that goes into them, but the reality of the environment is more important to me than anything (within reasons directly relating to contract control). It's always nice to have clean imagery, but textured or "dirty" images are really nice to have. I feel like I keep saying this in almost every conversation this week regarding films but, its more important that the imagery matches the story. sci fi without lens flare makes more sense to me, unless its gritty. The same goes for Noir, the more gritty the lens texture there is unless directly required.

[@Nerampokku101]

My images are for the soul of script.script demands this should be clean or textured

[@NIKONGUY1960]

I am totally on the fence. Both make sense according to the project. Though as a photographer, the clean look is of utmost importance. Then if I choose to 'dirty' it up, I can do so.

[@Donbros]

Flares for anamorphic are awesome, for sperical its ok. I like to mix both so when i want flares grab anamorphic when want clean look to throw into mix grab sperical

[@jonathaneby1440]

Texture feels like I’m in the real world. With dust or sun or rain hitting my perception and affecting my memory of a moment. Clean usually reminds me of social media, computers and modern life. An artificial and constructed cleanliness. Texture makes me feel like the image was actually captured on location or on set. In the same way a hand drawn animation cell gives me the feeling that someone actually crafted the image.

[@jessetimmmiller1870]

I'm in the clean camp. However, I love the creative use of flares etc for flashbacks/dream sequences.

[@MockeryManor]

I’m team clean all the way. I’ll never forget when I switched from glasses to contacts. Then watching movies with contacts on. It was like wiping my eyes with glass cleaner. Put another way, when I go to the museum to look at paintings, I connect with the artwork that’s not encased in glass more.

[@medardbitangimana4580]

There is something sexy about lens flares. Especially when captured on film.

[@ReactionShot]

They are all merely tools and choices. Choose the right tool for the job. It's all about the desired end result. That said: I prefer texture and anamorphic for films.

[@arthurviegas7671]

I think you forgot to add Licorice Pizza to the list of films featured

[@robertobuatti7226]

While I'm no expert in cinematography I've watched thousands of thousands of movies since I was a teenager in the 90's and I do miss the older textured filmic look that movies used to have with images, today's movies with the lenses and cameras they use and the over sharpening high resolution look to an image I feel can come across a little too artificial in nature and fake looking compared to the older cameras and lenses from the past which were more a naturalistic and you as the audience couldn't really pick out some of the production flaws like you can today with the ultra sharp high definition cameras.

[@charoleawood]

I think modern filmmakers need to vary their techniques, lenses, and cameras and to embrace shooting in a way that allows for surprises. I don't like 24fps in motion, I think it ruins shots, but I also think that filmmakers have a long way to go to improve how they use high framerate filming. HFR films need to use a wide variety of cameras and lenses on each shot, DO shoot with multiple different cameras and lenses, embrace your inner Tony Scott, use variable framerates and overcranking and undercranking and various different exposiers because right now it's all too clinical. It's funny because James Cameron with Avatar was able to do the best of both worlds, present a sharp, detailed image but also give it the feeling of a movie shot in a more classical style. The fact that they brought actual horses to the set and all of the random energy those animals bring shows that, while he may be an intimidating person to work with and has a dominating personality, Cameron also embraces those elements that are closer to gorilla style filmmaking to bring things to life while shooting, to add that random unpredictability. It's why his team has developed underwater motion capture technology --- it would be easy enough to control how every image turns out without it, but that's not the point, the verisimilitude of the capture comes from the unpredictable and random ways an actor will support themselves while immersed in water.

[@robertobuatti7226]

@@charoleawood Yes definitely, I totally agree, Filmmakers should experiment with HFR only if it serves the story and doesn't come across to phony looking to give us something original looking. Look how Gemini Man looked very artificial when they shot it at 120 fps, it felt like a video game to me.

[@wackywong]

When in doubt always use an 80's-filter to get that VHS-look.

[@charoleawood]

I really dislike Blade Runner 2049, Deakins may say that flares are bad because it alerts the audience to the presence of a camera, but 2049 feels empty, spare, manufactured, I'm already alerted by the intentional style the film presents. I feel the same about Dune (though the cinematographer there was Greg Fraser). I think much of the credit 2049 gets for its great cinematography goes to the set design. Again, all of it works to present something artificial, artsy, empty --- just because it's intentional doesn't mean I should like it. I don't think texture is something cinematographers should avoid at all costs, it's a gift from the gods, and those dogmatic about 24 fps and the character of celluloid filmmaking should not then go and dismiss the texture that the glass between subject and viewer creates. I think intentionally added texture is also ok. If I'm enjoying a story and its characters then a little stylization can amp up the emotion of a scene or present a language and attitude that yields enjoyment (for me). But if I think a movie is bad, like JJ's Star Trek films (or the Trek show Discovery), then the purposeful addition of stylized lens flairs pisses me off and makes the experience so much worse for me. Now, even though I haven't enjoyed a lot of the more recent movies Deakins has worked on, I do love several in his filmography --- House of Sand and Fog, The Village, Jarhead, and No Country for Old Men I think are phenomenal films. In the Valley of Elah I also felt was really good, I need to watch Hudsucker Proxy and Dead Man Walking again because I also enjoyed those.

[@kkog4162]

I think the whole point of 2049 was the emptiness of life.

[@charoleawood]

​@@kkog4162 If somebody made a flick about the emptiness of space and it was just a camera floating around for two-and-a-half hours in deep space and there was no audio then I'd be forced to admit the film was effective in its message, but by no means should I applaud it or be forced to say that it's meaningful and entertaining. Anyway, how did 2049 affect you? Did you decide to have children because otherwise life is empty? (Having children isn't something I condemn or condone --- please don't have them to try to give your life greater meaning.) Have you spent less time on those pursuits you feel to be empty? Are you more aware of the empty feeling now? Have you made any peace with it?

[@momentous340]

Love both

[@adreus4759]

I love both worlds. It has to support the story overall!

[@prathmeshbhatnagar5527]

both used in the same film makes it perfect as denis villeanueve usually do .

[@propinion3006]

Please make one video on how expansive is shooting on film. Like 35mm film.

[@NYPeterP]

Best way for me is using different ways at different times to achive my goals of impression. Or director's goals. Or... Thank you! The best way for me is to use different ways at different times to achieve my goals in expressiveness. Or the director's goals. Or... Thanks!

[@GustavoRRojasB]

I love a very clean images but being in a realistic organic world (when flares or other elements actually hit the lens, just like we could see in the world if we actually look at the sun and close our eyes a bit or people with glasses or enything), just like, for example. In The Revenant, which has the best clean looking images, yet it algo has flares, fog and other elements and helps up inmerse ourself in this world even more.

[@dannysart3990]

Textured images are like salt. Put to much and you ruined the soup.

[@joegamer6914]

yea exactly

[@kevinsupreme_ph36yearsago59]

agree

[@DimAngelProductions]

this is funny given that Conrad Hall was one of Deakin's biggest mentors

[@konserwowy1092]

I sit on both sides of the fence. Lens flares give off a nostalgic, dreamy (or even trippy) vibe, and sometimes that's exactly what's needed. I'd argue Blade Runner 2049 would benefit from some. The original had plenty and they contributed a lot to the somewhat disjointed, surreal mood. On the other hand, flares in J.J. Abrams' Star Trek and Star Wars looked terribly out of place. In my humble opinion, epic, swashbuckling adventures benefit from more clinical approach to cinematography.

[@justinnentwich2779]

I think the use of both could be used in different situations. 🤔

[@augustusmonroe1457]

I like my films, looking dirty. I feel like it represents more of what the average person sees and all moments are dirty, textured and rough.

[@Ghost_Boy36]

For me is whatever works best for the story being told.

[@RTorb362]

I know, boring ass answer, but i think each has their time and place. If you’re shooting a superhero movie or some other kind of big Hollywood production, you’re probably going to want a clean image. But if you’re shooting something smaller or independent, something more stylish as well, you’ll probably want a more textured look. If I absolutely HAD to choose though, I’d probably go with textured as the image usually is more visually interesting to me.

[@rijin9460]

For me its the type of story that should decide the look of a film. If it should feel like more real and perfect then go for clean or if the story demands an imperfect/arty sort of execution then the textured look would be a good choice. But don't be shy to break the rules and experiment.

[@andreikhokhlov3204]

This channel reigns supreme

[@DMichaelAtLarge]

The only correct answer is: use whatever best serves the film, the story, the scene, whatever. Creativity lies in breaking rules. But you need to know the rules and why they exist before you can effectively break them.

[@kalaiarasan6906]

textured 💥♥️

[@caseygecko]

i prefer textured images, tho i don't mind clean either. the only thing i strongly dislike is when people are dogmatically in the clean camp and unwilling to consider the possibility of using texture

[@charoleawood]

Or even of keeping unintended texture. I understand not wanting to artificially add texture, but in the moment of shooting you want to embrace what the gods give you.

[@3tomas]

Seems like texture is added to the real-life topics to enhance the emotion, and clarity is used for fantasy scenes where the audience needs to buy into the experience literally before investing emotionally.

[@weightlessfilms5651]

I feel like the look that matches closest to "real life" depends a lot on how good your vision is. When an image becomes too sharp that actually reminds me that I'm watching a movie.

[@AndrewPRoberts]

I like both, just depends on the film

[@m.i.andersen8167]

I was just about to write the same thing as Johnny Simes Says. "Clean" is as artificial as "Textured" - especially in the "the Revenant" example; Ultra-wide distorted perspective, muted blue look. The textured look provides some extra, often subtle, possibilities for artistic expression, whereas the "Clean" look is good for making everything easy to digest without "disturbing elements" that might make the audience think for themselves.

[@RalphS223]

Texture for the win

[@MrMahn21]

As a guy who has a condition called visual snow, I literally see "film grain" in my vision 24/7, so funnily enough it's the clean digital images that look fake to me.

[@dearestdaisyy]

For me, textured all the way!!! Imperfect grainy shots give the viewer a sense of time and nostalgia, which i think makes it all… more real.

[@dearestdaisyy]

Also me personally, I hate how overly digitalized some modern day films are…

[@dpixvid]

Just finished The Batman and loved the profuse texture of Greig Fraser, but hard not to love Chivo and Deakins.

[@norgaardcarlos]

It’s funny that Chivo likes a clean look and then Iñarritu goes and makes Dicaprio breath in front of the lens fogging it!

[@Dani_Hwk]

Both, both is good

[@DiminishingAugmentation]

Roger Deakins is right. The clean look is vastly superior. It puts emphasis on the story at hand by being as non-intrusive as possible and allows the audience to see it with their own unobstructed perception.

[@chovuse]

Clean camp. Flares annoy and makes me aware of the Camera work and can pull you out of the story if not used wisely. Textures can always be added in post if needed for the story in say flashbacks and so on.

[@RivuSouravBanerjeeVideoEditor]

depends on the look i’m going fr, depends on the storyline. i prefer more textured images ,

[@Harnam99]

I like is use both looks

[@C.C.Cope220]

For me it’s interesting because so many DPs and directors feel that cleaner = more immersive. For me the real world is inherently imperfect, beauty coming from both the “pretty” attributes and the “imperfections” that make something tangible. So well crafted use of imperfections can lend an emotional realism that cannot be overstated. Where as cleanly shot films, with sharp lenses, high resolution, and or a locked off “objective” camera is the fastest way for me to be pulled out and realize “oh I’m just sitting here watching a movie.” That being said I can list plenty of cleanly shot films that were gorgeous and immersive, so ultimately it comes down to the story being told. Clean or textured only being good or bad relative to the individual project. Also I find it interesting how the very far end of clean filming has been almost universally reviled, that being the attempts at 4K, 3d, 120fps. Where the uncanny valley effect obliterates immersion and enjoyment.

[@charoleawood]

I agree with everything you said. I'd add that texture doesn't have to be intentional but it also doesn't have to be avoided. Lots of things that make it to a final product are the result of random and unplanned happenings. I think we've accepted too much the idea that everything in a piece of art is the result of one creator's vision, it behooves filmmakers to embrace those random happenings and not feel they should control it all during the shoot and in post. That being said, I DO believe in high framerate filming and screening. Honestly the motion on 24fps films sometimes makes me sick just as much as I'm weirded out by the current look of HFR films. I think directors need to embrace shooting with multiple different cameras, lenses, framerates, crank speeds, and exposures --- even if they are all HFR cameras --- all at once to bring back that classical unpredictability that celluloid once had; to play around with how the image is being recorded rather than to treat everything as raw capture and completely manipulate it in post. Audio is also a huge component, the sharper the image and higher the framerate, the more the audio needs to adapt to make speech (for instance) sound like it's coming directly from the actor who is centered on the screen rather than in the general surround space.

[@C.C.Cope220]

@@charoleawood I agree that there are lots of happy accidents however when discussing the high level view of the texture vs clean camps these are DPs that know their craft, so something like lenses and opinion on flare are almost always going to be a considered choice. As far as frame goes I really have to disagree, for gaming and VR high frame rate offer a direct benefit, but every demo or movie I have ever scene higher then 24 had been rendered worse. At best it’s a gimmick at worst it is genuinely headache inducing. (At least for me) and the poor reaction to the hobbit test screenings and failure of Gemini Man show that it’s a very niche market, maybe Cameron and Avatar 2 can cut a wider swath. For my money I will be desperately avoiding be the 48fps screenings in Dec. for me 24 is the magic number as the brain doesn’t have to process as much data, lending the theatrical experience a dreamlike quietly. And that’s not in the abstract, our brains remember films more like dreams, where VR is stored as direct experiential memory. [high frame rate is a direct contributor to this] All that being said I would never tell directors and DPs to stop experimenting. For example I thought the mix frame scene in matrix four was fascinating. As for your list of variables to introduce, i do agree that treating the camera as a data capture device is frustrating, however I think well for most movies a planned post film emulation, vintage glass, and or filters can already do an absolutely great job of mimicking film, (I would reference the Batman as a great example of a recent textured film shot digitally.) And if you truly need colloid’s randomness, then try shooting it on film. It’s not as impossible as people think, it just depends what exact budget tier you are working in, and if you can lower your costs in other areas.

[@charoleawood]

​@@C.C.Cope220 Cool, thanks for the discussion :) I can't help but get headaches at 24fps, particularly on panning shots, at the very least filmmakers need to start employing higher, variable framerates for that kind of movement and save 24fps for when the camera is stationary and motion isn't wizzing by the screen. As for how films are remembered, all memory is essentially dreamlike because it's a reinvention of the experiences we believe we had --- even bad experiences like that time you got a headache watching an HFR flick. I truly believe this industry will figure out HFR and I think it's going to take a more-than-one camera attitude, the use of vintage glass and filters (as you suggest), and the use of multiple experimental camera setups per shot. I think we can get there, we've just got to have a more Tony Scott style mindset and get away from one camera dogma. Play around with black frame insertion in post, stop using interpolation; mix the sound differently, more stage like with less general dispersal throughout the sound system for those events making noise from the center of the screen; use post process motion blur as an artistic choice (if at all) rather than as a crutch. Not long ago the industry was doggedly against moving to digital, but it made the transition. I think you should see Way of Water at 48 fps, you're going to be at the turning point in this industry as it begins to make real sense of HFR storytelling. A majority of Way of Water is going to be completely animated --- we haven't seen a lot of HFR pre-rendered animation, I think it's going to hold up very well, not like seeing The Hobbit or Gemini Man. What killed Gemini Man for me was I hated the story they were telling and what they did with their characters. And since I didn't like Jackson's LotR, I never bothered with Hobbit. Though you mention videogames which of course are entirely computer generated (I mean, when it's not a Remedy game), those always look better with higher framerates and the lowest most of them go in cutscenes is 30fps which is still an improvement over 24fps. We aren't less able to identify with videogame characters in high framerate cutscenes than we are with characters in movies made at 24fps. I think Way of Water will be like that.

[@C.C.Cope220]

@@charoleawood yeah I just find it right now to be a “fool me once” situation with high frame rates. And personally I think the idea of swapping fps during a film is a really bad idea, again to use gaming any dips or stutters in frame rates are frustrating and immersion breaking. And the big reason games can excel in higher rates in because of its impassive nature, generally speaking watching a cutscene in 30, or 60 is not really better, but playing is noticeable. Also I think size of the screen is a huge difference. Playing a game in imax at 120fps would be much more difficult as you would be needing to “read” the image at such a rapid pace. You simply wouldn’t be as quick as someone on a tv or monitor. (And generally HFR games like 120fps or 240fps are preferred by competitive players and games.) The other notable issue with high frame rate filmmaking is that all our illusions are based in 24fps, so will smith’s performance appeared far worse in 120fps because so many more movements and details were perceptible, yet for all the additional information nothing was gained. the soap opera effect is not merely in the camera, but also the entire production. The whole show becoming hyper real and uncanny. Making a bad film even worse. Perhaps animation with it’s uniformly artificial nature can enjoy it. However the costs of doing so are massively prohibitive even more so then live action. So only someone like Cameron or Pixar could manage it for the foreseeable future. (Since film animation is generally held to a high standard of key framing these days. Much more so then gaming.) Now as far as memory goes, all memory does have a dream like quality, however the initial storage of a memory is differentiated based on its source. So I have seen multiple academics who posit convincingly that film in it’s standard theatrical presentation does fall on the “dream” side of memory acquisition. (Where as high rate, in demanding more brain processing shifts things further towards “experiential memory.) I’ll try to find the studies, it’s been years since they came out, but my personal experiences have as anecdotal evidence backed up the findings. As for pan shots, and things wizzing by. I prefer 24fps exactly because of it’s motion blur at 24 @180 degree shutter angle. To my eye it matches the way my eye sees motion blur and movement, so in a fast moving scene I feel perfectly immersed. (And I think the reason this is enjoyable for me is precisely because my mind only needs to interpret those 24 frames.) I think it boils down to my experience and the general experience of film goers, who do not have a negative experience with 24fps but have a noticeable change in experience for the worse in HFR. Ultimately for me, as with any tech advancement the question is, what does it offer? Back ten years ago digital and shooting in 3d were the hot new toys. Now most films are shot digitally, while the only people still filming in 3d are Lee and Cameron. As for the currant era, I think the video volume tech is the new “it” thing, while HFR is a tool for slo mo and doing speciality shots like in matrix 4, rather then forming a new deliverable type like Gemini man. Out of curiosity what do mean precisely, when you say “one camera mentality?”

[@charoleawood]

​@@C.C.Cope220 The "one camera mentality" is something a lot of "serious" filmmakers have about shooting films. If you are shooting with multiple cameras then you're a television sitcom director who doesn't have time for multiple setups or multiple takes and those additional cameras are only meant to speed up the process and provide coverage, filmmakers see this as lazy and un-artful. For his films Tony Scott simultaneously ran multiple different cameras employing different techniques at different angles --- some cameras stationary, others in motion --- for every take and then in editing had a plethora of footage to choose from, some of it cleaner, some of it stationary, some of it in motion, some of it textured. I think HFR filmmakers shooting live action need to embrace this kind of palate and to start using multiple cameras that have multiple different purposes for each take, and then mix these shots in editing the way Scott did. Now, when I'm talking about variable frame rates I'm speaking about mixing up the different shots (which apparently Lana Wachowski already does) recorded and displayed at different frame rates --- projectors are capable of delivering multiple different framerates without judder as are variable refresh rate capable home displays. And so if there are closeups that have very little movement in them it's safe to record and display at a lower frame rate, shots with lots of motion can be recorded and displayed at higher ones. I am not joking when I say that 24fps with panning shots makes me a little ill, even in the theater. It behooves filmmakers to experiment just as they did when they started to transition away from celluloid. Digital filmmaking today is not the same as it was when Phantom Menace came out, the reason that physical filters for digital cameras even exist is that filmmakers balked at digital and wanted to bring the image closer to a celluloid look. I've gone on for some time but I disagree with several of your points --- even though I DO respect where you are coming from and I DO think that live action HFR is still odd looking --- 1. I think that realtime cutscenes in videogames are absolutely improved by higher framerates. I don't know how to convince you otherwise. 2. Playing a game at 120fps on an Imax screen would be difficult because of the size of the screen, yes, however it would be vastly preferable to playing a game at 24fps on that same Imax screen. 3. As somebody who plays singleplayer games I always prefer higher framerates, motion clarity is what I am looking for. Sadly, my funds are limited and I'm not able to have everything that I want. 4. I strongly disagree that illusions are 24fps --- we do not process the world in frames per second, fps is about camera and display technology. If we were in the front row during the Oscars we'd not have perceived Will Smith's slap in 24fps --- if this were true there wouldn't be any perceivable difference between 24 and 48 and 120, there would be no issue. The whole reason I harp on 24fps panning shots is that if I focus on a point in the background and follow it with my eyes I see how it's essentially a slideshow, even if it's properly framepaced, as it goes from one side of the screen to the other. That doesn't happen in real life. Figure skaters when spinning around are able to quickly pick out details in the distance and keep their focus on it, it prevents illness. The same illness I get from 24fps in films I get from camera motion blur in videogames, even at 60fps, because I'm not able to track background details as they scroll by. Anyway, yes, perhaps HFR for conventional live action cinema is a fool's errand and we need volumetric video. I do think that video experiences are the way of the future --- videogames and VR and AR etc --- not the flat silver screen. I made a comment somewhere that 1917 and Dunkirk would have been better as videogame experiences --- the storytelling and character presentation in Naughty Dog games is better than in those films. BUT I don't think that the marriage of traditional cinema and HFR _has_ to fail. Truly, digital capture was not embraced by filmmakers early on, they were very dogmatic about celluloid, they didn't see new digital cameras as enabling anything. So while Robert Rodriguez wanted to see every pock mark and blemish on Danny Trejo's face in 2003 with Once Upon a Time in Mexico (fabulous film), yet most other filmmakers were against it saying that it made films look like --- you guessed it --- soap operas! And that film was in a paltry 1080p at 24fps! Look how far we've come as audiences, we no longer look at 1080p as too high res, too soap opera-ish, we don't demand movies be made on celluloid --- in fact we're gunning for 8k now! It's time we also started adapting to HFR.

[@maartenmarvel99]

Vilmos Zsigmond's work is a really good case for a textured image. Mccabe & Mrs. Miller is so damn beautiful yet it feels like your looking through the dirtiest lens, but it really serves the feel of the film. Thats what texture can provide over clean for me.

[@dpixvid]

That film is mesmerizing at times... agreed, which is why I liked it.

[@claffmatic]

Gimmie all the textures in the images❗️

[@kylehallman1283]

As a person who must wear glasses, lense flares are simply a part of life that I've become accustomed to, so when I see them in movies, I don't see it as "ah yes, I am seeing this film through the lense of a camera," I see it as, "ah yes, light acting as it always has."

[@AlleyKatPr0]

Just use a Panavison C series at all times, and the cinematography takes care of itself :)

[@danielllobera]

Awesome video! Personally it comes down to the script and the emotions of the story. I do love a textured image though, the grittier and raw the better.

[@jesseyules]

Clean. Grain messes up images when they are compressed and streamed.

[@diegofortes5]

What a great content. Congratulations.

[@A_Fortunate_Traveler]

It depends on the story, the environment, the atmospehere... But I don't see lensflares, or other imperfections myself, so a clean image wins... but then again, depending on the story, the mood. It goes deeper than what I can write here. But lensflares in, for example, Barry Lyndon, would not have worked while it works well with the original Blade Runner...

[@razagrog9851]

Interesting topic, i think media division explain it in more technical way. Did you inspired by their video?

[@TheRobinshark]

It really depends what you’re trying to make and wether or not it serves the story

[@maxkern537]

A great comparison! I like that you don't emphasis one way over the other even though I'm sure you have a personal opinion on this subject! As an engineer I prefer to capture the cleanest image possible in general. Because for an artistic effect to support the story, almost every "texture" can be added in post processing anyway.

[@adriancrespo4274]

I’m definitely on the other side of the fence, if I know I’m gonna go for a specific look, doing it in camera will make it look more organic, digital texture still reads as digital to me, plus more importantly to me it saves me time in post

[@maxkern537]

@@adriancrespo4274 If you already know exactly what you want to accomplish then that's a valid argument ^^

[@charoleawood]

Say you are shooting a practical effects action sequence, a car chase, and then in one of your shots a tire blows out and detritus hits the lens, or an engine busts and oil hits the lens --- surely you aren't going to throw away such a shot. I worry when filmmakers are so intent on a clean image that they can't allow a raindrop to unintentionally fall on the lens or an unintentional flare to come into frame --- you don't have to actively seek these things out but surely if they happen the shot isn't always ruined.

[@Thepietro5000pp]

Seems more like a story dependant thing. Like I would use many crazy filters for 80s inspired music video, but wouldn't use one for a grounded drama set in a modern day

[@benjamincorteslyon6777]

Where did you get that Lubezki interview? Where can I hear it?

[@ericmarciniak3541]

I used to shoot a lot of action sports and fuckin loved getting nice colourful lens flares from the sun flying across the sensor!

[@NickWillMakeIt]

Textured is my personal favorite. Sure I love a good, clean image... BUT, I think that the elements of texture added to your shot can take you somewhere special. It's like Realism vs Abstract. Emotion/feeling can be communicated much more coherently through abstract because it isn't "exact". It's more like, look at this and mold it into your own. Realism shows you exactly what you are looking at, and you just take it for what it is. Less magic, "more beauty" I guess.

[@leandromoreno1254]

I hear what you say. I belive david lynch had a beautyful way to describe it. He called it " room to dream" . He said that lack of detail made the audience engage more whith the story as they had to fill the gaps whith their own subconscient making them a part of the art piece. I have the theory that same thing happens with frame rate whe its played 48 fps , you dont have the chance to take that much info so you feel over stimulated wereas whem played at 24 fps half the film the film theater was actually in complete darkness . Thats your time to engage to the film . It hits you harder . My two cents.

[@joshuarahimi221]

I’m definitely team textured! Also love the lens flares from anamorphic lenses!💙

[@diogocarvalho2934]

Talking about grain on youtube is impossible. The compression hurts my soul.

[@endsitall]

I like textured, it doesn’t take me out of the story.

[@michaelcarrig627]

It depends on what you are trying to evoke. I like to use both. I am shooting DSLR or BlackMagic, so I am neither Deakins or Lubezki. But art requires different tools. I am sure that Lubezki, for instance, does not believe that images need to always be clean.

[@LukasHauf]

I personally shot films really clean and textured. There is definitely a point to be made for both and as a cinematographer you always need to look for what’s the most fitting regarding the story. Do you want to show realism or do you want to indulge the viewer in a dreamworld. It always depends on what you are trying to achieve with the final image.

[@danielfulop]

I prefer textured for photography / art videos and clean for movies

[@LeonardoKlotz]

As much as I liked NO TIME TO DIE I didn't like Linus Sandgren's cinematography The colorful look, the lens flare and the haze felt very uncharacteristic to James Bond Especially compared to the previous movies that had a sharp and clean look

[@geoffreybassett6741]

Skyfall is probably my favorite Bond in terms of look.

[@alexsmart5452]

Depends on the story. It does seem better overall to have a clean look since, as I understand it(Im not an editor), texture can be done in post. Time, place, reason..When Where Why(what) for all aspects of a story.

[@NileStudios]

We like to use both actually, it all depends on the shoot!