Was shooting this in SD the worst cinematography decision ever made?

Was shooting this in SD the worst cinematography decision ever made?

Other urls found in this thread:

imdb.com/title/tt1663202/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec
shotonwhat.com/the-revenant-2015
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It is pretty bloody bizzare. All those empty london shots feel so wasted.

it's to look like those old timey zombie b movies i think

Jesus it looks worse every year that goes past, and since it was shot that way theres no way for it to ever be remastered, it will always be 480p

>2002

um, hd wasn't invented yet sweetie

It was cheap so he had full creative freedom.

Unlike capeshit.

retard kys

woah...so this is the power of digital

This movie was made in the 70s

Analogue with some cameras was more data heavy than 2k digital even in 1960

well the movie was shit so nothing of value was lost

yeah i always wondered why that movie looked so good

1. Back then, SD *was* digital.

2. The specific aesthetic of SD digital was why I and a bunch of other people who started out with photochemical believed in it. It wasn't just fake film, it was a whole new bunch of textures.

3. HD digital production has killed the art of cinema. It looks fake no matter how you light it.

Because they gave a fuck

I've always wondered why Jurassic Park is so horribly grainy and shitty even on bluray it can't be more 720p (blatant false advertising)

empty london looked so fucking great when that movie came out. Didn't know it was shot in SD. Shame. Budget issue, I guess?

go back and watch the wire in full hd you fucking retard

And it was made on 35mm film. If this is a thread where people pretend to be retarded about the existence of celluloid, it's pretty feeble shitposting.

I actually did last month. kek. gave up half way into season 5 because fuck that serial killer plot.

That is 100% incorrect.

film vs analog vs digital

wow you are really dumb

High Definition video was around at the time but HD digital cameras were prohibitively expensive. Star Wars the Phantom Menace was shot 100% digitally and that came out in 1999.

What the other retards who are responding to your post are all suggesting are things that were shot on film (which has no digital resolution). The Wire, for instance, was shot on 35mm film.

>3. HD digital production has killed the art of cinema. It looks fake no matter how you light it.
In other words you're just bad at your job. Big budget movies don't look fake, youtube fanmade shit does.

this is especially noticable in the day scenes while they're driving

Film is the odd one out

Werent they also filming in Hawaii, could the heat have fucked up something with the film?

Big budget movies do look fake. I'm talking about productions where money is no object.

Actually alot of movies are shot on film, its considered more of an art form

Spielberg likes a grainy look. Do you flinch from War of the Worlds as well?

I’m saying film is analogue so his post doesn’t make sense

When you shoot on film you get grain. HD just highlights the grain unless they do what they did in the Ultimate Hunter edition of Predator.

If bait: 5/10
If genuinely retarded: kys

They know, I'm pretty sure. This is just a thread where wacky memesters pretend to think that all movies have been shot on various kinds of video. In a minute someone will post a frame from The Godfather and pretend to think it's Betacam.

Wtf no thanks

>shot on film

Japan was filming TV shows with 1080p digital cameras in the mid 90s

Cappola understood the art of photography

Film isn't called HD, you dipshit. HD is a video standard, film isn't video.

Fincher shoots on digital and his movies don't look fake. Villeneuve shoots on digital and his movies don't look fake. You're just bad at your job like I said.

I'd feel so pissed if I paid for that.

No, all of their movies look fake. You don't have an eye, kid, you might want to stop making yourself look like an idiot.

I raise you one from 1962.

>e-everyone else is j-just as bad I swear! it's the technology I can't help it!

Was this shot analog? because its one of my favorite looking films in the past 10 years

How does modern digital film upscale in comparison to modern film? Does shooting on digital mean you limit yourself to the resolution you're shooting on?

I know Lawrence of Arabia had a 4K release despite being shot in the 60's. That's amazing.

Hell yeah! what are some more surpisingly good looking films from the mid 20th century?

They shot The Revenant on digital.

Ben Hur

IIRC they had the space for a very small amount of time so digital was a prudent option for some reason.

casablanca and the godfather look great

Maybe it was just the use of natural light that really struck me

imdb.com/title/tt1663202/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

looks like digital.

shotonwhat.com/the-revenant-2015

However it was shot using purely natural lighting if the stories are to be belived.

heat looks really great for its time because it used brand new cameras that are still being used

or maybe im thinking of a different movie. regardless, heat looks great

I thought the quality on the rip/stream was the reason it looked like that. Learned some thing

Black and white almost feels like cheating though, it isnt hard for everything to look good and sharp when its just black and shades of gray

>Does shooting on digital mean you limit yourself to the resolution you're shooting on?
yeah. just like how things shot on video dont look any better.

breh, film is analog. They had "4k" before digital was even a thing.

>According to IMAX, 35mm film has a digital equivalent of 6000 lines of horizontal resolution (6K), while 70mm film has the equivalent of 18,000 lines of digital resolution (more like 12,000 in reality)

>I know Lawrence of Arabia had a 4K release despite being shot in the 60's. That's amazing.

It's like how records and old music tapes have far better quality than modern digital recordings

To me it comes off as a waste shooting on digital when shooting film gives so much better preservation of the medium. Or am I reading this wrong?

although i agree, was awesome looking, but i will never watch it again, fucking sucked ass no idea why it got a oscar

>muh son
>MUH SON!!!!!

> Star Wars the Phantom Menace was shot 100% digitally and that came out in 1999

It was the last one shot on 35mm actually.

I think digital encourages bad film practices.

Lawrence of Arabia was shot on 70mm. There is no digital sensor even close to 70mm. That's why modern directors like Nolan or Tarantino shoot on film (preferably 70mm) as well. It's just a bitch to edit and costs a bunch.
>Does shooting on digital mean you limit yourself to the resolution you're shooting on?
Obviously, pixels are pixels. Upscaling just means creating more data based on the data available. It's not like film where the amount of data is "infinite" and just limited by the amount of detail each type of film can capture.

TPM was shot on film 100%.

Film can definitely be upscaled as time goes on, however, it doesn't last forever

digital is cheaper and nobody cares about preservation.

No, but war of the worlds had piss ugly dakota fanning while jurassic park had momfu laura dern and that cute hacker girl, both of which I'd prefer grain free thank you very much

interesting theory

That's horrible for Predator, but maybe it would have worked for Jurassic Park? I dunno.

>just improvise for 45 minutes we'll make it funny in editing

Pretty easy to make them theses days, just wait for a mussie to do their thing.

>that sideboob shot
>so grainy I can't tell if there's nipple showing or not

you're over simplifying it. There's more to resolution when picking between the two. You're compromising by making a choice between the two.

While film can have higher resolution, you have to deal with the film. A lighting matters more. Low light on film is virtually impossible, while digital can capture pretty much what the human eye sees

Neither one is better than the other, it's just each one is suited for different things.

Barry Lyndon.

anyone who is "surprised" by mid 20th century film looking good is a philistine with little knowledge of the medium

Wow, I used to get that effect if I copied a TV show over too many generations of vhs with the extended-long-play recording option.
And by too many generations I mean copying the TV recording even once.

That is a god awful look. Sharpens edges and highlights, then turns everything else into a kind of plasticky embossed goo.

That was on Turner Classic Movies the other day. I pvr'd it. Should get around to watching it.

>Star Wars the Phantom Menace was shot 100% digitally and that came out in 1999
All Star Wars films are shot on the same film stock, both to assuage George Lucas's autism as well as the autism of his fans.

>Low light on film is virtually impossible,
then how did kubrick do this?

This.

The only reason film is better for preservation is because of copyright law. "Lots of copies keep stuff safe". Just release a torrent of the original films and it will be preserved.

Is HORRIBLY boring, nothing happens, id rather watch any other Kubrick movie

I love the grain you get with film.

on set it looked like this. But that's not what I mean by low light. I mean a scene shot outside in the middle of the night with no extra lighting beyond ambient light.

70mm is pointless when it's still 24fps. Everything degrades to VHS quality as soon as you pan the camera.

Why does this hurt my eyes?

>blu ray is PAL Beta SP and upconverted to Blu-ray

you aren't wearing your 3-d glasses

mmm so beautiful

trying to focus on an unfocused image

This is why I can't hate Nolan. He's trying to save an entire medium.

>a lot

Bullshit. Tarantino, Scorsese and Nolan are pretty much the only big names using it in principle.

looks ok desu

...

...

Kubrick literally used lenses designed by NASA for capturing stars with satellites

He got NASA to make some lenses for him.

Snyder too.

Actually a few scenes were shot on digital.

Snyder and Wright shoot on film as well
JJ Abrams and Rian Johnson were big about shooting Star Wars on film too

JJ, Zack Snyder, Spielberg, Aronofsky, Coens and Sam Mendes still shoot on film aswell.

The original Blade Runner is one of the most gorgeous films ever made, so pretty that you forget how boring it is