Is digital just a pleb medium for film?

Is digital just a pleb medium for film?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI
icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Is this bait? That's an IMAX FILM camera, idiot.

I'm starting to dislike it. It so dependent on how good the set is. Maybe the cameras are too good at catching the light idk. It's amazing how the first blade runner look, and it's carried by the set alone

Digital is better than film. Prove me wrong. You literally can't.

Film is better than digital. Prove me wrong. You literally can’t.

Yes it is.

Guessing that was his point, as Nolan is famous for sticking with film.

No, the cameras don't capture the light properly, is the problem. Film is organic, like all chemistry. Digital is electronic. You can't translate light into binary.

Dude just shoot it on digital we'll fix it in post

Depends on the film. Blade Runner 2049 was logically shot on digital. I can't imagine Dunkirk being shot on digital.

Reminder that a shot like this is nearly impossible to pull of with a film camera.

Digital has come a long way but i still prefer film. That being said it doesn't matter what platform you chose, if you're not talented (nolan) it won't turn out good.
This. Blade Runner is a good example. 30 years ago and still looks way better than 2049

While some shots in BR2049 were breathtaking, there were also several other shots that were really flat. BR from '84 had a consistent quality throughout due to the nature of film.

Digital is the future.
The problem is most of the time they're still lighting the set as if they're shooting on film.

The sterile empty visuals are the entire point, to show the bleak empty sterile future after the blackout where nature is practically non existent that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day.
It would make no sense for this film to look extremely colorful and dense, it would make no sense to fill the streets with thousands of extras, it would make no sense to shoot it on grainy film, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" when everything in it is basically dead.
It's sad that you are comparing visuals of films just by looking at which looks move "nice" or "epic" to you without zero context of the narrative.

not lighting your shots with candles and shooting your films on NASA space cameras.
fun fact lots of people on Sup Forums unironically think Kubrick was talentless and a shit director

Digital is great. You can make something on a $1000 camera and edit it on a $1000 computer that looks decent enough when projected on a big screen.

If I was making anything expensive I'd use film.

Spot on

Like most autist, he can take great pictures and frame great shots but his movies are devoid of any human emotions or soul. Which is why 2001 works fine.

Kubrick used Nasa lens, not Nasa cameras. You could put the lens on an Arri Alexa and get better results probably.

>but his movies are devoid of any human emotions or soul
Dumbest statement of the day. Just look to Paths of Glory or Full Metal Jacket if you want to see more human Kubrick films. It's just that he doesn't obsess over exposition like filmmakers of today are.

>the film is meant to look flat! they did it on purpose!

For what? Ease of use? Sure. Does it look better? Not really.

Yes, it does.

come the fuck on

Touché.

Also Barry Lyndon. There is definitely humanity in his films, just that people don't like the aspects of humanity he's showing.

>The sterile empty visuals are the entire point

OK, then what's the point of the sterile empty visuals of Love and Friendship? Or A Quiet Passion? Or any number of period dramas made in recent years where an organic look is justified and even attempted, but can't happen because digital can't match film? It's almost impossible to watch movies made in recent years unless an aesthetic extremist like Refn or Noe is directing them, when the lack of texture is made up for by other elements.

>get better results probably.

ok bud.. barry lyndon was a shitter film than anyone could easily reproduce

No, his films are totally human. Even 2001 is full of feeling. I think the problem is that you don't like the feeelings.

youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI

>you're not recording movement. You're just taking a series of still pictures. There's no movement in movies at all.

You are arguing like I think that digital should be used in the production of every film ever.
Ofcourse a standard period drama would look better if it's shot on film rather than digital, I just said that it would make no sense to shoot BR2049 on a film camera.

>better

No, not for Kubrick's purpose, unless you think better = more information. Art isn't about the scientific reproduction of observed phenomena.

Tarantino is a retard.

what is the point you are trying to make?

You were defending flatness as an aesthetic strategy, which indicated to me a digital advocate. Flatness is everywhere now, cinematographers are having to use basically anti-artistic equipment to make art, and they're often not able to do it, especially as cheapness and speed are the main reasons digital dominates. If you spent a week on each shot, you could make a digital movie that was almost as good as a 35mm film with good lighting but mismatched lenses and stock. Cinema is dead, let's face it.

Doesn't matter
What's more important is what's in front of the camera and who's behind it

he didn't went to arguement school

>doesn't matter how the film looks

Candles wouldn't work in space

the medium is one of the smaller factors in how it looks

Digital is the ultimate pleb filter because 95% of directors, and editors don't know how to apply it correctly.

>Cinema is dead
Say it ain't so, user

Pretty much. You can make a bad film regardless of your medium.

You're just going on an overly general rant on digital that is in no corellation with the look of BR2049.
You're implying like every shot was made in an instant, while Deakins worked on storyboards with Villeneuve for weeks in a hotel room long before the production of the film. Every single shot was done almost entirely in camera, every set was practical. Feel free to post the shots you think were "flat" then

Except no one does. Digital is all RAW, and no one knows how to color grade correctly

Looks good when Mann uses it. Haven't noticed any other interesting-looking films made using digital.

thats a common misconception, i know you are going to say 'fire can't be in space cuz oxygen and vacuums and whatnot' but the sun is in space and it's on fire so get rekt

But deakins and dennis v are total hacks

In the smoky cigarr-filled rooms, there is a certain atmosphere to the film look of the original BR that is simply impossible to replicate on digital. It's no denying that BR2049 looks great but it was also done by absolute top-of-the-line directors and cinematographers.

Well ofcourse, and the new one is clearly not aiming to "replicate" the look of the original because the story is not the same as the original.
It's not like Deakins couldn't have used the same exact film camera, lens, lighting setup of the original if he wanted too.

Blade Runner is supposed to embody a futuristic aesthetic so it wouldn't make any sense to shoot the new one on film, because the whole point is that the whole world is artificial and digital accentuates that. Organic film couldn't achieve that affect. Like I said, film works for some movies and not for others. The look of film is also blinded by nostalgia as well.

i think we have just come to a weird fork in the road where we have to redefine or readjust our concepts of art now that we have true photorealism. happened to paintings when cameras were invented and it's happening now that we have a level of detail that is indistinguishable from real life, ironically the closer we get to capturing real life 1:1 the faker it looks to us.

I always felt like this. I felt that in CO, Shining, Dr SL lacked emotion and I just couldn't like them enough. Barry Lyndon and Paths of Glory were the only ones that made me "feel".

1. Yes it would, Blade Runner was about a futuristic aesthetic too.

2. Yes, organic can achieve anything digital can, plus it's a real medium, not a computer pretending.

3. "The look of film is also blinded by nostalgia as well" - so you can't even fucking use English coherently? Thanks for playing.

imo the colors on film movies look nicer, warmer i guess you could say

Yeah, and the problem essentially is that Hollywood isn't going to do that. This is the end of mainstream cinema's claims to be art, potentially. Perhaps this is why fantastical and impossible representations are so favored now - it's all you can do to make a digitally-shot movie seem like a work of imagination.

Not every film needs to look "warm"

>muh digital is teh future

but digital looks boring and flat
no film should look like that

No, I'm describing the only thing that digital "cinematography" can ever result in. I'm not talking about prep, I mean a week to PHYSICALLY MAKE THE SHOT. That's the only way you can adjust for digital's artistic invalidity - extreme and painstaking measures, like someone with broken legs learning to walk again.

The shot you yourself just posted is flat. It has a layer of useless light because the medium cannot take light in correctly.

1. Yeah, except BR 1982 didn't have digital at the time. I'm sure if they did they would have used it.

2. Digital can achieve anything film can, plus it's a versatile, cheaper medium, without huge stacks of film prints and labour needed to develop it and then convert it to digital for re-editing

3. Nice ad hominem

But it should be possible. It's not going to be anymore.

INLAND EMPIRE was better, at least it used video for its own look, not as tofu film.

He is literally arguing semantic
Which made me actually think, as they are basically discussing a language. Cinema is a language.

Is Tarantino actually smart?

>using candle lamps

Just use LED lights and set the temperature you pretentious hacks. You can easily adjust any level in post and have the EXACT same effect. Fucking hacks

1. You've confirmed that you don't understand what artists are or what they do.

2. No, it's cheaper and quicker and can't do anything like what film can. Not even close.

3. No, the sentence I quoted was incoherent. Try to be literate first, then work on being clever. If you meant what it looks like you were trying to say, no nostalgia is neccesary to notice that Blade Runner, even after the desaturation bullshit of the Final Cut, looks like a work of art, while the new film looks like an interesting gas station forecourt. Cinema is dead, accept it.

hateful 8 was shot on film and it doesn't look any better or worse than something shot digitally. i think in a lot of cases people use film as a gimmick 'hey i shot this in film so it's good because i am true to the classic medium'

>Digital can achieve anything film can
Nope. By the nature of being two completely different mediums, one can never do everything the other can do. Digital will forever be digital and nothing more.

>It has a layer of useless light because the medium cannot take light in correctly.
What? Why are you spouting bullshit?
If anything, digital can take way less light for the shot to still look good (see here ), while a film camera literally needs atleast double of the on-set lights to achieve a balanced color spectrum.
Working in extreme low light conditions is one of the main advantages of digital compared to film.

You're a fucking moron. Those are dimmers on the lights, each and every light had it's own separate dimmer.
>“That orange environment was done in three different ways,” Deakins remarks. “The opening part was on stage and, for this, I had Tiffen make some specific red filters for in front of the lens. While most of my lighting was tungsten-based Spacelights, there were some 20 Maxi-Brutes gelled green to give a feeling of yellow light against the predominantly red filtration."

>“The second section was an interior shot on location in Budapest,” he continues. “For this we had HMI sources from outside the windows, which were in turn diffused and gelled with the same color gels that we had used for lens filtration previously. Then, for the third part of the sequence, we had a very large set that used a couple hundred open-faced 2Ks and sixty 10Ks, with all those lamps bounced and gelled to maintain our color. All of the color scheme was controlled in camera and this gives it a reality I doubt it would have had if left to post.”
icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/

You haven't contradicted what I said, you stupid fuck, you're giving another "it's cheaper!" argument while confirming my point. Real lighting looks bad on digital. The fact that it works in low light because it's for surveillance, not art, is beside the point.

that shot could be done digitally tho, you would just have to add the film grain in post.

>but digital looks boring and flat
If it's used the wrong way, yes ofcourse. It's not like you can't make a film look boring and flat with a film camera

it may be smaller than the lighting used on set and the frame of the shot, but it is in no means small enough to disregard.

if you've seen enough films shot on film and digital you'll see a very clear and distinct difference between the two.

if you think the medium used to capture the image in the first place is a small factor compared to all others that go into making a film then i have to say you're a bit ignorant.

i know that like in all forms of art(and most things in life), the experience is subjective, so arguing that i think things look better having been shot on film than on digital is a bit of a wasted effort, so what I want to do is argue that it looks different; different enough to warrant use of both mediums.

in my eyes film does an excellent job of capturing the image and adding a sort of flair to it, its that flair that a digital recording lacks. it could be because digital strives to record as "neutral" as possible so that color correction and grading can be added in post, thus making it seem very artificial compared to film stock which has its own characteristics from the get go.

also, and i know this is just a personal thing, but i've literally never caught myself thinking, "i wonder how this would look like shot in digital, it would probably look amazing". I do however think the opposite of nearly every shot that looks good shot on digital. It feels like a waste when it could look just that little bit better on film.

now im not saying that all movies shot on film look better than the ones on digital, far from it. what i am saying is that the beautiful films shot on digital would look ever better if they were shot on film.

film can be stretched to what, like a 6K resolution or something? so once pedowood pushes us to yet another pointless format leap, we'll get those film remasters, and that will be it.

but at least we'll have that. with digital, you're locked to whatever resolution the camera was shot in. so all those early digital movies from the 2000s will look like shit for eternity.

Deakins is a fucking shit dp. You all shit on delbonnel

1. Lol did you even read what I said? Trying to say the original Blade Runner was shot on film, no shit they didn't have digital.

2. Wrong. Digital is 90% of film for hundreds of times the cost.

3. Whatever you say. That's just like your opinion man. Sorry you are so triggered over technology cause MUH FILM. My sentence was coherent, you're trying too hard. We get it, you're well-versed as fuck.

> Roger Deakins vs random pleb on Sup Forums

The argument is that film can be highly limiting, it literally gives you more options. You can't shoot a movie on film just with candles (unless you're fucking Kubrick who had to get fucking NASA lenses just to make it work)

>The fact that it works in low light because it's for surveillance, not art, is beside the point.
This has to be bait, no one is this retarded. Yes, RED and Arri are mainly making and improving cameras for surveillance, sure thing buddy.

Hilarious since you're an autist with no soul who posts on a reddit board everyday.

Please give reasoning why.
And talk about his work, not becaue "waaah he's popular waaaaah"

much respect for replying to him, i almost did and then i couldn't bring myself after reading
>it's for surveillance

His look is not special. Its as simple as that. Its basically a mcdonalds cheeseburger

>ITT: bunch of kissless virgins who don't understand how even their phone camera works in Manual Mode arguing passionately about film formats and how cameras operate

35mm is 6K. 75mm is something crazy like 12K.

Basically we still haven't reached the limit of films shot lifetimes before us. Just look how fast digital expires in comparison.

Not him, but your sentence wasn't coherent.

They're making it for the industry you'll never be part of, not the artform that it no longer has anything to do with. The technology of not needing lighting to work is for surveillance, not craft.

Red has an 8k camera that was used to shoot GotG Vol 2 and probably countless other movies from now on.

Movies are rarely actually shot on IMAX anyways, and there's basically no use for 12k resolution and above except for large displays.

I can see a digital 32k video format being used for Blade Runner style adverts tho.

Do you compare visuals by which look "nicer" or "more cool" to you? Do you think a DP should make every film look "epic and cuhrazzy" no matter what the script and the narrative of the film is saying? Do you think every DP should be a "HEY LOOK AT ME" attention whore who does nothing to serve the narrative at all?

...

You are wrong
I have almost certainly seen more films than you, and I make films for a living - I know what I'm talking about
Saying digital is interchangeable for film just shows how little you truly know

You can rent a RED or an Alexa Mini camera for a few hundred bucks over a weekend if you want. Boom, you're suddenly a part of "the industry"

Hi autist.

But he's saying the opposite.

hes no Emmanuel Lubezki thats for damn sure

>digital looks bad

>Boom, you're suddenly a part of "the industry"

Bless you, I suspected that you were laboring under some delusion like this. No, you're never going to be anyone.

I think a dp should be memorable. Lot of his shots in sicario are easily digestable bit leave no lasting impression. Same with skyfall.

...

only looks good in 1 resolution :^)

this looks good, mann is the only one who makes digital look good
this is ostentatious shit, lubeski is a literal retard

what troubles me the most here is that a lot of people itt can't seem to differentiate between a tool and talent.

Any amateur retard can recreate this shot if they had his budget/resources. Look, most of those shots are literally the room doing the work. It's fucking difficult to make a room like that look bad.

You people are fanboys. You like people who other people told you to like.

Kubrick is a meme, just like everything else that normies think is great. Fucking overrated hack, if you ask me. I watched 2001 and was disappointed after hearing how great it was.

Most of his "genius" (like many from that era) is based upon the folklore surrounding his persona (myths of him embedding "secrets" into his movies, moon mission fake, etc)

OVERRATED HACK.

Don't allow the charlatans who "dabble" in film decide who is "genius" and who isn't.

You can always spot an utter pleb if they like Kubrick