The great debate

the great debate

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=suZtYPIADHM
youtube.com/watch?v=En__V0oEJsU
youtube.com/watch?v=suZtYPIADHM&t=156s
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

There is no debate. When you watch anything shot on digital, you're being ripped off.

Try upscaling a 1080p movie in 30 years.

Film is superior.

Give me ONE (1) aesthetic difference between the two that couldn't be fixed in post.

The Silver Hallide crystals interplay with light in ways that we can recognize with the eye but we have yet to figure out how to replicate with digital sensors.

The crystals work by a ratio of light to dark and digital pixels work on a ratio of black to grey to white

Show me an example.

Well first off film doesn't truly equate to pixels and has a theoretical "resolution" of nearly 8K, whereas digital movies are mastered in 2K so they won't stand the test of time.

Secondly, skin tones never look correct on digital. Also true grain, etc.

>max digital res is 2K
>tones can't be fixed in post

Show you an example of the scientific properties of Silver Hallide? I'm sure there are chart and that on the internet but it pretty easy to see if you watch something on a film projector. Most theatres don't carry them anymore so mostly its film students and digital imaging people that can notice right off.

>>tones can't be fixed in post
Fixing skins digitally has been disastrous. Like Peter Cushing or Carrie Fisher in Rogue One.

They were literal CGI fests, I'm talking about basic editing

Fixing skin tone is not basic editing. Basic editing is laying out sequences and syncing them to the sound track.

In developing world people are getting smartphones. It's the first piece of camera some people ever owned. For the first time in history they can make videos and edit it and upload it directly and instantly to Internet for the world to see.
All these are possible because of digital.

>I'm talking about basic editing
I don't think you know what you are talking about.

Adjusting the hue sounds pretty basic to me.

What debate? Film is better.

Film is much, much better and also forces filmmakers to be less lazy.

The difference in skin tone created by film is not hue, its texture created from the lighting, which is detected differently from film to digital.

So it is... That's a point for film but i still don't think it's worth the extra effort.

28 Days Later is unfixable and will forever be in 480p because it was shot digitally

Go watch Lawrence of Arabia. Get back to me when you are done.

all those instagram whores and vlogfaggots just because of digital? wtf i love film now

But if your entire career revolved around the quality of your images (quality enough to warrant millions in returns) you might feel differently. Especially if you have a paid crew.

If you are just an amateur like me then you use digital no question about it.

Watch 2001 a space odyssey and keep in mind the whole thing was shot on 70mm and made completely without computers.

Because it was old and shitty digital. It's not like Chaplin looks especially stellar nowadays either. Gone Girl will still be watchable.

But all the complications that arise from shooting on film may actually take a toll on your film.

...

Speaking of Star Wars, am I the only one who thinks something is wrong with the way The Force Awakens looks? It was shot on 35mm but looks like digital in a bad way.

Mother fucker lawrence of arabia was shot on nicer film stock 6 years earlier. both movies are cool. The point is we still can't see the grain in movies from the 60's scanned at 8k. Film is beautiful and unique and digital will not match the process, colors, or "resolution" for quite some time.

>thinks films are filmed in 1080p

I like film. It's more natural and romantic. You can see all the little specks on those Blu-ray releases of older films. Digital is squeaky clean and those usually have really intense colors. Something happened after 1995 because a lot of films were grainy before then.

What kind of movies will they make and who would care??

Off the top of my head I can tell you Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith both were shot in 1080p

...

>In developing world people are getting smartphones. It's the first piece of camera some people ever owned. For the first time in history they can make videos and edit it and upload it directly and instantly to Internet for the world to see.

I read an article a few years ago, I can't remember where. It was about this liberal Hollywood producer who quit his job, sold all his shit and moved to Nigeria. He wanted to be a part of their growing film industry. He saw a lot of potential and wanted to push them towards making serious films about poverty, corruption, slums, war, colonialism, etc. The types of movies that would rack in prizes from international film festivals. So he's trying to get them to make these movies deeply personal topics. But none of the Nigerian filmmakers give a shit about that stuff. They only want to make action movies with homemade prop guns and badly choreographed Kung-Fu or sex-comedies staring midgets. He realizes that a midget sex-comedy won't get him his Palme d'Or.

i can't really watch movies nowadays, they all look too clean and slick, it feels disgusting

i agree, it's because abrams is a hack visually. he tries to over stimulate/compensate and not let a frame breath

10 years ago there was a difference technically speaking, today there isn't

m.youtube.com/watch?v=suZtYPIADHM

>shooting on film
>scanning raw footage into computer
>edit from there
Crown me the new king of Hollywood

Shoot both at the same time pussy

Upscaling technology could advance majorly in 30 years though.

that´s the only kind of cinema that hollywood and liberal people like, they find comfort in thinking of themselves as moral individuals who care for the issues of the world when they do nothing else than watching films

I know literally nothing about film making, how is traditional film superior to digital? Wouldn't the image be lower quality?

BASED Tommy

youtube.com/watch?v=En__V0oEJsU

It doesn't work like that with digital, buddy.
After a certain point you just don't have the data required to upscale.

What you then have to do is try and "fill in the gaps" with different types of postprocessing.
It always ends up looking like shit.

Pretty much. Look at Lawrence of Arabia, etc. Meanwhile, films shot on digital, like 28 Days Later, will always look like pure spew. Pic related, an actual screenshot from 28 Days Later.

...

Didn't mean max digital res is 2K, but nearly all digitally recorded films until very recently were shot in 2K.

It was shot on film, but processed digitally.

Yes who would ever want new voices in film. Hmmmm Hollywood feed me more Marvel diarrhea Hollywood. Yes more capeshit, yes. I clap, i clap when man on screen does punch wow yes.

best uganda action movies

Read this in Keanu's voice.

Fuck me why the hell didn't Boyle film it on 16mm if he wanted it to be kinda grungy.

Fuck!!!

Lawrence of Arabia was shot on 65 which is a tiny sample of all of cinema. Plenty of 35mm stock from that era looks like muddy shit even with a proper master.

Film for masterpieces

>Didn't mean max digital res is 2K, but nearly all digitally recorded films until very recently were shot in 2K.

That's bullshit. The RED One could shoot 4k and that was part of the digital boom from the start. What lagged behind was 4k workflows but that doesn't mean they don't have the 4k RAW to work with if they wanted to remaster it.

>implying they keep the raw 4K files

m8...

you don't need to upscale a 1080p image because it isnt shot on a piece of transparent plastic

Literally costs less than archiving film.

A great deal of films were and still are being shot on 2k cameras.
2k academy is 2048x1107 which may as well be 1080p24.

youtube.com/watch?v=suZtYPIADHM&t=156s
It's been PROVEN that there is no quantifiable difference, and any difference is due to cheap color grading / image processing. When will brainlets learn?

hhhhhm, I'm sure we'll want to upscale those two CLASSICS in 30 years

Why is the camera flipped?

Explain to me what's wrong in the bottom 2?
>inb4 there's a massive difference
Not one that I can see.

>PROVEN no quantifiable difference

fuck off. Science is a liar sometimes

What's he doing now?

>science
Watch the fucking video you mongoloid, there IS no difference if the person filming and the post process team aren't incompetent.

That has less to do with digital, and more to do with the weather.

Hard to believe a person would go to Africa expecting anything other than that.
Every news that ever came out says they are making bad action sex comedies.

Based Nigerians

film looks deep, "thick" and barouqe, while digital looks so thin and shallow, like a smartphone video, usually very soulless. movies are supposed to look like nothing on this world, and digital kills that.

Attempting to make the newly shot footage match the archival footage vs. attempting to make the archival footage match the newly shot footage.
Made in 20 years in gimp because I was bored

DIGITAL IS FOR FAGGOTS

Digital will grow more prevalent but film will never get out of style.

I thought we settled this?

Cannot argue with that. All those film lovers love films and at the same time talk about the proper storage and resotoration of films. This baffles me. Shouldn't you love something that's easier to store?

did this producer ever watch Sullivan's Travels?

director wants to make a serious movie about the poor. he accidentally gets arrested while hanging out with homeless people. while on a chain gang, they take him to the local church and put on a film reel. it's a cartoon about Pluto getting stuck on flypaper and the poor people are loving it. he realizes his pretentious bullshit won't do anything for the poor and he should just entertain people

Most digital tape formats like Sony HDCAM have to be kept upright in their case, and have to be rewound every couple of years, and can't ever be around magnets, and you can't ever touch the tape itself or it'll die.
35mm polyester film meanwhile can last several hundred years.
Storing both is fucking difficult because you need lots of storage with temperature and humidity under tight control. But both are way, way less volatile than shit stored on a memory stick/hard drive. We might not have the means to view the proprietary raw camera files that Hollywood uses in a hundred years.

Film for every reason. Digital can't do anything better than film and probably never will.

You are making me worried about my idle HDD...haven't started it for years...

You can't add noise to digital and pass it off as grain, it just doesn't work

Can't I put my files on DVD discs or in a data center?

What a dumb highly ignorant post, digital can do many things better than film.
For example with digital you can shoot in extreme low light conditions with all the details captured, while with film you need a crap ton of light for a low light scene to look good. That's why a lot of movies shot on film used that "moonlight" gimmick in every night scene because they had to light the scene heavily in order for it not to end up being a grainy uncoherent mess.

A shot like pic related is nearly impossible to pull off with a film camera.

>Not one that I can see.
Check your eyes. The middle is the original top filtered to match the bottom digital. Notice how it loses any and all detail in the clouds, tree line, gravel, etc due to the degraining. The trees are literally blurry. Not only that, but it has to be cropped to match the cancer 16:9 digital ratio. S3 was literally a step down in film quality, despite 2 decades of advancements in camera technology.

Nothing shot now uses digital tape. It might be stored on LTO but that's something else.

> But both are way, way less volatile than shit stored on a memory stick/hard drive.

LTO tape is what's used for long term archival.

>We might not have the means to view the proprietary raw camera files that Hollywood uses in a hundred years.

This stuff isn't encrypted. In a hundred years even if we don't have the software it's going to be sure as hell easy to reverse engineer something if necessary.

>another pleb easily impressed by 2049
Pretty sure webm related is shot on film.

lol, you chose THAT to show us? it looks thin and shallow.

>its a film vs digital thread
>digital getting wrecked
good times

>h-how dare they enjoy that!
Never reply to my posts again

that pic honestly looks like shit, but it could be the set design

That shot in 2049 is nothing, simply pure cheeto dust, and there are hundreds of instances of scenes shot on film in low-light conditions from every decade since creation. The "moonlight gimmick" is used because it's cheap and doesn't require filming at a specific time of day in natural light.

Watch more film, kiddo

...

Digital color depth still isn't quite there. It seems like we're close though.

...

>gib me moneys so we can continue to explode our population even though we're starving lol

>moonlight gimmick
>it's actual moonlight
What did the BR2049 pleb mean by this?

posting anything Mann (on film) is cheating in this debate desu

Film has more colors and better resolution but is a pain in the ass to work with.

...