What is the point of shooting a movie in 35mm film? Is it really any different from digital or is it a hipster thing?

What is the point of shooting a movie in 35mm film? Is it really any different from digital or is it a hipster thing?

our eyes can only perceive 24mm per second

at this point I'm going to say its a hipster thing, unless you are shooting on imax film.

It looks way better

Retarded normies don't care and can't tell but there's a huge difference

there's a reason they call it film making

Looks different and feels different

...

well digital looks bad
and you use your eyes to "look" at movies
so movies should look good and digital looks ugly

This.

digital looks like shit

Roger Deakens prefers Digital

that's why he'll always be a hack

Once you watch enough movies to be able to tell the difference you'll understand the value.

would've looked better if shot on film

>elder god tier
70mm/65mm
>god tier
35mm
>normie tier
arri alexa
>tryhard hipster tier
16mm, 8mm

unless it was 100% shot on 70mm, i highly doubt it.

35mm film grain destroys the aesthetic of many movies

70mm/65mm is best format.

every movie that's not michael mann would look better on film than digital, full stop

Every shit movie coming out these days (and there's a fucking lot) is being shot on Arri digital cameras and RED shit. Digital is garbage.

>35mm film grain destroys the aesthetic of many movies

What? How?

>god emperor tier
8K RED Weapon

>dude the more megapixels the better it looks
>dude digital LUTs

Fuck this hackery

>35mm film grain destroys the aesthetic of many movies
this is the opposite of what people used to think. the smoothness of digital demystifies the mystique of film and deadens the frame. with film grain the image is always fizzing with energy and texture.

>the smoothness of digital demystifies the mystique of film and deadens the frame.

I agree, it's like it takes away an aura; the magic of the movie is ruined with digital.

well in terms of sharpness, clarity and accuracy it does look better. film can't compete in points of detail. what it does better with is very specific color saturations and texture, so if you like that film still wins.

but it's not worth the cost difference and its limitations are plentiful.

>it's not worth the cost difference

I disgaree. Think back to the early 2000's, when they were truly mastering shooting with film and making all kinds of cinematography kino.

It does have limitations that digital doesn't though. The only reason digital is used is because it's cheaper and easier though, not because it looks better.

Seems panning shots look blurry in digital. Anybody else notice this?

Digital captures light far more accurately, and shines especially in dark scenes

the smoothness makes the framing of the scene less like a "image" and more like a window, it brings the scene to life.

>it's like it takes away an aura; the magic of the movie is ruined with digital.
you mean the fake, fuzzy look of it? this is mental gymnastics on the level of "48 fps ruins the filmic FEEL of the movie". the whole point of movies is to be immersed and film grain is the enemy of immersion.

Is it not only a matter of color at this point?

>16mm, 8mm
Film school. At least, that's what it was when I was in film school.

>film grain is the enemy of immersion.
film's only purpose isn't just immersion. it's a format with specific characteristics that artists can work with. that's like saying people shouldn't paint anymore because photography exists and is better and therefore more immersive.

some of the best digital movies (Inland Empire, Miami Vice) use grainy texture specifically to create new aesthetics.

If you thought Blade Runner 2049 actually looked good then you're a pleb

this but unironically

Is this another film vs digital thread? If so, it depends on the type of movie. Film looked good on LOTR and it should have stayed on film, The Hobbit (which was shot in digital) looked awful.

>it depends on the type of movie

It doesn't. Everything shot on digital just looks like a shitty commercial.

It is different, but most cinema theaters nowadays exhibits digital copies anyway, so it's kind of a irrelevant effort.

>grain is the enemy of immersion
I disagree with your way of thinking entirely, as if to say the closer to reality a film is the more immersed the audience will feel. How would you explain preference for black and white, whether individual scenes or for the entirety of a film?

digital looks bad

In a shot like this, where the film grain is evident and the reds have a zany over-the-top saturation, I'd argue that it's actually more immersive because of its dreamy quality. Like, it's similar to how a fancy lounge might appear in your mind, but it's still kind of fuzzy and not all the details are quite there... and that's the point.

remember that movies still widely used 35mm/super 35mm to shoot well into 2011 and 2012, but by that point most of them were color-corrected and tinted so heavily that they lost all their charm and looked like a mess.

35mm has a shitty "resolution" because of how small it is, super 35mm is only slightly better. 65 and 70mm are the pure kino formats.

Man of Steel is a good example, downloaded the 4k version a month ago and there is almost zero quality increase from the 1080p blu ray.

The film grain just makes the picture look like I'm watching something that's been printed on sandpaper, it gave me a headache and even made my eyes itch towards the end. it literally rapes my senses.

Analog - very chad
Needs a lot of light to produce a visible image
Inexpensive storage medium
True to life colour
Higher resolution
classic technology

digital - very virgin
little light needed to produce images
costly storage medium for movie production, multiple terabyte ssd
flat colour needs to be added in post
smaller resolution, slowly increasing
post modern technology

This user gets it, film has a mystique to it. Like you're watching a dream.

in a way, dreams are as immersive as reality. naturalistic isn't always the most powerful look.

When will hollywood make 70mm the standard again? Also when will it get cheaper to manufacture?

Blurry or choppy. You have to choose.

Is this bait?
Pleb

How horrible.

Why would you watch something in 4k?

More pixels doesn't mean it's better, Sup Forums

What about iPhone

what the fuck kind of shitty rip is this.

that's not the color in the actual film. it's normal, pic related.

shit's expensive. you have to be rich and not give a fuck like tarantino blowing all that film on a movie taking place in a single room.

Are your senses also raped by the fact that when you close your eyes in a pitch black room the darkness isn't actually black?

erm. have you ever SEEN reels of 70mm? I'm kind of shocked it didn't die sooner. trying to load 3 or 4 reels of 70mm is like trying to push an elephant onto a tractor. only like a handful of projectors and theaters can handle 70mm.

more pixels means it's clearer, with the exception of 16mm and 35mm of course. also HDR.

>If you thought Blade Runner 2049 actually looked good then you're a pleb
show me a screenshot from a better looking movie (if that's even possible!)

>Inexpensive storage medium
lol are you somehow hilariously implying it's cheaper to shoot film?

Reds behave much differently with film than they do with digital.

I work in hollywood. all the shit we get is from alexa raw.

never seen any red plates ever.

when i close my eyes in a pitch black room the darkness is actually black (after a minute or so).

how is his camera helping to tell the story though. he's just filming a symmetrical space. the set is doing all the heavy lifting.

ITT: Retards who think film grain is bad

You're supposed to tune your own home theater image processor (or AV receiver with an image processor) to smooth the grain to your liking, not have the video scanning tech at the home video distributor do it for you and mush out details that could help you get sharper, more accurate picture with your own image processor.

pleasebejokingpleasebejokingpleasebejoking

...

that's bullshit. set and costume production is absurdly important. they work together with the camera and lights to show you the scale and style of the facility, to give you an idea of what sort of character wallace is.

Deakins' better film is Jesse James, shot on film

...

Black Narcissus

nice painting

Watch some older films

>not even the best ryan gosling kino

i see dat kino and raise you

>this br2049 pleb
How come such people come out of the woodwork for this one flick? Why are they so easily impressed?

4k when

>no wheat

digital film has grain. I work with alexa all day and constantly degraining it

film is cheaper than the high end shuttle cards for digital cameras plus the extra money put into colour grading

>expecting a spewing mongoloid who sees 2049 as the greatest film ever to have seen song to song

gross. why post an upscaled dvd cap

15 minute roll of 35mm Kodak Vision3 film costs $300. That's before processing.

It looks better, richer more vibrant colors, textures look richer, it gives an overall "epic" feel, especially for blockbuster films with it's grain... like transporting you into another world.

Digital is flat, doesn't give off vibrance as well as film, and looks too much like real life.

Movies are supposed to be about escapism, it's what people go to watch to get away from the real world, Digital is stupid for that reason.

Film overall looks better. Ask yourself, how many movies have you've seen that you thought looked beautiful? More often than not, they were shot on film.

Casino Royale for example, shot on film.
The Matrix, shot on film.
Dunkirk, shot on film,

Just some examples of beautiful looking movies shot on film.

I've heard the opposite, that they have to add grain to otherwise sterile digital to give certain aesthetic.
>degraining
How lossy is this? What does this say about digital when you have to filter and grade every single shot you take?

we must purge ourselves of these plebs, user.

an old 35mm camera with some film is cheaper than renting the greatest 8k digital cameras with enough storage

...

Reread the post, m8

pro tip: Richard III was shot in three strip technicolor, a process which has not existed for 40+ years now

so was Vertigo

Damn, that's a nice rack

I literally work on movies all day long. yes alexa has a grain / noise.

>add grain
only when doing edits. or any cg/matte painting etc. you have to match the colorspace and grain it matching alexa grain. or any camera for that matter.

>What does this say about digital when you have to filter and grade every single shot you take?

movies are 2K+ . depending on the show. Ive worked with 6k before.

Every single shot/frame of a movie is altered. something is graded/ filtered / painted/ removed/ added / corrected.

>Digital is flat, doesn't give off vibrance as well as film
why are you so wrong?

you can manipulate digital the same way you manipulate celluloid. celluloid doesn't come out of the camera colorful. it comes out as a negative. processing is tweaking the chemical bath until it gives you the color you want.

same with digital. in RAW it gives you a flat profile that you tweak with processing.

neither is more vibrant than the other. cinematographers make it how they want.

none of these screens evoke any feeling of wonder or curiosity, the color/contrast is so lacking in fact half of them look like the garbage quality photos i took while i was a high school student.

>cinematographers make it how they want.

this

Where is the matte painting placed in this shot? Very well done

still less than a salary for some one to colour grade the film

(You), you retarded faggot

>you can manipulate digital the same way you manipulate celluloid

Digital will always be different than Celluloid you dumb fuck, because it's a different format; they both take in light completely differently, Celluloid does it better.

Go back to editing your shitty digital short movie, color grading your teal and orange over it.

True kino connoisseurs know that Terence Malick used the three strip process in The Thin Red Line, which was released less than 40 years ago

You also have to color grade film, just not as drastically as digital.

2018 its most definitely cheaper on digital, whoops.

It's dead obvious m8 - the "hero" of the movie is a tiny speck in the shot, the camera looks down at him from pretty high up. They're using a very wide lens to make the space look huge & cavernous to a surreal degree, and it goes dark in the back of the frame so that we can't even see how large it really is, it could go on forever.

It's all designed to highlight the main character's insignificance, his life is just a drop in a bucket of other people's stories

And it looks really pretty too. What more do you want from one shot

I shoot photos on both film and digital. Medium and large format film is objectively superior to digital in terms of resolution. No Arri Alexa or Red Weapon is going to look as good as a 70mm IMAX camera. 35mm is a different story. You can't directly compare film grain to pixels, but I would say that 4K video looks "smoother," but film has an interesting color profile that doesn't look like digital and is worth preserving as an option for creative reasons. Honestly, I like both for different things.