What's the difference? which is better?

What's the difference? which is better?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jrNijjU-2IE
youtube.com/watch?v=9gyXyYTq4aI
youtube.com/watch?v=hpWYtXtmEFQ
youtube.com/watch?v=M4zRMLbZZxw
icgmagazine.com/web/humanity-2-0/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Film handles outdoor lighting better

Digital is superior to most film and in most situations now, but not all. In five years it will be superior to film in every way.

Digital is objectively better in every way, film has that aesthetic that some directors prefer.

Film can be too dark at times, digital can do the same things but better

Film is better, more cinematic. Digital can look cheap like you shot a $250 million dollar movie on a DSLR.

It depends on what your objective is, but I generally prefer film.

Digital is better if you add grain

What situation would fit either? like when do you use digital and when do you use film?

digital camcorder

In terms of aesthetics, Film wins everytime. It looks better, more crisp, more cinema. So If you're making a big budget blockbuster sci fi or fantasy movie, film is a much better choice to help with giving it an "epic" looking.

If you don't care much for aesthetics, or you don't need to, say for example, comedy films, then digital works great in that case.

Horror can go either way, but Horror I think, especially the newer kinds of horror films, work better on digital. And the reason is because digital looks more like real life, and if you're watching a horror movie and the more real it looks, it's more often scary. Plus the newer horror films all have a sleek look to them, and digital, for it's non grain-ness, gives that look.

Plus a lot of horror films are cheaper in terms of budget, and because digital is cheaper it works well for that genre.

Action could go either way.

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

Kek (笑´・艸・) That is a Thing about digital images. You could duplicate looks & textures of the film stock. On the issue of resolution, the digital definitely gets heavy used than film if the industry standards goes any higher than 4K. Even more, using the digital gadgets are very kind to whole work flow on the production. We will see the results in few years user.

Its a terrible shot

Film is better. Digital forces images to move through pixels, film moves through images

Digital obviously since you can replicate film if you wanted to

You use digital because it's cheaper, no other reason. If you have enough extra budget to pay for film processing, use film.

Call me by your Name was the best looking film from last year and that was shot on film by the meme thai guy that did Uncle Boonme.

He also only used one lense the absolute madman.

What a boring fucking shot

It's also easier and faster, having fewer technical limitations onset gives you more creative scope. You can't solve every problem with money.

You know nothing about filmmaking. Why do you think so many top directors in the industry that have budgets in hundreds of million use digital then still?

>le ebin black silhouette

>muh blue and orange
>muh film school framing rules
>muh high definition
>muh nice looking still frame = good moving shot

It's inexplicable why film looks better but it often does. It's just more cinematic. The workflow of many digital films involves printing it to film and then rescanning it to digital.

Plebs, you will bow on 4th of march. I'm going to make you.

>not shooting with both at the same time

>digital doesn't look goo-

>easier and faster
That all boils down to money. Digital gives you more time to shoot, longer takes, easier to fix in post. etc. But it doesn't look as good as film
>94993538
>top directors in the industry that have budgets in hundreds of million
Holy shit fuck off you faggot

that does not look good

>In terms of aesthetics, Film wins everytime
>more cinema
>"epic" looking.
>non grain-ness

Holy shit you must really be from reddit.

Oops I meant but we can fix it in post ;)

>Film
Expensive
Specific aesthetics
Rescalable to higher resolutions

>Digital
Cheaper
More possibilities
Add some subtle grain and it will look great

If you have a good shooting technique and tell a good story, it doesn't matter if you use film or digital.

Digital

>Digital is better than fi--

youtube.com/watch?v=jrNijjU-2IE

The cleaner one is better, you can always add stuff, but not remove. Brainlet directors who dont know how do to it are at fault, not the technology. see Manns Collateral.

>That all boils down to money
No it doesn't. It could be the difference between a fantastic performance and an actor who loses their shit at having to work for longer and phones it in. Directing a feature film is immensely stressful as well, you can't just give an actor or a director more money and have them for longer and get the same thing. You might lose your season, you might not be able to secure a location for any more time. You can't quantify that and many other limitations from slower more complicated technical processes with money.

I wish, they all love your shitty digital.

>If you have a good shooting technique and tell a good story, it doesn't matter if you use film or digital.

Of course this is true, but it will look better on film if you can swing it

This
A digital camera can work in extreme low light conditions and still pick up all the details needed, while a film camera needs far more lights in the scene for such a scene to work, otherwise it would just be a grainy completely dark frame.
Only the supreme turboautists like Kubrick were able to shoot on film in such low light conditions by making a damn frankenstein hybrid camera with NASA lenses

Not true. Fix it in post is a meme. Digital processing ruins films.

In the end, it's just a tool.
But movies shot on film generally look better than the films shot on digital.

16 mm and 35 mm usually have a bit of a distinct look, but look at these new movies shot in 65mm and it's pretty hard to tell them apart from digital films. Maybe impossible.

Looks flat and washed out

>you can't just give an actor or a director more money and have them for longer and get the same thing

I'm speaking from a director's perspective here and I would be worth shit if I couldn't get a good performance out of an actor just because they were working more

>adding grain
You literally can't replicate film properly no matter how much you try. Digital has certain qualities you can't take away.

>Add some subtle grain and it will look great

You cannot make it look like film, only a poor imitation.

Film. Digital does this weord thing where everything moves TOO smoothly and clearly and I'm suddenly really aware that I'm watching a bunch of actors on a set.

Don't argue with autism, fellas

Shooting the hobbit digitally was a huge mistake
as it gave the movie this artificial look.
Compared to the LotR which was shot on film,
and it has this very naturalistic look to it.

This, it looks fucking weird and flat.

That's why horror looks scarier with digital, the only format that works for it.

I didnt say add it in post user, I mean add it while filming, for instance by overheating CCD chips or underexposing you introduce grain that isnt just a flat filter on top.
youtube.com/watch?v=9gyXyYTq4aI

Digital creates a grid of pixels that every object on screen is translated through. Film moves unpredictably and almost organically, it's like you're seeing a rudimentary representation of the particles moving in the air

That's it. That's another way of describing it.

Flat, washed out, and artificial =Digital

My god the picture quality on the left looks so much more fucking authentic.

Film just got this property of looking good straight out of the box,
while digital needs fucking lots of work sometimes.

I notice film has a very crisp, stylized look. Digital just looks boring.

>as it gave the movie this artificial look
No it didn't. The shitty filter they used did.

>it's a "Sup Forums tries to act patrician but doesn't really know the difference between film and digital" episode
Gosh, I hate reruns.

Digital is objectively better with modern cameras. The only reason you think otherwise is because digital makes it too easy for "colorists" to fuck everything up in an attempt to justify their useless job.

>it too easy for "colorists" to fuck everything up
This!
youtube.com/watch?v=hpWYtXtmEFQ

>a good performance
It's not a binary.

It's silly to say that there should be only digital or only film, both have their own uses.
Pic related, digital used right

so less options to work with=better, why did we move away from black and white again
also checking

>No it didn't. The shitty filter they used did.

That was a part of it. Especially the bloom effect, but that was used more on the last films.
But if you look into the RED camera, that shit needed scenes to be lit in a very special way, that gave some scenes unnatural lightning.
Actors also had to wear extra red in their makeup and the set designs needed extra red color, since the camera didn't pick up that color so well.

The way you have to shoot the movies is probably the biggest difference between the formats.

>Photographed by a professional who has been awards and nominated innumerable awards
>user gives his opinion on a Vietnamese hole digging board
Kek.

>digital is beter if you make it look like film

scared for a second there

Film requires a lot of lighting and an unnatural look, it does have a texture to it though

I like film, maybe because I'm old

>who has been awards and nominated innumerable awards

It only looks cheap if the props look cheap IRL. Saying film is better because it obscures such details is a really bad argument.

@94994161
Not even gonna give you a (You). Don't even @ me too, bud. :^)

You are aware that every single scene in every LOTR film is heavily digitally color graded, right?
youtube.com/watch?v=M4zRMLbZZxw

adding grain makes it a glib facsimile, plus stranger things did this and it's still fairly obvious its digital

>different depth of field
>different focal length
>different exposure
this is not a good comparison

that's not an actual screenshot from the movie, right?

kys

Film has a overall better look

It's really no contest. the orinaglly is so much better visaually. It's mor than just digital vs film, The set designs in BR are much better than 2049, and 2049 uses a lot of unsubtle colour grading.

Grain is shit. It's another scam like 24fps. Reducing detail does not make things look better.

The nostalgia is strong with you.
The first BR unfortunately looks extremely dated at some points. Pic related, this is starwars prequel tier mismatch compositing, you have to be quite delusional to think this looks great.

You are aware that the color grading was only done for the blu ray extended edition of the films.

DvD and HD theatrical has no color grading.

whats wrong with it

No you absolute ape, did you even watch the youtube link there?
They digitally color graded the very first print, not only does the DVD have digital color grading but even what you saw in theatres has heavy digital color grading. Just watch the video there.
The extended editions only changed the original color grade.

He's talking about (I assume) how the diagonal panels join very cruedely with the vertical ones on the left, and there's some lighting issues.

That being said, this was released in fucking 1982, was a scene in motion, and was meant to convey nothing but the scale and style of the setting. Woo you over with orgasmic pixels while the director covers you in his load, proud in his visual achievement like Avatar's forests, it wasn't meant to be.

I literally explained it there, bad compositing.
Here's another example, and the glow of the fire that makes it look like a videocopilot added in fire doesn't help either.

>unsubtle colour grading.
The color pallete was entirely made in camera my man

>“The second section was an interior shot on location in Budapest,” he (Deakins) 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/

>muh belittling things by prefixing them with 'muh'

You can see an asymmetrical halo around the aircraft where the optical printer was misaligned.

I'm not just talking about specially effect, which of course would have aged, looking a cinematography direction and the genrally aesthetic, which the first one does a lot better, even if some of the secially effects have after 30 years.

You can see an asymmetrical warp field around the aircraft where the taychon beam was misaligned.

I get what you mean but please work on your english my man

I've yet to see anything beat 70mm, it's actually the most amazing and clear picture I've ever seen.

Digital has a sensor that is an array of thousands of little sensors that receives light and converts it into a value that is digitall transferred to the chip and that's how you get your image.

Film is a slice of celluloid that reacts to exposure to light.

Both work in a similar fashion. One is digital, highly controlled, the other is chemical and much less controlled.

>Which is better

They both have pro's and con's.

Ok, maybe some shot was graded from the start. But clearly some were not touched at all (maybe minimal color correction), so you saying everything was graded is wrong.

But what's your fucking point even? The graded versions of LotR are inferior.

Digital looks washed out

Avatar had that look

Peter says 70% were worked
on in the fucking video you moron

Extended edition (bottom pic) looks much better. If you disagree you are an absolutely useless, tasteless piece of shit human waste that should fuck off from Sup Forums forever

It's not in digital cinema cameras yet.

The technology is there, it just hasn't been implemented yet.

Like this user said it won't be long.

One advantage to film (although it's not so much now since film is dying) is the ability to pick and choose stocks. Digital cinema cameras have one chip that has more range than stocks. But it would be nice for them to be like digital large format still cameras that have swap out backs. You should be able to have a digital cinema camera where you can switch out chips for specificity.

I guess at the same time the shift from film to digital has seen much of the requirements of multiple film stocks scrapped because it's all handled in the coloring stage now.

>Ok, maybe some shot was graded from the start.
Every shot.
>But clearly some were not touched at all (maybe minimal color correction)
Minimal color correction does not mean "not touched at all"
>so you saying everything was graded is wrong.
Have you seen the video?
>The graded versions of LotR are inferior.
All of them are graded, just the EE is worse because it was graded over the original digital color grade.

>digital can do the same things but better

Except dynamic range. It tends to blow out too easily. It also handles underexposure poorly if you have a lot of range.

And yet huge names like Steven Speilberg, Quentin Tarantino, James Cameron, and Christopher Nolan all support the continued use of film..
Hmmm...

That shot would be easier on film, because of the dynamic range of film and it's ability to develop true blacks.