Why is Tarantino so fucking stupid?

I've used both industry-standard digital and 35mm and let me tell you, 35mm is dead for a fucking reason. The only reason to use it at all is if you're a nostalgia snob who could afford using a dead format like Tarantino is.

>>79151267
It does have higher resolution though

>>79151631
Everything is projected at 2K in theatres anyway

>>79151267
Nah. I haven't shot 35mm since my film school days, but shooting stuff on 16mm is still worth all of the costs.

The point being made here isn't about shooting film, but projecting it in theaters. I go to the New Beverly pretty often and it's a real pleasure to sit in that uncomfortable one-screen room to see movies shot on film actually projected in that format (except for Public Enemies, I saw that like a year ago there and it still looked like shit). Sure part of it is nostalgia, but there's real merit there that can't be so easily discarded out of hand.

Mmmmmhh
Yeah cuz i'd be smelling feet up and down the street
Nah ain't gonna do it all of a sudaaah

I'll take the opinion of a successful director over the one of some no name guy, sorry

Nigga, that hairline.

>>79150328
>Why does a filmmaker have opinions about filmmaking?

>>79152386
>why does a filmmaker have backward views on the future filmmaking
He is being overly portentous, the tell tale sign of old age, digital is not the death of cinema and his romanticising of Film may be charming to some but he's the only guy that can afford that luxury - it's not like it's threatening him or anyone who gives a damn about the distinction for aesthetic reasons.

May we not forget
https://youtu.be/QHb8tBh_VnU

>>79150328
of course he doesn't have to leave his house to see a digital film, not everyone has a fucking movie theatre at home.

>>79152496
prime /tv/

File: kill bill reference.jpg (117KB, 521x976px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 521x976px

>>79150328
why is he so based bros?

>>79150328
Who gives a fuck he's a hack who got lucky with every single movie he ever made and has no clue what he ever did right.
It's why his latest films are pure, unadulterated shit.

>>79150328
As much as I hate that disgusting cuck, he's right.

Digital a shit

>>79152700
Using your own old ideas isn't very impressive desu

>>79152700
Calling a Katana merely a knife is dishonorable and worthy of Sudoku, which Tarantino should commit.

>>79151267
>>79152466


This argument has been ranging in cinema and in photography since the advent of digital.. they both have their merits and artists make reasonable choices to use them.Editing is very different on both mediums and is a big deal for some.Furthermore; if Tarantino wants his work displayed in a certain way its his prerogative.

also to the second guy talking about being able to "afford" film.. you have no fucking idea what you are talking about in regards to cost. Renting a film grade digital movie camera and batteries and storage and computing equipment and other peripherals for the cameras costs about the same if not more than renting a film camera and buying film. The cost difference either way is negligible in a production. In fact low budget film makers still shoot on 16mm because for the quality it produces it is often the most cost effective option. They can then choose to physically edit the film or scan it and edit it digitally. I prefer film and so do many many successful working film makers.. You choose the best medium for the art.. it is a tool not an idea.

File: 71A07975-A134-4B0C-9EF5-2954916497FB-244-0000000C38CC37F4_tmp.png (192KB, 501x445px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 501x445px

>>79152913
>I Prefer film

But it's OUTDATED and let's face it digital has higher resolution and easier workflow and you only like it because of >muh authentic film grain

You and your collegiate are a bunch of dishonest hipsters who will be steamrolled by the force of the future.

He's right though

>>79152700
Which one did he suck the feet of while farting?

>>79151631
Unless you're talking about IMAX, film is completely pwned on resolution.

>>79152496
>"It's a black male thing!"

What did he mean by this?

name one single masterpiece that has been shot on digital

you can't
you can't make good art with shitty tools

>>79152324
What about when it comes to the opinion of one successful director, over the opinions of almost every other successful person in the business?

>>79153004
But film and film cameras are still available. It's still an option. Digital video can look really beautiful, I don't necessarily think film is "better," but it has a distinctive look and color profile that just can't be replicated by anything but real film stock. And it keeps that look even when it's transferred to digital video for editing and screening.

Film isn't a museum relic yet, it's still a viable option. Until it's truly dead, I don't see any reason NOT to use it when it's appropriate and allowable within the budget, or any reason why it's "stupid" for a director to have a strong preference about the way his movie looks.

>you know what they're going to call you? the fastest gun in the south.

How does Quantum Tarantulakino know how to stick a cool little moment like this at the end of his movie?

File: 161008 DMC페스티벌 코리안뮤직웨이브 여자친구 (GFRIEND) 신비 (SinB) 리허설 직캠 미스터 Mister by Spinel-5s6peUmfkCU.webm 00.00.07-00.00.14.webm (3MB, 304x540px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 304x540px

>>79150328

has tarantino ever done a nude scene?

>>79153004
Your whole argument is rooted in laziness and creative apathy. You can't even understand the idea that someone would prefer to make a movie "the hard way" just because he enjoys the process and the ritual.

I'm not even anti-HD, I've seen some beautiful movies made on digital video, I just think you're shit

>>79153217
Yes, watch Django unchained. You can see juicy BBC there.

>>79152913
>This argument has been ranging in cinema and in photography since the advent of digital
It was raging at first.
Then digital continued to get better, month by month, for decades.

I shoot film because I enjoy the process, but let's not kid ourselves, even my consumer-level stills camera can shoot better quality footage, in darker, colder, hotter conditions, and get into more tight spaces, and have the footage for immediate review, for far less upfront cost with less running costs, than anyone had before digital.

film is kino. digital is shit.

any questions?

File: fincher.gif (438KB, 245x184px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 245x184px

>>79153138

>>79152496
ytpkino at its finest

>>79150328
its a black male thing

>>79152882
heh, nothing personnel kid

>>79150328
Let me guess, you've never made a film before. You've probably had "good ideas", "anyone can do it" right? But you've never gotten off your ass to actually try? You are a pathetic excuse for human excrement. You are nothing. Your opinion is worthless, and you will never be worth a shit to real, creative people.

>>79150328
He knows he's full of bullshit, but he has to keep up the facade to con nerds into seeing his crappy movies.

>>79152496
more /tv/-core vids pls

>The importance of editing and the crucial role of music

Is that why his films are shit in both respects?

>>79153968
>implying there's a reason to try doing anything

Life ends regardless, nothing matters. You're either born lucky and your entire life is easy mode, like all good looking people, or you aren't. Either way your accomplishments don't matter.

he's right

File: meta-ironic-shitpost doge.jpg (62KB, 700x393px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 700x393px

>>79150328
>Tarantino said that he saw no reason to leave the house to see a digital film, because you can see that on TV. “I don’t need to go see television at a theater,” he said. “Thirty-five millimeter is a reason to leave the house.”

And he is absolutely right about this for one simple reason: color.

Digital may be sharper than film. It may equal or surpass it in resolution. But the one place it still falls short is in color. Even the best digital camera in the world still can't match the best examples of film for richness of color.

I would post an example image but it's literally impossible for me to do so. You'll just have to get out there and attend some 35mm revival screenings and see for yourself. It's literally something you can't get home and will pay to go see.

>>79152882

>Blonde one wasn't the leader, Bill was

>Not a kung-fu master, she's an assassin and a sword master

>Demolition expert? Exactly when they mention that?

>Sex? Exactly when they mention that?

>Knife? That's a katana nigger

Yeah, so based

>>79150328
He's pretty smart. It's the people that worship him and go see his movies, who are stupid.

>>79153004
>linear response curve vs logarithmic response
>bayer pattern sensor vs multiple emulsion layers

In terms of color and highlights/blacks, there is a very noticeable difference between the two.

>>79154095
Then kill yourself you pussy.

>>79150328
Tarankino grew up with flicks shot on 35 mill so he's clinging to this format like a baby to his mother's tit.

Nobody can actually see a difference between 35 mill or 70 mill or digital or whatever. Nobody cares about 70 mill despite him trying to make it a big deal of it with Hateful Eight.

>>79154270
>Nobody can actually see a difference between 35 mill or 70 mill or digital or whatever.
That's like saying nobody can see the difference between 240p and 4k. But way to go ousting yourself as an underage retard.

You dont get orange and teal on film

that comes from digital color correction of a digital film

File: d121.jpg (581KB, 950x710px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 950x710px

>>79154270
>Nobody can actually see a difference between 35 mill or 70 mill or digital or whatever.

>>79154348
It's true though, and therefore digital is the way to go, because it is the easiest to use for a filmmaker. You can chage shit however you like in seconds with a push of a button.

>>79154441
Let me guess, you've never operated a camera once in your life?

>>79152700
why are dumb nerds using the word based so much lately?

Can't the "feel/aesthetics" of real film be replicated pretty well by digital with effects? Why bother using film?

>>79154592
Nope. Especially because most films are riddled with CGI and cheap-ass digital alterations.

If you actually cared to pick up a camera and try to film and edit for yourself you would realize this.

File: d61.jpg (545KB, 950x710px) Image search: [Google]

545KB, 950x710px

>>79154592
>Can't the "feel/aesthetics" of real film be replicated pretty well by digital with effects?

to a degree but largely depends on the scene, and things like good green are a total bitch to work out of digital even in ideal situations

>>79154644
fuck off, this is a board about watching stuff not making it

>>79152882
Yeah but Uma's character in Pulp would totally call a Katana a knife, she barely gave a fuck and had to have everything explained to her.

Its the 80s and almost no rich females would've known the word Katana, I've seen hundreds of women call Swords Knives.

>>79154644
I wasn't talking about any CGI beyond trying to emulate film, retard.

>>79154672
>this is a board about watching stuff not making it
This is why your opinion about movies will never matter

>>79154695
Reading comprehension, retard

File: 1437429509236.jpg (682KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

682KB, 2048x1536px

>>79154682
>I've seen hundreds of women call Swords Knives

>>79154441
it's not true - there is a huge difference. see a doctor

>>79152024
>it's a real pleasure to sit in that uncomfortable one-screen room to see movies shot on film actually projected in that format (except for Public Enemies, I saw that like a year ago there and it still looked like shit)
Public Enemies was shot on hd.

File: NewBev201702-FRONT-FINAL-v2.jpg (1MB, 1650x2550px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1650x2550px

>>79152024
New Beverly Cinema may be QT's finest contribution

>>79152555
This. I hate public theatres.
You can't make pee breaks without missing some of the movie
You have to share the theatre with other people (sometimes loud people)
I need to leave the house just to watch it and it's overpriced.
I rather just rent it at home, i can wait.

>>79150328
>I don't get it why is he so damn autistic about digital, it's inevitable and there's nothing he can do about it, it will eventually catch up with film. Is he truly set in his ways?

He just has an appreciation for the way film looks on screen that most of us don't share.

>>79151267
>a nostalgia snob who could afford using a dead format like Tarantino is.
This is all that really needs to be said. Tarantino has always been a snob and sentimentalist about film.

>>79152466
>He is being overly portentous, the tell tale sign of old age
Not untrue but he was pretentious (what you really meant) when he was young too. He always worshiped the classics and emulated them and made endless tributes to them.

>>79153138
>name one single masterpiece that has been shot on digital
Sin City was a masterpiece.

There, I said it.

>>79154558
>lately

you must have been living under a rock until recently

>>79153517
his digital movies are sterile and flat compared to the juicy and vibrant film ones

Because of grain in film, they look more cinematic.

It's like watching a movie that's been shot at 60fps, it doesn't feel like a movie, same with grain.

>>79154401
The boat on the left looks red, while the right looks orange.

lol quebec tarantula has always been a hack and a moron. listen to the makers of true kino, like cronenberg, about filming digitally.

New Beverly is ok. Tarantino is dropping ball lately there and charging too much to screen there. I see some LA fags here, but how many here actually are filmmakers? I am. I'm moderately successful and work with many of the people you post about. The internet is shit. Make films and stop criticizing people who do.

>>79157333
>makers of true kino, like cronenberg
Horror movies aren't kino.

Film artistically is about exposing reality.

>>79152126

What's going on here?

>>79153138

Fury Road.

>>79151676
It's 4K at every theater (all Regal) that I go to.

File: hotdog dog harrison.jpg (135KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 720x960px

>>79153138
>you can't make good art with shitty tools
fuck off

>>79154401
chose right one and i thought it was digital(looked better) but it turned out it was film

>>79157450
Post films so we can criticize them you show boating faggot

>>79151267
Well, 35mm has A E S T H E T I C S
Top-tier digital is technically superior in most cases, but it's too pristine and clean, to get the analog feel you need to apply film looks in post, which takes time and once you can dial the right amount of grain texture, curves and certain color pallettes (like older Fuji stock, which has very distinct look) - it takes out the magic of just getting the footage blindly from the Lab with all the MUH CELLULOID effects already baked-in.

I get why PTA thinks of Film as an Elitist Patrician choice and that Digital is for filthy plebs. He's entitled to his WROOONG opinion.

tl;dr:
DIGITAL = YEAH, MR. WHITE, SCIENCE!
ANALOG = MAGIC, MOTHERFUCKER.

>>79157450
get better at making films and we won't criticize them faggot
good luck being anything but shit though considering you dismiss all criticism

>>79157561
35mm with the exception of very fine-grained technical stock rarely resolves above 4K. Need to go higher? Shoot on 70mm.

HOWEVER, to get rid of certain artifacts during scanning (like aliasing), especially if the footage has heavy grain, people often choose to scan 35 mil. at 6K and then downsample to 4K. Looks better. Doesn't mean there's actually 6K worth of information there.

Mastering in 2K needs to fucking die, though. I mean, there are fucking UHDTVs begging for 4K content already in some houses.

>>79153117
That's why I support Noland shooting his new war movie exclusively on 70mm and fuckhueg 15/70 negative. Day fucking one.

I like Tarantino, he's pretty much an overgrown kid and that translates into his films making you feel like a kid when you watch fountains of blood for no reason other than it being cool

the quality(prettiness) of visuals in film has degraded since digital was introduced desu.

>>79154781
The main problem of PE was the slow shutter speed. Otherwise it looked meh-ok. Zodiac was shot on Thomson Viper and it looked amazing, as cinematic as early digital HD could get.

>>79158041
The Red Weapon sensor is 8k and handles noise better. Film is destined to fade away just as newspaper/print. It's now become death. A gimmick and a cheap parlour trick used by some to edge their brand.

>>79150328
He is stupid case he thinks he's smart so he makes less mentel effort in judging things

File: 1428894632971.jpg (10KB, 250x235px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 250x235px

>>79158041
>Movie is filmed with a Red camera capable of 6K or 8K capture
>effects and mastering done at 2K


Thanks for filming 16 bit raw 8K footage and giving me a 1080p 8 bit Rec. 709 finished product you fucking assholes

File: grindhouse.jpg (117KB, 496x755px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 496x755px

>>79154592
Grindhouse did this pretty well.
Planet Terror was shot digitally and Death Proof was shot on film, and no one can tell the difference unless they look it up.

https://youtu.be/fk0a-eljl2s

It's one of those things you don't really notice until you're told about it, then you can't forget it. Like manually breathing, thinking about blinking, your toes touching your socks etc.

File: 1426473899014.png (250KB, 858x725px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 858x725px

>>79158196

File: cmos-film-qc comparison.jpg (2MB, 3072x1581px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1581px

>>79150328
I get the nostalgia part, but let's not pretend photochemical film is the only glorious golden kind in the 'verse. It's not. Not anymore.

What I'm really excited about is the new digital tech coming after current CMOS generation. Like Lightfield Sensors, Super High ISO sensors (Canon already demoed the low-res proto of that tech, shooting in dim moonlight, your supporting lights are fireflies), also Graphene Sensors and QuantumCinema. Future can't come soon enough.

>>79158262
quantum looks the shittiest

>lol why use marble and a sculptor? a 3D-printer could do the same faster!

millenials have no respect for art and its craftsmanship

>>79158262
Can't the blown out lights usually be somewhat fixed in the grading process, as long as you're working with RAW / 4:4:4 footage?

>>79158348
how old are you

File: 1486354460382.jpg (80KB, 708x708px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 708x708px

>>79158262
>Not anymore.
>What I'm really excited about is the new digital tech coming after current CMOS generation.

>>79158296
Spotted the retard, it sees further in the overexposured parts.

>>79158398
still looks worse

File: 1392768427063.jpg (82KB, 900x603px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 900x603px

>>79153517
this tbqh

>>79157459
>Film artistically is about exposing reality.
so what is your truth?
>Horror movies aren't kino.
kino is not defined by genre. and cronenberg uses horror as allegory/metaphor, to "expose reality," as you say the purpose of film is. do you think the only kino are documentaries, because they "expose reality"?

>>79158296
look at the windows/doors, where the light contrast is greatest. in the non-cmos images you can see the dark inside the room in detail, and the bright of the world in detail. cmos isn't picking up the the lights and details outside the room it is in

File: 1448265074506.jpg (16KB, 185x254px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 185x254px

>>79158422
>mfw I found out he edited Gone Girl on Adobe Premiere

File: 1480466917957.jpg (46KB, 406x456px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 406x456px

>>79158398
>it sees further in the overexposured parts.

>>79158440
is that really that surprising? premiere is pretty capable.

>>79158353
As long as the information is there, though. If your windows are hard clipped then there's none, just blank white. This is why Arri spent so much time and effort to nail the sweet overexposure handling in Alexa and Red is trying to catch up with their tiny pixel approach (good luck with that, guys) and HDRx double exposure tools.

If your sensor sees 25-30 stops of Dynamic Range, you will easily bring down the highlights and lift the deep shadows with little to no noise in the most extreme cases. The tech is not quite there yet, but it won't take long. The future is the flexible digital negative as Micahel Cioni would call it.

>>79158348
>lol why use a legion of myopic monk scribes? A printing press could do the same faster!

Fucking Gutenberg , no respect for art.

>>79158440
>mfw he edited The Social Network on Final Cut Pro
>mfw no face

File: 1185442074729[1].jpg (195KB, 1500x1124px) Image search: [Google]

195KB, 1500x1124px

>>79153138
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kqw5DqdGXw

>>79158453
Sure, but he was the first really big director that gave it a chance and proved it was completely capable. Before that it was mostly seen as a tool for indie movies and not for really big budget work.

>theaters use all film again
>ticket prices double
>even less people go see them

>when movies look better than real life even when they are just depicting real life

>>79158470
>yfw this was an actual argument
>yfw there will always be people who decry the rise of new technologies as some sort of terrible iconoclasm
lol

>>79158470
>implying the actual art is in how the book was being written and not the content of it

You just described a way to produce something, in your mind making a movie is just a sterile process of mass producing something.

Kill yourself.

>>79158348
a digital camera will not replace all the work you have to do on the film
it's only a matter how the picture will look like

File: bmpcc-back-front.jpg (72KB, 976x342px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 976x342px

>>79158482
>That speech

I wonder if he knows about the Black Magic Pocket Cinema Camera. He would absolutely love this thing.

File: Hoytema 95.png (924KB, 1280x533px) Image search: [Google]

924KB, 1280x533px

>>79158053
I was too except the cinematography looks fucking bland. I'm assuming it's because Nolan is so hands-off as far as what happens with the camera and now that his new DP doesn't have the terrific production design carrying the cinematography like in Interstellar he doesn't know what to do because him and Nolan are out of sync. Silence looks better, hell even most of the battle scenes of Hacksaw Ridge look way better than Dunkirk. The only way I can think of 70mm being a part of the issue is that it is an expensive, cumbersome format and while Nolan has a huge budget there's only so many times they can rig explosions and execute other expensive SFX shots without 70mm becoming a huge detriment to the process.

But I think the real culprit is probably the lack of synergy between Hoytema and Nolan.

File: tf.jpg (133KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 1280x720px

>>79158482
I love this. Lots of really good films are shot on 1080p without any real issue -- Whiplash is one of the best examples of this.

>>79158485
Capable is the best word for it. You can do anything 98% of films do with editing in premiere. It's just a matter of customizing it to be comfortable with you.

>>79158487
This. The only people championing film are the successful and hyper-nostalgic filmmakers like PTA, Tarantino, and, albeit to a lesser extent, Nolan.

>>79158568
Blackmagic are the absolute best. They could be selling their cameras for over quadruple the price but they don't.

>>79153138
>you can't make good art with shitty tools
As a professional artists you're a retard. Theres even a saying that goes "its a poor artist that blames his tools."

>>79158686
got one for 700$ 2 years ago and it's been in my closet ever since.

RIP.

File: jack.webm (3MB, 930x500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 930x500px

>>79158648
And Inland Empire wasn't even HD. Which obviously is not the right choice for every film but that didn't stop it from having an impact.

>>79153138
Dancer in the dark was shot with handicams

>>79158686
The only problem is that Pocket Cinema only does 1080@30. I know the money goes to the Dynamic Range and the ability to shoot RAW, but I would love an affordable Camera that would do 4K@60 RAW. I think that's asking too much right now but in a few years it should be completely viable.

>>79158877
Damn, that actually looks pretty bad. I applaud him for not being a stubborn old man when it comes to moving on to digital, but he probably should have stuck with film for just a few more years.

>>79152700
They don't line up though.

Elle isn't the leader, Vernita isn't a explosives expert she's the knife expert, Oren isn't a King fu master, Sofie wasn't even a member of the Deadly Vipers and also never showed any signs of doing anything sexual for work. Plus Beatrix is not an expert with a knife, and a katana is definetly not a knife, the comparison also misses Bill and Budd completly.

There's some similarities, but more than enough differences to make any notion of connectedness, or pre-planning moot.

>>79158717
bait

>>79158822
I have a Production 4K and it's my go-to, I love it.

>>79158895
The Blackmagic 4K is only $3000 and the Blackmagic URSAs are $3000 to I think $5000. Comparing that to the price of having to rent REDs or ARRIs I think it's super worth it.

File: 1449501469492.jpg (10KB, 228x210px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 228x210px

>>79158877
>the madman shot a Hollywood movie on a mid 2000's handheld DV camcorder made for shooting skateboarding videos

File: hallway.webm (3MB, 930x500px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 930x500px

>>79158966
I'm sure there were better options available but he said he preferred the grainy low-res image because it reminded him of the early days of film.

>this fucking thread

Stop pretending that you know anything about filmmaking, editing or hardware.
You are all pedos, neets, /pol/ and reddit, you are not fooling anyone

>>79159286
if I was gonna make a movie, I'd solely cast cute lesbian ladies.

>>79159286
>t. someone who knows nothing about filmmaking, editing or hardware

>>79159311
True, but at least I'm not pretending I know shit.

>>79158398

precisely why it looks worse. What's wrong with you? That's a serious question.

>>79158440
>>79158479


Mission Impossible was edited on Lightworks.

I fucking love lightworks.

>>79159411
What is it exactly in this thread that you think people are pretending they know? You don't have to be some kind of Hollywood insider to talk about the differences of film vs digital. This stuff isn't rocket science, and it really isn't that complicated. What little actual technical talk there has been has been mostly correct, also.

Stop projecting your insecurities on everyone else.

File: 1463027923146.jpg (23KB, 232x197px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 232x197px

>>79150328
I like that the dude cares about my film experience. Honestly, I dont. I want to see it and hear it, not nitpick.

Film is a tried and true medium for film. Digital is cheaper than your mom on saturday night.

It's odd, but after VHS died out. The availability of MOST of my media never recovered. Now its about if reproducing and enhancing will make money.

>>79153044
Black one of course.

File: 1484690844730-tv.jpg (853KB, 1920x1840px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 1920x1840px

>>79154270
Guess which one is digital.

>>79159739
I want to lick Gal Gadot's thigh.

>>79159739

Cyborg?

>>79159739
That wonder woman looks so bad.

>>79159739

lol

>Aaaand... ACTION...
>Cut!
>Gal, not sure if you heard, I said Action?
I heard... what was the mater?
>Ummm, ok, nothing lets try again
>Aaaaand... ACTION
>ummm... oh jesus... this is it isn't it...

>>79150328
Does that even hold a merit seeing as most films nowdays have some shitty color grading slapped over it to make everything look blue or whatever they think looks good but doesn't.

>>79159739
>>79159791
why does her face look so fat. it doesn't even look like gadot.

cyborg looks too much like iron man

>>79159739
>2 cherry picked screenshots proving anything

Protip: Digital and Film can both look good.

Also, super hero movies suck shit.

>"MUH FILM!"
>proceeds to add color correction and CG effects
If you're gonna film on film then fucking show it as it is. If you're gonna go George Lucas on it's ass like it's 1980 then you can go fuck yourself.

>>79150328
People in Hollywood think they are making art.

>>79150328
There's been a HUGE dip in quality just in parallel as the switch was made from 35mm to digital.

The very limitations of 35mm foster more creative and ambitios filming than digital cinema does.
It's as if a painter suddenly switched to using photography.

It's not about the format itself, it's about what it
>implies

>>79159739
>Batman looks sadder than usual
>Gal Gadot seems lost
>Cyborg looks ok
>Flash looks lost
>Momoa looks like Momoa

Depressing League

File: jurmncip0aovan6fje3x.png (377KB, 655x369px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 655x369px

>>79159830
>why does her face look so fat. it doesn't even look like gadot.
Her face kinda resembles me of Lynda Carter.


>cyborg looks too much like iron man
Damn, is iron man looks like that?

>>79153138

>you can't make good art with shitty tools

Your parents did a pretty good job making you, you ugly fucking masterpiece.

>>79159920
I think it's the opposite. Since digital is far more easier to work with, it should be easier for creativity to flourish.

I think filmmakers are just getting lazy and greedy, and it just happened to coincide with the switch to digital.

>>79152364
He's 53

>>79160007
>I think it's the opposite. Since digital is far more easier to work with, it should be easier for creativity to flourish.
wrong. the ease of use of digital leads to uninspired working. example:
>shooting some scene
>have limited amount of film available (or at least limited amount until need to change mag)
>can only do so many takes
>video tap is not a definitive image so it's only good as a reference
>need to try really hard to get it on the first take, or the first few takes
>need to look at the actor instead of at some video monitor (I'm aware this bad habit started before the switch to digital, but digital worsened it)
in a case like this the limitations of film push you to try harder. with digital it's just like
>look at tiny video monitor
>shoot looks ok (for a tv screen)
>do gorillion takes with little care for each one
>"eh we'll fix it up in editing"

>I think filmmakers are just getting lazy and greedy, and it just happened to coincide with the switch to digital.
Filmmakers have been lazy and greedy since the 1920's tho.

>>79154739
look at that cunt over his shoulder

>>79154739
fuck.. he probably thought he was going to be the coolest, most suave fuck in school when he went through the door that morning.

File: landscape-1484066349-gettyimages-631357944[1].jpg (48KB, 980x490px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 980x490px

>>79160061
No excuse.

>>79159427
Go fuck yourself, shoot with low DR smartphone camera then.

>>79158415
retard
>>79158444
go prep the bull, Refn

>>79158392
CMOS is alright for now, but what's coming will be awesome.

>>79152324
>I'll take the opinion of a successful director over the one of some no name guy, sorry

Noname guy like David Fincher?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KzpCaNEHes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-I2PmEhQSA

>>79160448
>implying Fincher is as important or influential as Tarantino

only on /tv/ since hating Tarantino is a meme

digitalfags be like
>why would anyone paint if you can just take a photograph

>>79158105
VistaVision Red is cool. HOWEVER.
I'm more impressed with Red Helium. Insanely small photosites crammed into regular Super 35 frame, 8K and it's even better in low light? Woah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FSwQpnqqvY

>>79158155
You know what's worse than that? Source material is 6K/8K, then they master in 2K and THEN blow-up to IMAX with DNR which is artificial sharpening and denoise. I mean... fuck, use the original plates at least, if you are so cheap you can only afford 2K VFX.

REEEEE

>>79160650
Go to bed, Cuckoldino

>>79160665
That doesn't make any sense at all you idiot.

You paint because it lets you create images that can't be created by using a photograph.

The only difference with film and digital is that film is a hassle to deal with, and is shit compared to digital.

>>79160951
*created for a photograph

Fuck

>>79150328
Gaylords like op are the fucking problem, you would digitalize a pussy if that could give you a chance above 0% of getting laid.
>Not a fucking massproducted kike shit
>Is a meme
Why are you this stupid
Why are you this stupid
Why are you this stupid
Why are you this stupid
Why are you this stupidddd

>>79160951
>why would you write on paper if you can use a computer
>why would you cook anything if you can just buy ready-made food
>why would you play an instrument if you can just use a synthesizer
>why would you play a board game if you can just play videogames
etc

>>79158717
But a good workman is limited by them

thats legit
theaters now just have windows loaded up and play a video file/ play a dvd

theres no value in movie theaters, hence why everyone isnt going to movies anymore and just using netflix / amazon instead

>>79161020
>Why would you live if you can play sims

>>79161044
not really a DVD but a 2K or 4K DCP, but yeah. 1080p is like 90% of 2K resolution, and 4K TV sets have been on the market for some time. So you literally see the same thing on TV that you watched in the theater. The exact same video file. I must agree with Tarantula: What's the point, then, of going to the movies?

>>79161067
Big screen
Strong audio
Stuff like that i guess
Movie quality dropped to shit tho so not much to go see

>>79161067
>What's the point, then, of going to the movies?
Its a better experience.

Sound is better and its a big screen.
I've regretted not going to see Interstellar while it was in cinemas and I reckon I will do so until I kick the bucket.

Its just much more epic in the cinema.

>>79161067
Here's what I don't get: What's so special about 35mm? It's not like it's a huge increase in video quality.

>>79160150
Mate old guys with full heads of hair are the exception, not the rule.

>>79161020
But here's the thing, both choices from the list you made have their advantages over the other.

There is literally no advantage in using film over digital anymore.

I could have done this soon but i hate you guys.

The answer is Tarantino just thinks film is closer to the essence of magic. light passing though film is more attainable to his mind that the logic behind camera sensors and memory.

It is fine to be a purist. film works very well

>dude 24 FPS is so outdated! everything should be at either 48 or 60 fps because I play videogames

>>79161164
There is but you are gay so you cant realize

>>79150328
Wtf I love be tarantino now

>>79161195
25 is the way to go
i make kino. its just a better number to render and export. alight keyframes and such. also im shit at math.
25fps is modern.

>>79161164
The image is generated in a wholly different fashion than with a digital sensor. you gotta be one hell of a tard to not see how that can be an advantage over digital. (I said "can be", because it's obviously just useful if you want to get a certain look)

>>79161228
Describe the visual difference and when one visual is better than the other.

>>79154095
Yeah, kill YOURSELF, my man.

>>79161195
Serious question, what problem do 60fps supporters have? Yeah more fluid but looks like shit overall, you can feel how fake the movie is every second

>>79161123
personally, I only defend 35mm as a camera negative.

That said, if a 35mm copy is struck through purely optical means (as in no digital intermediate) it's still visually interesting because the image is treated in a different way, and looks different. Not really better or worse, since you can only make an aproximation of film definition vs digital resolution (because since film grains change in every frame the perceived resolution is much higher than the actual number of grains per frame), but it looks different. And unlike digital projection, it actually looks quite different from watching the same film on TV.

>>79161256
>visual difference
one image is generated by an electronic sensor, the other by a photochemical reaction. you must be really stupid to not understand this
>when one visual is better
whenever you want a more organic looking image. Organic looking in the sense that instead of being composed by fixed pixels, it's composed of grains that change from frame to frame. This adds a certain "softness" to the image, which nevertheless doesn't mean lack of definition because the persistency of vision makes your eyes "superimpose" frames, thus "layering" differently structured images (because every frame has differently arranged grains) one over the other, while digital is, as I said, just fixed pixels which change color and luminosity in each frame.
This is why film is always to be scanned at higher resolutions than the approximate "resolution" of grain for one single frame. One frame of 35mm has about as many grains as a 4-6K digital image has pixels, which means 35mm is best scanned at around 8K to preserve the film image's properties.

>>79155791
Portentous works fine in that context, learn some new words

File: fash 15.jpg (168KB, 630x420px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 630x420px

>>79160650
I would say Fincher is a better filmmaker than Tarantino, no question. He doesn't write what he directs but nobody can deny when a film is his own. Plus he doesn't add a bunch of idiosyncratic references and other dumb bullshit out of self-indulgence because he puts the film before himself.

>>79161386
Fincher is a great director.
Tarantula is a good director and a decent writer.

>>79161218
I like 24fps because it feels more natural to divide.

>>79157824
Look at the trees and grass behind it and how flat they look, it's playing up the red.

>>79161417
Tarantula also wholesale lifts most of his ideas from shit nobody in his audience would recognize.

>>79161441
everyone and their uncle does that.

>>79154739
>all those roasties laughing at him
>the one frizzy-haired girl in the back is actually doing her classwork, not trying to be part of le epic roasting

I hope they got married.

File: IMG_0406.jpg (19KB, 231x218px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 231x218px

>>79152913
I use digital because I'm afraid something will happen to the film reels.

>>79161464
PTA does that too. A lot of the PTSD stuff in The Master is taken right out of Let There Be Light. Which I'm okay with, since it's as if PTA's character Freddie was stepping into that world as opposed to Tarantino's characters who feel like a collage of quips and quirks from other works.

>>79161376
>one image is generated by an electronic sensor, the other by a photochemical reaction. you must be really stupid to not understand this
That's not the visual difference. I emant hwo does it look different to a person because of this. I didn't ask how it was generated and how that differed. I asked you to explain how it makes the picture look different.

Didn't read the rest of your post since you clearly didn't bother to read mine.

>wanting letterboxed ratio just for muh organic look

You're all fucking retarded

>>79161512
you're a fucking dumbass because I actually answered that very question you dumb cuck

>>79161532
Probably not well given how low your reading comprehension level is.

Really, I ask for the visual difference so you explain how the picture is generated by each method? Did I say "What's the difference in how they work?" Nope. I said "what's the visual difference?" Since you didn't know, visual means relating to sight or what you see. As in, how is the picture you see different. The cherry on top is that you actually call me a retard after makign such a stupid mistake. Why would I think you have the intelligence to offer an opinion I'd care about?

>>79161592
>whenever you want a more organic looking image. Organic looking in the sense that instead of being composed by fixed pixels, it's composed of grains that change from frame to frame. This adds a certain "softness" to the image, which nevertheless doesn't mean lack of definition because the persistency of vision makes your eyes "superimpose" frames, thus "layering" differently structured images (because every frame has differently arranged grains) one over the other, while digital is, as I said, just fixed pixels which change color and luminosity in each frame.
>This is why film is always to be scanned at higher resolutions than the approximate "resolution" of grain for one single frame. One frame of 35mm has about as many grains as a 4-6K digital image has pixels, which means 35mm is best scanned at around 8K to preserve the film image's properties.

dumb illiterate cuck

>>79161489
pretty sure that's a man in the back

>>79161759
Then I hope his tuck game is on point

>>79151267
literally this

>>79151631
35mm is estimated to be the equivalent to 6k
The RED helium is 8k so no
(plus everything is projected at 2k in cinemas, sometimes 4k, anyway)

>>79152496
this is kino

>>79152913
>Renting a film grade digital movie camera and batteries and storage and computing equipment and other peripherals for the cameras costs about the same if not more than renting a film camera and buying film. The cost difference either way is negligible in a production. In fact low budget film makers still shoot on 16mm because for the quality it produces it is often the most cost effective option
Holy fuck you're an idiot

>>79150328
>so damn autistic
Tarantino has literal autism. If you've read or especially watched enough interviews of him, you can figure this out. The man's obsession with film in general and physical film in particular is just another autism-based obsession, like trains.

>>79158895
BMPCC mkii is expected to announced soon and should be able to do 4k RAW
The panasonic GH5 has just come out which does 4k60fps, or 4k30fps with 4:2:2 colour

Also the canon 1dxmkii does 4k60fps with 4:2:2 but costs over 4 grand

>REMINDER
Tarantino went on a series of autistic rants last year about how amazing H8ful was because it was filmed on 70mm and it used the same lenses as the Battle of The Bulge and It's a Mad Mad Mad World
The film took place 90% inside a cabin

MEANWHILE
Innaritu marketed the Revanant as a film about man vs nature. The film was the first film ever made using only the Arri Alexa65 (the digital equivalent of a 65mm sensor, same as the one Tarantino was creaming himself over), but all the adverts didn't go on about that, they sold it as a film first
The film took place 90% in the outdoors and the camera really showed the scope of the expanse
It (justly) won the oscar for best cinematography

>tldr; Tarantino's a moron who cares more about the idea of greatness than actual greatness

File: 2017-02-05 (2).png (1MB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1366x768px

>>79153138

I just played RE7 on the alternate color spectrum, why is Rec. 709 so shit lads?

Film grain is shit.
Shallow focus is shit.
Lens flair is shit.
Diffraction spikes are shit.
All types of optical aberration are shit.
Anamorphic lenses are shit.
Low framerate is shit.
Aspect ratios wider than 16:9 are shit.

Photorealistic 100% CG is the future.

>>79162178
If all modern movies were shot and lit like NCFOM, I'd have no problem with digital

That's not the case though

>>79162878
>I just played RE7 on the alternate color spectrum
what? explain pls

>>79163229
Got a laser pointer? Shine it on some white paper and try to match the color on your monitor (which is probably sRGB, basically the same as Rec. 709).

Rec. 2020 lets you have more saturated colors. Unlike Rec. 709 it can show almost every color you can see.

>>79163344
that explained nothing
are you saying that you played re7 on a different monitor?

>>79163434
That wasn't me. Consider how what kinds of light a monitor is capable of showing has to be programmed in. The original spectrum of color a monitor showed was 709 back in 1990. In 1996 they made up sRBG, chosen for being similar to CRTs, which is what monitors are standardized to use. RE7 lets you choose between them while you play. They are mostly the same, but consider the problems with digital color exacerbated in 709. Green is much weaker, red and blue are much stronger.

>>79157534
It was a different time.

>>79161441
Apparently, that's how movies are made. They take a premise, that may or may not be original, then they shoot it the same way they saw some other film being shot, and in some cases, it's shot for shot. This is how Star Wars was made, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and countless new films.

Go figure.

>>79153135
blackmail

>>79163576
Where do I read more about this?

>>79161915

give arri a call buddy.

>>79164708
I used Wikipedia

>>79165599
I'll use it too, I've heard it likes DP.

>>79165651
I like BP, if you know what I mean

>>79165714
bubbly piss?

>>79154401
Shit comparison because it's a different perspective. You'd have to take the exact same perspective if you wanted to argue about which looks better. The right image looks better but imo that's all down to its content, not the camera or lens or digital/film.

The main object in the scene is the ship so below that object there should be water, not boring concrete floor. It's also easier to understand what's going on with that metal rail on the floor and how the ropes are attached to the ship. The left image screams "why are you photographing from that particular place?". The right image doesn't, the question of why you took the photo from where you took it doesn't come up. It feels natural.

I'm NOT a photographer, just telling you what I see as a layman.

>>79154653
Slightly different perspective, way different depth of field.

>>79159830
Why are you a virgin?
Oh

>>79151631
Don't you get it? Tarantino isn't concerned about resolution or any other technical differences. He's against digital in principle. Even if he or anyone else fails to pass a blind test to tell the difference he'll still be against it. He believes the equipment is an integral part of the medium.

>>79159739
More like, guess which one was shot on an entirely blue or green set. The bottom one looks like a teenager experimenting with photoshop, it's just so obvious those people were never really in that place.

>>79165398
>low-budget indie filmmakers only have the choice between renting Arris or shooting on film
I'll say it again, holy fuck you're an idiot

Tarantino is a self-important autistic retard with no technical knowledge whatsoever and an over-inflated ego. Watch him get totally and utterly BTFO about film vs digital by a whole table of people who actually know their shit about cinema:

https://youtu.be/3C8BJEs2bqM?t=37s

>>79166252
lol
(I always hate these videos where they're interviewing all these high-end professionals on the most janky equipment. Two mics with shit sound-balancing, really?)

>>79151267
So it's like hipsters who insist that vinyl sounds better than digital?

>>79166252
There was a cinematographer's round table a few years back that unanimously lauded digital cinema.

Photo-chemical film zealots are now logically equivalent to Holocaust deniers.

>>79158155
A lot of that is to do with how long effects take to render. Shifting to 4K would massively increase the length of time needed to make movies.

>Using wood pulp instead of papyrus will be the death of literature. Wood pulp simply has too much water retention and cannot replicate the precise radially symmetric inkblots that are at the very soul of literature. And frankly the seeing wood fiber lumps on the page is a big turn off.

>>79166729
It's an almost identical argument funnily enough
I've genuinely heard people claim that film is better because it's harder to use and more expensive, so only professionals with money can use it

>>79152700
WHAT THE FUCK!?!?!?!?!?! I CAN'T BELIEVE MY FUCKING EYES HERE, MY MIND WAS JUST FUCKING BLOWN. BLOWN1!!!! ALL THESE FUCKING YEARS!!!! MY FUCKIN MIND WAS JUST GODDAMN BLOWN THE FUCK

>>79166779
With the latest REDs and Arris, digital films ARE filmed at 6K or above now.

More often than not they film shots zoomed out and use that extra visual information to perfect frame compositions in the cutting room.

And if you have gfx cards in SLI or Crossfire 4K is fucking nothing.

>>79166874
Read the responses. The things said about the fictional movie don't align with the real movie at all.

>>79153138
/thread

>>79166729
b-but much warmness

>>79166844
There is no technical argument for 35mm over digital anymore.

70mm has a theoretical advantage in terms of effective projected resolution, but if 8K projectors become a standard, 70mm will be as obsolete as steam powered cars.

File: 1481165891392.jpg (58KB, 540x655px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 540x655px

>>79166252
>when James Cameron and Peter Jackson are roasting Tarantino, he visibly gets mad and everyone else is laughing at him

>>79150328
Every serious movie fanatic hates digital.
You must be a transformers tier movie goer

>>79161135
>t. old baldie

>>79163172
I'm sorry but that's just a dumb thing to say.

>>79150328
He's right though. No matter how high res digital becomes it's not the same as a film. It's almost too good in a sense. I don't want to become that close to the actors and setting. It reminds me too much of animal documentaries. When I watch a movie I want that film look.

>>79167450
"that film look" is completely arbitrary and came about due to historical reasons, standardization, technical obstacles, etc and is not intrinsic to the medium. It's like saying pianos are meant to be well tempered and equal temperament is too perfect.

Replay history again and we'll have a different film look.

>>79163082
pleb chills

I like film better because it has a better look with the grain in it. Digital is too clean.

File: file.png (594KB, 1567x911px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1567x911px

>>79158877
>>79159121
reminds me of 28 Days Later.
Danny shot it on some "cheap" sony digital handycam at a very fast shutter speed, the result is good, it gave it a more disturbing feeling.

>>79161960
>literal autism

I really wonder about people on 4chan that throw these buzzwords around over and over...do you people only know 50 words of english? You know there are other mental illnesses besides autism and aspergers right?This stupid site is conditioning idiots to repeat the same shit over and over.

>>79166251
what the actual fuck are you talking about... i am talking about productions not your little fucking dslr movies you peasant.

>>79168492
>this much cognitive dissonance
>reverting to strawman arguments
do you want me to say it again? holy fuck you're an idiot

>>79158262
QC looks polarized. The film version is best. Look at the reflection in the picture frame, and the blue vases on the top center shelf. Film captures the glare which our eyes would actually see. The Quantum process appears to polarize the glare out. It's like real life vision but with blue blockers on.

>>79150328
Look at Silence (2016) which was shot on film and compare it to all of the tiny cheap looking movies that are shot on digital. Almost all of the awards contenders look like television.

You use 35mm when you don't have a clue what you're doing. Digital is the way forward, directors just need to learn how to utilize it properly.

>>79168948
what if they start shooting television on 35 mm

what then hotshot?

muh cinema is bettar than teevee

>>79166844
They're not identical arguments, not even close. You literally cannot pass a blind test between vinyl and CD because you're limited to around 20khz at the top level, x2 for the sampling theorem and 44khz is indistinguishable.

There are aspects of film beyond resolution that are just inherently different and any attempts to reproduce them are purely skeuomorphic in nature.

>>79170333
>You literally cannot pass a blind test between film and digital
ftfy

Lucas, famously, included a single scene in episode 1 that was shot on digital and challenged anyone to tell him which scene it was. Everyone failed which was what prompted him to shoot ep2 purely on digital
Going beyond that, you fundamentally cannot tell by eyesight alone if a film was shot on digital or film. Professionals have tried and failed several times.

File: red.jpg (154KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1200x800px

The problem with digital is not resolution as digital today can emulate 35 mm successfully.

The problem is low lighting conditions.
Traditional film camera's can capture in much lower lighting conditions and digital gives many visual anomalies.
It will be sorted out eventually though.

>>79170687
>Traditional film camera's can capture in much lower lighting conditions and digital gives many visual anomalies.
Sony A7sii
Canon ME20F-SH
Stop talking

>>79150328
digital is disgusting. it brought nothing but cancer with it like color grading, 48fps etc.
it is pure, filtered (literally) trash that only a handful of subhuman kikes in Hollywood profit off.

>>79151631
Not anymore. Super 35mm films, with the best film stock, have a resolution potential of about 4K to 6K, depending on what expert you ask and which test, etc. They now have digital cine cameras that shoot 6K and 8K resolutions, with the same dynamic range as film and way better low light performance … all with the ability to change exposure and color effortlessly after the fact in post. Digital passed film on a technical level about 2-3 years ago. The Arri series of digital cine cameras officially put the last nail in the coffin of film.

>>79151267
nah, you are just a lazy, cock sucking piece of semen gurgling shit.

>>79171030
Kodachrome 40 (movie)
vs
Sony A7 ISO 50

>>79161067
>So you literally see the same thing on TV that you watched in the theater. The exact same video file. I must agree with Tarantula
No.

The digital files projected in theaters are WAY less compressed than a blu-ray or UDH blu-ray.

Try again.

>>79150328
>says digital is shit and he wouldn't leave his house to see a digital film
>says Apocalypto was a masterpiece
>apoacalypto was shot on digital
Gets the neurons fired up

>>79170477
>>79171234
The ONLY advantage of 70 mm is for archival purposes in case that film will be converted to 8K digital without up scaling.

There is no other advantage film has anymore.

Tarantula is a foot fag autist cuck.

>>79171364
>Kodachrome 40
literally not even comparable to either camera I listed

>>79171391
>says Apocalypto was a masterpiece

Oh fuck. I agree with Tarantino on something.

If people are arguing that film has that natural, organic look with warmish colors and subtle film grain, I can literally take a 4K raw file and make it look exactly like that. Literally exactly like it.

t. digital video editor

>>79166252

jackson is so short wtf

>>79171582
>be 4ft
>direct film where 4ft magical creatures save the world
BRAVO

>>79162175

Tarantula BTFO

>>79171543
No you can't. And the vfx you did in your offline look shit.

t. somebody who has to tell producers on a daily bases that they shouldn't Listen to their editors when it comes to anything beyond putting scenes after one another.

>>79151267
>trust me, i have an opinion
You didn't give a reason. That's no different than my claim.
It looks better than 35mm, which is the popular opinion among cinema lovers.

The resolution on today's movie screens are terrible. You can see all the pixels. Film projection is still superior right now. The cameras have mostly caught up though.

>>79166890
I think the newest Intel processors have built in hvec decoding for 4K video

>>79159971
w-wait

>>79150328

I agree but it's that autism that makes him a good director.

>>79153138

>Silence
>Interstellar
>Arrival

How the fuck are people actually arguing over this? Are none of you disgusted when you go to a movie theater, the movie is basically playing a file from a computer?

And that the days of having an actual projector with film reels are gone. That's all he's talking about, yet you all don't give a shit. Very disgusting.

It's like going to a friend's house with a giant screen and you pay them to stream a movie. But it bigger than your regular tv.

File: 9sxHPBx.jpg.gif (992KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

992KB, 250x250px

>>79174661
> masterpiece
> shit you mentioned

>>79174806
silence is great, only (((kikes))) hate it

>>79166729
film does have richer colors over digital though

>>79156943
This. I think Fincher is a terrible example of good digital and I'm not even against digital. They so ghostly.