Do you notice the difference? Does it matter? Thoughts

>>84779381
yes.
sometimes.
comes down to how the director wants the film to look and feel. 7 years ago it was a hot button topic, but now a days with digital getting better and better, it merely comes down to aesthetics. Im fine with both when utilized correctly.

>>84779381
>notice the difference
nope
>does it matter?
nope

I think it's kind of a nuanced thing with directors, like fucking around with aspect ratios, black and white, handhelds or super 8 inclusions, you know. It probably is important to their creative vision which they wanna do (all digital, all film, mixed) but I watch movies I don't make em and I only give a shit if the movie is good.

>>84779381
So whether mother people can visually tell the difference or not is sort of irrelevant. I can sort of tell when projected properly and film is quite clear but not all the time.

The real issue is preserving motion pictures and improving quality in the future, for future viewers.

When you shoot a movie on film, as long as you have that film reel (or copy), you can always scan that film into current gen media specs and have HD version of the film. Whether that is 1920x1080, 4k, 8k, or 16k - that film can be upscaled.

When your original is digital, and therefor stuck at a specific size, you can never upscale without compromising quality. Basically, your film shot in HD looks great now... but in 10 years it will look the same while everything else has improved.

So I find it quite important for new movies to be shot on film. Better to preserve movies on, I think.

>>84779593
Doesn't film have upscaling limits aswell?

>>84779473
t. capeshit enthusiast.

If you don't care about these sorts of things you don't care about film as a medium at all. Pleb

>>84779824
I think Snyder shoots on film. He actually said the industry should shoot on film as whole. Marvel though is almost only digital.

>>84779726
Yes, but not nearly as limiting as originally digital motion pictures.

>>84779381
Nobody can tell if something is shot on digital or film with today's filmstock and high tier digital cameras, unless you know what to look for and try really hard to look for it. Compare Interstellar to Gravity, and ignore cinematography (lighting), if you didn't know you wouldn't know which was digital and which was film.

Yes it does matter. Digital has allowed lazy hacks to become filmmakers. Directors like Fincher simply call action and hope to get something to edit later on purely by happenstance, without knowing what they want at all. Filmmakers who know the value of shooting on expensive filmstock are more precise and know exactly what they want out of a particular shot. Also, it has become now more prevalent to "fix things in post" because of how much easier it is. Filmmakers who shoot digitally don't care at all about getting a shot right in camera because they're lazy and would rather "fix it in post". Why bother hiring a good cinematographer who knows how to light, when you can just shoot RAW digitally and color grade the shit out of it (and quite poorly, I might add).

While there are benefits to Digital filmmaking, I think the "digital revolution" is in part responsible for the decline in overall cinematic quality.

>>84779593
>>84779726
go ahead and scan your 16mm in 4k and tell me it was worth it.

70mm on the other hand has the resolution latitude.
i cant wait for 4k tvs to be cheap and for baraka/samsara to be re-released on 4k bluray.

that being said any film has near infinite value depth where digital is stuck at 8 bits per sub pixel. you can see this when dark scenes lose all detail in digital projections.
I saw interstellar in 70mm imax and digital """"imax"""". a world of difference.

File: GY7FdHr.jpg (281KB, 1548x2048px) Image search: [Google]

281KB, 1548x2048px

yes anyone that says otherwise is a liar or just stupid.

Film has a certain feel to it. Almost creamy texture with grainy sways and rich deep colours.

Digital feels too clean and sterile.

>>84780049
ive seen a 4k projection of Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Multiple Maniacs, sourced from 16mm. the difference was massive, compared to the 1080p blu ray that was released about 3 months later.

>>84780123

HOLY SHIT AT THE 70mm IMAX

>DIGITAL EQUIVLANT 18K

hahah no digital camera is even close to that. 8K is highest

>Do you notice the difference?
Yes, but most manage to make it look good.

There are DP's that manage to emulate that film look and there are DP's who's either incompotent or simply dont care.

Marvel movies are prime example on how to make digital look like shit.

File: videldigital.jpg (48KB, 754x424px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 754x424px

>>84780123
Digital coloring in anime is also complete garbage

>>84780123
I fucking hate the Imax aspect ratio.

File: IMG_0605.jpg (64KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 480x360px

>>84779381
Digital equipments that creates images, have come far closer to actual film stocks. But there is still improvement to make within the range of the dark which is still noticeable when it is projected on the screen. As far as it is used within the circle of digital equipments it can be manipulated by individuals end user anyway.

File: videloriginal.png (190KB, 436x327px) Image search: [Google]

190KB, 436x327px

>>84780241
vs hand coloring
digital is very sterile. hand drawn on paper just looks great

how is an image square if the lens is round? how does an image look without the square borders?

>>84779381
Yes
No

>>84780283
There is a very subtle texture on the hand drawn character that the digital one lacks

>>84780241
Modern anime has so lazy shading. I feel like they put way more effort into that in the 90's. Is that a digital thing?

I hate it when movie makers use film, then vomit cgi and color correction all over it and still talk about using film like they're fucking Stanley Kubrick or something.
JJ is not Kubrick. JJ is a twat.

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

>>84779381
I watch a lot of movies projected on film and everything that isn't 70mm looks worse than good digital (4K). 70mm looks better to about the same.
Shooting on film vs digital is a whole different story. Modern digital looks pretty good and I think it's the future.

File: 5cfc05b70b68e0c40cef25ec62c71400.png (960KB, 1280x708px) Image search: [Google]

960KB, 1280x708px

>>84780283
>>84780241
they lost something when they went over to digital. I miss the days when they shot the cells on film instead of scanning outlines and tracing and coloring them digitaly.

People ask me why I love 80-90's anime so much, it's simple. Digital just looks like shit in comparison. Even prime examples of digital like 5 Centimeters per Second looks like shit in comparison with all it's digital lense flares, filters and digital gradient coloring.

>>84780521

It's just blurry and desaturated with a grain overlay. Anyone can achieve this with digital.

File: IMG_0639.gif (488KB, 500x272px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 500x272px

>>84780355
The correction is the tool for the setting the tone of story itself. It's not for correcting the mistakes, though. The merits of using digital gadgets is that one can fix wrong-doing, it still has limits, right there as soon as it is noticed. You gotta learn more about those tool of "when, why, & how", anon.

Michael Bay know what his choice is.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC0KDHIP08E

Who cares about film vs digital, 4k vs 1080p or whatever. I watch my kino on my iPhone 6s, it's not like I'd notice a difference.

>>84779381
Digital intermediaries make this argument kinda moot now

>>84780597
His movies are shit and the guy's a prick (and nowhere as tough as he pretends to be, judging from his public speaking fuck up), but I can't help but love him. I find him super inspiring to watch when he's working.

File: david-lynch-variety-twin-peaks-cover-story.jpg (211KB, 670x447px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 670x447px

>>84780641

>>84780597
Based Bay, fucking Victoria's Secret sluts while jerking all over his cameras.

File: IMG_0416.gif (2MB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 700x394px

>>84780422
Agree !! To add to your remark, the work flow of using the digital equipments itself definitely is kind to the whole production. I really hope those gadgets gets more varstile to the any kinds of situations that one can think of.

>>84780597
>custom camera
>fuck you green
>man of steel soundtrack on the background
>selling panties
Can't get more based than that

>>84780521
Are you talking about the issue in terms of the range of the darkness or the general speaking of the coloring ?

File: IMG_0292.gif (99KB, 500x376px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x376px

>>84780597
KKek (笑´・艸・) Da dude has got cool gadget YO !!!!

I don't notice a thing
Don't care what camera they use as long as movie is good