>"Stop shooting digital instead of celluloid" What

>>85264078
he meant that he wants people to use celluloid instead of digital.

>>85264122
Ah, ok. Thanks!

File: Mr Turner.jpg (152KB, 630x1200px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 630x1200px

He operates under the pretension, like Nolan, that movies should only be shot on film. There is definitely merit to shooting on film. You get better variation in darks, unparalleled textures, film grain, and general picture clarity(depending).

HOWEVER, that does not excuse filmmakers like him and Nolan insisting that just shooting on film will make the movie aesthetically better. That's a complete lie. What's important isn't shooting on some extra-expensive, no-longer-made film stock, but the composition. Color, lighting, framing. Those aspects are what make movies look good, what gives them an aesthetic.

Hacks like Tarantino and Nolan vary from somewhat stylish moments (though Tarantino's are ripped from a myriad of different movies) to outright stageplay staging, lighting and framing. A movie like Hateful 8 was a complete waste of shooting on Panavision. There were only a few interesting shots in the whole movie, with the rest of it looking like a high-definition recording of a well-dressed stage performance.

Nolan meanwhile is an inept Kubrick, aesthetically cold and distant without any of the geometry, color, framing or atmosphere.

It's a tool like CGI, in the hands of a real filmmaker, digital can look better than film-shot peers. The best looking movie of this decade was shot on digital.

>>85264078
Translation: I'm a pretentious hack.

Once it goes in the avid it's all digital anyways, not that he even edits his own shit.

>>85264321
>What's important isn't shooting on some extra-expensive, no-longer-made film stock, but the composition. Color, lighting, framing. Those aspects are what make movies look good, what gives them an aesthetic.
Yes and *all things being equal* if there was a film version and a digital version of the same thing the film version would still look better as you say.

>>85264078
He doesn't want everything to look like cheap porn

>>85264421
IF every single aspect was the exact same, yes. For now

But that's quite a reach you're making.

up until like 2011 you could make a case that film was superior to any commercially available digital camera, film could simply record more information, but that definitely changed when ARRIRAW became available for the Alexa and people realized how powerful the ALEV III sensor was. film became an aesthetic choice after that -- which is not nothing, because this is all in service of art after all -- but those aesthetic properties are not some mysterious alchemical process, they're definable and they're replicable with digital. in the past few years knowledgeable people with sharp eyes have seen head-to-head tests of film vs. digital (with the digital image graded to resemble film) and their ability to discern which is which has consistently not been any better than if they were to guess at random.

all that's left for people like nolan and tarantino is "muh history" and a useful marketing gimmick you can charge extra for

File: 1480080276922.png (58KB, 565x547px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 565x547px

>>85264522
Yh so why not make a movie on film then apart from cost

>>85264549
Show me these discernible film vs digital comparisons you're talking about desu

>>85264566
In an ideal world everyone would be shooting on film.

But to blame digital for movies looking bad in general is to dodge the real issue: Literal television directors, who've only ever done television cop shows or dramas, getting handed blockbuster projects, perpetuating a pathetic and lackluster aesthetic. They never learned how to tell a story visually, or to heighten emotion through aesthetics. They learned how to shoot closeups of talking heads, wide shots of empty rooms, and convoluted indecipherable action. There are still filmmakers out there with aesthetic prowess, but they're not the ones getting handed the reins of mainstream film. And it's entirely Star Wars' fault.

he doesn't know shit about cinema

>>85264655
They basically run before they can walk because they haven't had to learn to shoot something which looks good with a harder tool(film) they were relying on the abilities of digital which hindered their creative developement

>>85264715
I don't think it would help actual hacks like them.

>>85264601

http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/

File: Passengers_Sceenshot_3 (1).jpg (856KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

856KB, 1920x1080px

>>85264655
David Bordwell has written like a thousand posts about this particular issue. Steven Soderbergh summarized it in one sentence: "If I see another over-the-shoulder shot, I'm gonna blow my brains out".

>>85265046
>>85264601

http://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/

>>85265197
Who is David Bordwell

>>85264078
He went to films.

>>85264078
He said he preferred film, not that everyone else should follow suit.

>>85264321
>He operates under the pretension, like Nolan, that movies should only be shot on film.
No, that's his personal preference, he never claimed everyone else should do it. And it doesn't necessarily make the movie look better, but it does give it a very specific look and feel.

>>85264321
This is baffling, regardless of your personal opinion on the directors you mentioned. The cost of shooting on film is negligible compared to the revenue Tarantino and Nolan generate and it boils down to personal preference. I wonder if you're joking.
It also takes some severely stupid shit to compare Nolan to Stanley Kubrick, nice work.

>>85265743
He outright says in interviews again and again that shooting on video makes it "TV-Film"

>>85265563
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2015/12/13/modest-virtuosity-a-plea-to-filmmakers-old-and-young/

I think Reygadas and Apichatpong Weerasethakul only shoot on film, I know Joe does, Reygadas I'm not really sure, but they both have beautiful movies, even though you might dislike them.

>>85265913
what the fuck are those names

>>85265830
Then let's see it, I've only seen him singing praises for film and not condemning anyone who shoots digital. Sounds like you're looking for excuses to shit on him.

>>85266006
In this interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ7qKKQrSBY
In thissun
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI
In that docu Side by Side with Keanu Reeves

>>85265954
Reygadas:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etIzLiJfhqA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYeXnNzJ89Y

Joe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jk-EoUb0nvg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnIXg6-8lic

>>85264078
>Stop being poor

>>85264078
He meant "I am a dumb fuck luddite curmudgeon who holds back cinema until I die"

>>85265913
wtf do they have to do with anything?

>>85266427
>luddite
Film is higher resolution.

>>85264321
>You get better variation in darks, unparalleled textures, film grain, and general picture clarity(depending).

Not true other than the film grain part. And grain can be accurately simulated these days.

File: 500 KB.jpg (500KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

500KB, 1080x1080px

>>85264601
Think about what you are asking right now, anon. Think about it good and long.

>>85266503
HDR is objectively better on film (for now)

>>85264566
Because film isn't actually better now. The very best image quality will come from digital cameras from here on out.

>>85266484
No, it isn't. The best digital cameras far exceed the capability of 70mm film (the largest film stock used for non-experimental filmmaking). You can stack digital cameras in arrays and stitch their images together in software to make arbitrarily large resolutions, you cannot do this with film.

>>85266006
He has said that shooting on digital makes it more TV than watching a movie. He even went as far as saying it was part of the reason he didn't want to make movies anymore or something like that. He could worry about Hateful Eight not looking boring as fuck before whining about other films.

>>85266551
It isn't. There are cameras with ridiculous ISO capabilities and electronics to capture far more stops of dynamic range than film could ever achieve.

>>85266703
>He has said that shooting on digital makes it more TV than watching a movie.
Ridiculous bullshit of a nothing statement. "muh gateweave"

Another film purist is Colin Trevorrow. Is the visually repulsive Jurassic World, shot on film, a better looking movie than Sicario, shot on digital? Does Jurassic World's film stock automatically imbue it with some special quality Sicario lacks?

File: Sicario.jpg (2MB, 5399x2263px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 5399x2263px

>>85266944
No because Trevorrow can't compose worth a shit

films have been getting worse in every single way as digital has gained ground.

now, you can all pretend that this is pure coincidence, but the truth is that digital killed kino

>>85266465
Joe also advocated for shooting on film

>>85267443
For now. We're just now getting out of the era where digital was still pretending to be film. Now the next generation of moviemakers (not filmmakers kek) will innovate. I think the first step will be getting past the orange and teal look.

>>85264522
How is that a reach?
It's literally the topic of discussion. If a director with certain skills and talents were to make a movie, would the end result look better if he used film instead of digital. Of course there's tons of others things that matter too but changing the cameras doesn't make a difference to the director picking his framing or shots.

>>85264321
>It's a tool like CGI, in the hands of a real filmmaker, digital can look better than film-shot peers. The best looking movie of this decade was shot on digital.

what cgi and digital do is allow the filmmakers to create content closer to what they've got in mind. trouble is, they all suck, and the real magic of film comes from the tension between succeeding at getting exactly what you want and failing completely.

>>85264549
>but those aesthetic properties are not some mysterious alchemical process, they're definable and they're replicable with digital.
Yeah just like we know how VCR looks, but every movie with cgi vcr effects looks fake.

>>85267521

yeah, i heard that before....5 years ago.
it will never happen. orange and teal will never go away. in fact, it will invade the past as well - we're going to see a wave of "recolorization" in a couple of years, where every single good movie from the past 100 years will be color graded again to look like a transformers movie.

>>85266592
RED's new 8k camera supposedly surpasses 35mm in every regard now.

>>85267845
Film, just like any tape as a physical media has imperfections, brand differences from manufacturin process, degragation etc.
Digital camera can never surpass film in every regard. In pure accuracy yes, but I doubt it from an 8k camera. That's only 4000 vertical pixels no matter how good the sensor.

>>85267845

in every regard (except the ones that matter)

digital is too good, it strengthens the power of the so-called auteurs of cinema to mold the image to exactly what they want. and they all want the same exact thing:

* orange and teal
* sharp sharp sharp
* no accidents, happy or not

>>85267613
That kind of analog noise on VHS is probably impossible to totally replicate in the digital domain, humans are very good at discerning that "feel" inherent in all the chaos caused by composite video.

>>85268003
Yeah and it's basically the same analog vs digital difference that makes film feel different.

>>85267845
I meant more on a dynamic range level than anything else. AFAIK that's what was holding digital back the last decade- film would always win out under certain lighting conditions.

I think another negative byproduct of digital though is the ability to just shoot hours and hours of footage, especially in comedies. Instead of sticking to a tight script, actors just improve endlessly into the void and the "joke" are found in editing.

That being said, look at what Fincher is able to do with digital. It really suits his style and he's been shooting on it since... Panic Room? Maybe? I know Zodiac definitely was.

>>85268069
I watched Zodiac for the first time yesterday and I didn't like it.
It looked good though.

File: dunkirk-formatguide.jpg (280KB, 1500x1983px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 1500x1983px

the specsheet Nolan himself is promoting says 35mm is around the equivalent of 6K, which is already below the 8K digital standard for modern REDs.

and that's not taking into account detail lost to grain, which digital already surpasses film at.

>>85267941
meant to reply to you anon with >>85268069

>>85267984
we'd still have digital color grading (color timing?) despite digital cameras. I think that's a bigger issue when it's used poorly. It works when used well though, see: O Brother Where Art Thou?

>>85268128

More pixels won't save movies.

>>85264122
Oh okay, thanks for clearing things up.

>>85268166
>we'd still have digital color grading (color timing?)

yeah, this is part of why there's no "going back", even when shooting film.

>>85268166
Both of the things you say here are true. My point was more that there's a degree of randomness to film as to all things in nature that can't be reproduced digitally and people can tell the difference so it's not better
> in every regard
Digital sensors can only be better in accuracy, and from what I've read so far 6k or 8k sensor even on a theoretical perfect performance would not come close to 70mm.

File: 1493394666488.jpg (98KB, 555x475px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 555x475px

>>85268128
>mfw only "IMAX" theater near me is shit tier digital projection and not true 70mm film

>>85264321
>implying mr turner was the best looking film of this decade

>>85268324
you still get laser projection, presumably? that's still better than regular DCP, which has a much worse color depth in comparison.

>>85268318
Yea 70mm is still king, I agree. Too bad studios are pushing 3D now instead of 70mm. Though those cameras are still fucking huge and probably a pain in the ass to shoot with.

You're right about the "feel" of film though. Grain is a good thing.

>>85268423
I thought 3D was dead. My local multiplex has more 2D showings for blockbusters than 3D.

>>85264421
>all things being equal
As long as those equal things were within the limits of film.
You want to make a 20 min continuous shot?
Fuck you.
You want to shoot in low light?
Fuck you.
You want to shoot in near silence?
Fuck you.
You want to shoot in extremely small spaces?
Fuck you.
You want to shoot something that the camera will not survive?
Fuck you.

But other than that, go for it.

I like the look of film. I shoot stills on film and develop it myself, but digital is objectively better in most practical ways, and closing the gap in all the others.

>>85268385
I'm not sure. I asked a staff member at the theater today when I saw Dunkirk and they had no clue what I was talking about. They offered to fetch the manager but I just said fuck it and took my seat.

>>85268455
I live near a place with 4DX. whenever I go it's almost empty.

>>85267652
>>85267521
Even Dunkirk is fucking orange and teal even though it's shot on muh 70mm IMAX motion picture film that was #blessed by David Lean's ghost

>>85267845
GotG 2 was shot on their 8K camera. Looked alright. And it wasn't even the new Helium sensor that's even better.

>>85267941
It's funny how filmmakers of the past really hated the low dynamic range of film and the grain, especially during low-light scenes. Kodak worked tirelessly to improve their film stocks and finally in the 2000's they achieved film stock that is clean as fuck, almost like digital. Now filmmakers who are shooting digital are adding noise, grain and other imperfections to their pristine, sharp images to make it look more like film.

>>85268480
>You want to make a 20 min continuous shot?
get a longer film
>You want to shoot in low light?
learn to adjust lighting
You want to shoot in near silence?
learn basic sound editing
You want to shoot in extremely small spaces?
learn forced perspective and movie making 101
You want to shoot something that the camera will not survive?
it's a pretty unlikely scenario you wanna toss a fancy camera regardless if you get the footage or not.
however it is true it could be transfered live digitally. this is one actual advantage for digital.

rest of your post is shit. go back to starting your youtube channel.

File: 1493423324009.jpg (74KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 1024x768px

>>85268553
>#blessed by David Lean's ghost

if you've never felt the magic of 35mm, here's a nice little experiment...

1. get a 35mm still camera - just about anything will do, even a disposable single-use one
2. shoot a roll of negative color film in good light. overexpose everything by a couple of stops.
3. develop the roll and get a proper contact sheet made. not a scan-and-print contact sheet, it will look horrible, but a proper chemically printed contact sheet done in a darkroom

unless you've messed up in a big way, you'll be surprised at how good the photos look. despite never having been through digital "enhancement", you'll get beautiful colors and tones and lots of shadow detail. it will feel like magic.

File: barr4.jpg (208KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1600x900px

>>85268480
>You want to shoot in low light?
>Fuck you.
Kubrick found a way, but it required Zeiss lenses designed for the space program.

>>85268553
>>85267521
The "orange and teal" is just a complimentary colorway in color grading that's been used from the start of the use of color, but autist on the Internet caught up to that only a year or two ago and now just screech ORAMGE AN TEEL just because they heard of the term somewhere and thinking that that some kind of argument.
And it has zero to do with film or digital, color grading is applied to both formats.

>>85268766
Yes but they don't HAVE TO make every film look like teal and orange but they still do.

>>85268480

i'd object to "objectively better", but if you'd get more into the details (like "objectively capable of resolving more detail") i probably wouldn't.

the best aspect of digital is also the worst one - it kills limitations.
it's like having a huge budget - sure, you can do whatever it is you want, but the artistry will suffer.

limitation drives creativity, and while self-imposed limitations might, to a certain extent, work for artists who work more or less alone, they won't do anything for a huge hollywood production

File: 1491666793580.png (4MB, 3186x1322px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3186x1322px

>>85268766
deliberately limiting color palettes definitely became fashion after The Godfather though, as people started associating sepia with prestige drama.

Now it's used to drain the life out of every fucking thing.

File: shia.jpg (29KB, 796x332px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 796x332px

>>85268766
>color grading is applied to both formats.
Yes, but it's much easier to crank up the contrast in sony vegas than it is to get lenses, filters and film to shoot high contrast with both yellow and blue, opposite colours (and it's analogue so these things matter), to both pop up in the same shot.

It is the oldest trick in the book to use opposite colors to create shots, but orange and blue is not just a meme. Hollywood definitely milked it especially in the 2000s. Pic related, how would you get the blue tone for the sky while making his skin look burnt dark orange on film? And then do the same thing for 60 minutes of every action movie that comes out.

>>85268618
>learn to adjust lighting
But that's the point, once you adjust it on the set there's no turning back.

>learn basic sound editing
You can't just "delete" a certain sound without affecting the rest you turboautist. Sure, you can denoise and EQ-out the frequencies of the operating noise that is using up the frequency spectrum, but you are affecting the sound of evereything else too. That's why with film dubbing and foley of every single action is a must

>learn forced perspective and movie making 101
But not all shots call for a forced perspective it gives a certain kind of feel to the shot and it has it's limitations. If you don't have a big budget you can't afford filming in a studio without a roof etc

Every point you mentioned is just a unnecessary limitation that the digital format doesn't have.

Resolution is one thing, but getting that organic quality that comes from a chemical emulsion responding in unpredictable ways is hard. You are not going to simulate behavior at the molecular level that can vary due to things like slight variations in batches, and other weird shit that makes film less sterile than digital.

>>85264321
>muh cinematography
fags like you are what ruined this board

File: Pacific Rim_6.webm (3MB, 1000x540px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1000x540px

>>85268984
I think that 2000s look was more a byproduct of "look what we can do with our cool new toys" than anything. Now we're stuck in this desaturation hell, like >>85268945 alluded to.

At least people like Del Taco and James Gunn still inject color into their bigger blockbusters.

>>85268945
That's the problem of desaturation first and foremost. Today it's popular to desature all the shots hoping for a "dark dramatic" effect so they need a high contrast complimentary color to stick out of that bland mess.

>>85269087
>But that's the point, once you adjust it on the set there's no turning back.
That's how digital works too. Just because you shoot raw files and can fiddle with the exposure afterwards doesn't mean you're not stuck with the lighting you had at the time of the shot.
>You can't just "delete" a certain sound without affecting the rest you turboautist.
Yeah? So fucking mute it and do ADR. Making movie is work.
>But not all shots call for a forced perspective it gives a certain kind of feel to the shot and it has it's limitations.
So do it differently. You can make anything look like what you want it to look like on film.

You're just whining because you're comfortable throwing your gopro around and getting "good footage". If you're not controlling the lighting and editing the sound regardless if you're shooting digital your end product is shit.

>>85269103

that's an aesthetic disaster

i wish blockbusters still looked like jaws

File: Arrival 2016 1080p BluRay SPARKS screenshot.jpg (352KB, 3840x3232px) Image search: [Google]

352KB, 3840x3232px

>>85269103
>>85269166
how you want your desaturation, fám?

oh? you won't be happy till you're staring at blobs of concrete? you want it to look like we forgot to color grade RAW camera ouput? say no more my man...

>>85269266
>>85269103
I fell asleep during both of these movies.

>>85269216
I'm not the original anon you replied too, I just replied to show you how limited the film format is.
Ofcourse you have to set up good lighting regardless and ofcourse you have to to sound mixing and sound editing no matter what, but it is a fact that it's all much much easier to do with digital.
Dismissing any of two formats completely would be absurd, but you can't deny that the digital format is constantly advancing with every passing year while film stays pretty much the same.

>>85269242
>not loving pacifc rim
bruh

>>85269266
I think Arrival's colors worked for the tone of the film, our protagonist's mindset, etc. Desaturation makes sense.

>>85268752
Yeah, he used f0.9 50mm lenses with an adaptor to give it a 35mm view IIRC, and a shitload of candles, and he had a very narrow focal depth.
That's cool if it's actually what you want, but if you want a lot more depth of field (close things and far away things being in focus at the same time) with even less light (maybe a shot with a single candle) then film will just not do it.

>>85268618
>learn forced perspective and movie making 101
I mean putting a camera in a place that a film camera will not physically fit into. Sure, you fake it, maybe, and still get what you were after, kinda, or you could actually do it with digital.

Same goes for your other points.

>>85269266
The interior shots in Arrival certainly looked bland and heavily underexposed. Doubt it was a mistake from Bradford Young, but I can't think of a valid reason to make it intentionally like that.

>>85267364
Fucking saved

>>85264321
Kinda rustled that you think stageplay lighting is somehow inferior. Have you ever even seen live theatre? And no, your school play doesn't count.

>>85269422
>Sure, you fake it, maybe, and still get what you were after, kinda, or you could actually do it with digital.
Yes, you fake it. That's what making movies is.

If you're shooting some motorcycle prank videos or some shit I don't really care. GoPros are small, that's true. Ever seen a movie use gopro footage? It's a mess.

>>85269410

pacific rim is ok, i guess, for what it is, but it doesn't look particularly good. it just looks expensive, which isn't the same thing.

>>85267364
I didn't fall asleep during this movie, I liked it.

>>85267364
i generally like villeneuve & deakins but i didn't think the compositions in sicario were worth raving about desu

>>85267984
shitters gonna shit. Lots of crappy movies were made with film, and continue to be.

>>85269098
Big Marvel fan I bet.

>>85269562
muh thematic use of light and dark

File: celluloid.jpg (222KB, 1264x1810px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1264x1810px

>shoot on celluloid

What is Tarantino thinking? How do you shoot a movie on this?

>>85268904
I'm a big believer in limitations driving innovation, but I'm not sure the relatively high cost barrier, large cameras, and low-light threshold that's been almost the same for decades, are helping film-makers these days.

What I meant by objectively better is things like
smaller
cheaper (if you're shooting a lot)
lighter
able to shoot for longer (fewer interruptions)
able to shoot in lower light
being able to check immediately if you've got the shot

Some of these limitations are why I shoot stills on film, but they are limitations and I *could* choose to have them on digital if I really wanted to.

File: 1416686328881.jpg (78KB, 480x708px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 480x708px

>>85269098
I bet your mother dropped you on the head when you were born

>>85269088
>but getting that organic quality
Fluff BS. I bet you also believe in the "leica look".

File: 4ui75y3y46346.jpg (485KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

485KB, 1920x1080px

>thinking you need fucking celluloid to compose a basic aesthetic shot

>>85270158

why does it look so ugly

File: Archer disco.gif (733KB, 480x272px) Image search: [Google]

733KB, 480x272px

>>85270158
>thinking that washed out garbage looks good

File: The.Hateful.Eight.2015.1080p.BluRay.x265.HEVC.DTS.Dual.Latino-Papelillio.mkv_snapshot_01.54.57_[2016.03.09_06.57.49].png (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>shoot on 70mm film
>dig up Kubrick's casket and retrieve retro lenses from his grasp
>spend 11 fucking million dollars equipping theaters with 70mm film projectors
>nobody can actually tell the difference between this and digital Arri Alexa 65

BRAVO QT

>>85270011

what kind of camera do you shoot stills with anon?

i usually prefer rangefinders (use a gf670 for medium format, which is *amazing*) but lately i've just been shooting with compacts - a klasse s with hp5 and a klasse w with (cheap) color film

File: 894798475983475.jpg (230KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1920x1080px

>>85270254
>micro budget
>made in 2009
>using shitty prosumer cameras
it's also a Shinya Tsukamoto so it's purposefully over contrasted and harsh on the eye. some scenes are like epileptic seizures. It's punk cinema.

>>85270324
I would hope it's washed out... it's a monochrome film.

File: GoldenEye.1995.BluRay.Remux.1080p.AVC.DTS-HD.MA.5.1-HiFi.mkv_snapshot_01.26.23_[2017.07.22_02.56.27].jpg (636KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

636KB, 1920x1080px

I'm not sure why shooting on film seems to impart certain qualities to the finished product that digital doesn't seem to manage to pull off.

There's something about the focus maybe, or the colors.
It's definitely not as "sharp" as digital is but honestly, that's not a negative in my book.

I'm guessing that the way film is captured and processed imparts qualities too it as well that's pretty much impossible to get with digital; film is a chemical reaction where as digital is, digital.

Head over to /p/ and you'll see that most film shots have a distinct "personality" compared to the digital ones which tend to look flat, for a lack of a better word.
I guess the way that digital works, the way its meant to be is that you capture in as neutral a way as possible and then color correct and grade it in software, but it never really manages to look as real and colorful as if you shot it in film for some reason. It's probably due to the artificial way color is applied in software instead of the chemical way it's done in film.

Just because digital is newer and easier to use doesn't necessarily mean it will produce a more aesthetically pleasing look than film will, and I think that since films are a visual medium we should strive for good looks instead of ease of use and seems technically best(how many K's something has)

>>85270332
it wasn't shot at 70mm, it was only projected at 70mm

>>85270391
If it's film it's poorly transferred or scanned. If you told me it was infrared film I might have believed you.

>>85270332
that looks fucking good

>>85270391

oh cool, haven't seen any of his newer stuff, but loved tetsuo and rogukatsu no hebi

>>85264321
>Mr. Turner looks better than the Master
get real

File: 9ht94hg9th4g.jpg (298KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1920x1080px

>>85270565
it's probably cause the rip I got is yify quality. probably wasn't the best idea to post these but oh well.

File: jurassic_world_15.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>85270438
This was shot on film

>>85270158
>>85270622
Why do you have such a hard-on for such sophomoric composition?

File: 8u494837.png (786KB, 1280x544px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1280x544px

>>85270688
because muh vanishing points

>>85270541
>only projected at 70mm
manlets strike again. 100mm or bust

>>85270131

the leica look is more about loose framing than about the look of the lenses.

shooting with a leica (or a cheaper rangefinder for that matter) encourages a more relaxed approach than shooting with an slr. the framelines aren't as exact (not that they're 100% accurate on slrs either) and the way you can see what's happening outside the frame turns framing into an experience of "cropping reality" instead of the kind of seeking experience of using other kinds of cameras

this definitely affects the final product

>>85270541
yes it was (65mm effective)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGg2N32Z-co

File: Leon.aka.The.Professional.Directors.Cut.1994.BluRay.1080p.AVC.ReMuX.DTS-HDMA.7.1 R2D2.mkv_snapshot_00.40.29_[2017.07.22_03.33.35].jpg (998KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

998KB, 1920x1080px

>>85270649
I haven't seen it but from your screen-shot it looks good quality.

I'd love for film makers to actually start using film again since it just looks so much better than the other options.
I mean if you check out 2K/4K remasters of things shot on film they look absolutely stunning.
A good one to check out is Lawrence of Arabia, modern digital cameras could never get such fantastic looking images as the ones used to film it.

>>85269702
good one!

>>85269087
Sound autist here:
You know that we use external tools not tied into the camera to get better sound, right? For most of today's work we use digital, but anyone using an actual film camera most probably wants it recorded in analogue. Why would you ever rely on the camera for sound?

Oh, and yes we can totally delete a sound without deleting the rest. We edit on spectrogram now. It saves great recordings that were messed up by thumps, wind, sirens, etc.

>>85270649
It's off-focus.

File: arri-alexa-mini-sensor.jpg (176KB, 1920x1078px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 1920x1078px

>>85269472
>Ever seen a movie use gopro footage?
I have, and it delivered something that a film camera could not have done. And yes, it didn't look as good.

But I was thinking more along the lines of the Alexa Mini, or that Black Magic one that looks like a basic compact camera. They can deliver a big-budget look in situations that a film camera cannot.

File: 14 KB.jpg (15KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 200x200px

>>85270649
>>85270438
>"demonstration" screencaptures
shaking my damned head over here

>>85271143
You want me post the 40gb bluray?

You can figure how aesthetically pleasing an image looks by looking at it.

>>85269472
>Ever seen a movie use gopro footage? It's a mess.
someone post the hobbit barrel waterpark scene.
the go pro scenes look awful

File: Capture.png (3MB, 1716x942px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1716x942px

>>85271143
>>85271198
let me help you out.

this is a 100% crop from a bigger frame of film, but you can see the celluloid grain signature that allows for its unique color and detail

>>85271107
Not that guy but I wasn't talking about recording sound in camera. How would that even work on film?
What I meant was film cameras make noise. It might not be a big deal most of the time, and it can be worked around or removed, but it would be better if it didn't make noise at all. Like a digital camera doesn't.

>>85271311
... sound records to the celluloid anon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound-on-film

>>85271280
>>85271198
they still don't get it

>>85271076
like I said, it wasn't shot at 70

>>85271486
so what did you mean by this?

>>85271091
>I mean if you check out 2K/4K remasters of things shot on film they look absolutely stunning.
Think.

>>85271311
The noise doesn't matter to sound rats. There's a noise ceiling we look for and we can totally work around most of it. Any good engineer will make sure to leave as little background noise as possible, and any good editor could restore the integrity of most ruined recordings. I was doing the same quality restoration Criterion does when I first started learning how to edit, so you can only imagine what extremely professional editors can do given enough time or passion for the product. It's a really underappreciated craft, honestly, so most people have no idea how often we do this stuff.

So digital or film, we don't care. We care about digital audio or analogue, the mics used, the sound floor, the clarity of the speaker, etc. As an example of sound floor, listen to "We Didn't Start the Fire," I'll bet any amount of money you can't hear any of the dogs in the background or any of the several car horns. The louder your source is, the less likely you are to hear anything in the background. It's why boom mics are so close, for one thing.

>>85271494
65 and 70 are functionally identical, 70 being the projector standard. when people say 70 it often means 65.

>>85271544
He's getting at the idea that every blu-ray and every image you could post in this thread was shot with a digital camera. As in: the camera that scans the film when it is being transferred is a digital camera and blu-ray is a digital medium. So when a person posts a digital image and says "you can't do this with digital!" there is a heavy amount of irony there, especially if it is in regards to dynamic range.

>>85271546
Shot on film which imparts the qualities of film and then scanned at very high resolution digitally in a neutral way which is something digital does very good.

>>85271598
65=/=70

you were wrong

>>85271680
literally takes no time to google yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/70_mm_film

>>85271664
"in a neutral way" and "remaster" are mutually exclusive terms. The things they do with digital remasters are impossible with film.

>>85264078
>"DUDE 70MM LMAO! IT REALLY BRINGS OUT THE SCENERY!"
>whole movie takes place in a little cabin
What a fucking hack.
Still not as bad as JJ tho:
>"WE FILM ON FILM BECAUSE IT'S SOOO MUCH BETTER THAN DIGITAL!"
>proceeds to smear shit all over it with CGI and (((color correction)))

I miss Technicolor

>>85271857
how can "color correction" even be jewish.

c'mon /pol/

>>85271960
>color correct everything as blue as the Star of David
>make all white actors black

>>85271709
I included the word neutral as a juxtaposition to the stuff I said about how shooting and developing on film will impart a certain quality on the film that digital doesn't do/do well.

Neutral in the sense that digital is good for capturing something as it is without having little quirks introduced, perfect for scanning something that already has those qualities.

>>85271698
ok they shot it on """70"""mm, glad you're enjoying that marketing cock and that real 70mm is gone

File: 1488749564654.png (180KB, 396x354px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 396x354px

>>85269098
>cinematography, arguably one of the most important components in film making, is what ruined /tv/
>implying crossposting and memeing aren't the underlying factors

>>85270158
>basic aesthetic shot
>building is over exposured
Kek

>>85271572
You're telling me all the times it doesn't matter, and that's fine, just like all the times you don't need to make a 90min continuous shot.
If I want to get right in the actor's face while they're whispering, then camera noise is going to be something I have to deal with, unless I go digital.

I've been in a few music studios, they generally do not have anything as loud as a film camera (other than the music) in the same room. Even old 24 track tape recorders were much quieter and at least behind the soundproof glass.

File: Screenshot_2017-07-21-21-00-28-1.png (279KB, 480x638px) Image search: [Google]

279KB, 480x638px

Meanwhile, Emmanuel Lubezki, winner of 3 cinematography Oscars in a row...

>>85270131
It's the truth. Simulating an analog, somewhat chaotic system 100 percent is impossible, and it's going to behave in non-linear ways that a repeatable digital system will not, and this will show up in subtle ways. Simulating protein folding maxes out the largest computers on earth, and photochemical behavior is no different.

This is just about feel and perceptions that lie at the fringes of the phenomenology of visual perception, and does not imply that digital is inferior, just different. If you think you can offer a 100 percent, one to one, simulation of something in the analog domain, you are mistaken however - that's why there are things analog computers can do that digital computers cannot.

>>85272261
You can have the actor do the same whisper without the camera around, silly. Voice actors can perform the same line over and over within a millisecond of the original. At that point the only worry you've got is actor cost.

>>85272443
>analog computers
Anon what do you think an "analog computer" is?

>>85272443
The difference you're referring to is not perceptible to viewers.

>>85272510
Oh right, just work around that limitation, and all the others, add more steps into my workflow, more opportunities for things to go wrong. Why didn't I think of that?

>>85272410
he just didnt try hard enough desu.

if nolan could pull off interstellar with film then gravity would have been a pizza cake

>>85272657
I hope you don't run your own studio, because we literally have a ton of the same take in real studios, in both camera and audio forms.

>>85264321
What's genuinely funny about this, although it doesn't completely undermine whatever argument you're stitching together, is that Leigh and Pope both wanted to shoot film for this, but were priced out of it.
The "best looking movie of the decade" wouldn't only probably have looked better on film, it was supposed to until, yet again, money ruined another good thing.

>>85268752

the reason Kubrick had to use the Zeiss NASA lens is because the fastest color film stock back then was only 100 ASA, which was pushed a stop to 200 ASA for Barry Lyndon. if he were shooting Barry Lyndon on 500 ASA stock he could have exposed & developed it normally and shot those scenes with regular T1.3 lenses. if you go back and look at the candlelit scenes there's a shitload of candles, and they were all triple wicked, and i think he maybe used foil too, so really there's a lot of light bouncing around those sets.

Kodak manufactured 800 ASA stock at one point but discontinued it when 500 ASA pushed a stop actually had less grain. the base sensitivity of most digital cinema cameras is 800 ASA

>>85272765
>>85272765
I don't. I shoot footage on digital and shoot stills on film and digital.
I'm making a point that digital has fewer limitations, and the places where digital is behind film is shrinking.
The physical noise of a film camera is a small limitation, but it's still a limitation that digital does not have at all.

>>85272954
>The "best looking movie of the decade" wouldn't only probably have looked better on film

which gets us back to questions like
>>85266944
>Does Jurassic World's film stock automatically imbue it with some special quality
Sicario lacks?

the answer of course is no. likewise shooting on film wouldn't have taken Mr. Turner from being a great looking movie to being the GREATEST looking movie or whatever.

>>85273079
That's fair. We have ways of working around the limitations, we've even automated what smoke and mirrors and an egg-crated silent box used to do into some gnarly tools, but you're right that trying to get a strictly one-man shot, just a guy with his camera and no other professionals with him, will have big limitations.

>>85273213

pixels and rationalism won't save movies, anon

File: Passengers_Sceenshot_1.jpg (919KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 1920x1080px

Passengers was shot on digital and it looks AMAZING

Given vision, talent, and knowledge, both can look good for different reasons.

The crazy nighttime driving sequences in Twin Peaks 2017 look incredible but they would look like shit if they weren't digital.