The Great Debate

>still camera vs moving camera

>>87328473
>seriously expecting this board to ever "discuss" anything that isn't capeshit, GoT or a thinly-veiled /pol/ thread
Sorry anon, /film/ would be the only way you could get a thread going.

>>87328473
Film subtley leaves its mark but I think its more for vintagefags now than anything.
>Oh I recognize that film grain
Like vinyl.

>>87328741
You really think Rogue One (digital) looks better than Force Awakens (film)?

>>87328828
I didn't watch those films so... maybe?

I like that grainy film look but hate how some films are so dark. They should just add grain to digital films

hmmm well let's think, film looks good and digital looks bad sooooo
>>87328932
they do, but it still looks like shit because of the color

File: PDVD_093.png (337KB, 640x478px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 640x478px

>>87328473
>film
>literally digital with a shittier res and a yellow tint

Fairly obvious, I'd say.

Film
The grain and the fps is a classic and it gives a look to everything better
Shooting digitially just makes everything look like real life unless you toy with the filters
Film Cameras arent meant to depict reality you dont go to the theater to see real life

>>87329012
There are some people who say they don't see any difference between film and digital.

>>87329094
Film ages, they're probly too young to have ever seen a pre-digital film. Even copies that are shipped to theaters have probably been digitized first for reproduction.

>>87328979
>shitter res

2011 is the year i became conscious of a massive shift to digital projection. that's 6 years ago, so it's quite something to think that most of /tv/ has never seen a movie projected on film in their adult life.

>>87329397
>2011 6 years ago
>most of /tv/ being over 18
But again nobody STORES film. They record on film, they put on computers, they ship on film/disk. There probably hasn't been a pure non-digital film in 20 years.

neither, both are equally good and work best with a DP that knows what they are doing.

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

File: susan.webm (3MB, 744x400px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 744x400px

>>87328473
>falling for the film meme

>>87329772
Ok, fuck this guy. You can obviously tell the difference. The hair on the right, the way it looks and how light reflects it is a deadgiveaway the right is digital. Plus the cars kind of look like cgi on the digital camera.

>>87329772
>>87329830
You literally can't tell specific differences because it's encoded. It isn't being displayed on the original film or something copied from it.

>>87329898
Dude just look at his hair on the right and how it looks in lighting, dead giveaway it's cgi. Also his face is slightly smoother on the right.

>>87329953
cgi* wtf am I saying, I mean Digital*

>>87329953
>cgi
that's not what cgi is. it would also be different depending on the camera sensor and settings used to capture it if digital.

>>87328473
depends on the movie/director

>>87328828
Ironically Rogue One looked far better than the Force Awakens.

Can't film achieve higher resolutions than digital?

>>87331547
Yes

>>87328473
Film is comfy

Digital.

Film is one of those things that people "think" is better because it's needlessly more difficult to make.

>>87331805
Explain how it looks better.

>>87329689

This guy gets it.

How come there still isn't an authentic looking film filter? audio effects are much harder to reproduce yet there is already software that convincingly emulates the sound of tape.

>>87331821
Never made a claim about looks.

The versatility and accessibility of shooting digital far outclasses shooting film.

In then in the end most is displayed via digital projection anyway.

I do like things like Dunkirk in 70MM played via 70MM projector, but other than that it's largely pointless.

>>87331908
Digital and film have different sensors/different formats that absorb light differently, of course there will always be a difference in how each looks, no matter the film filter digital gets.

File: 14951_14_large.jpg (91KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 1280x720px

Digital

>>87332005
Even different film stocks will have different properties, similar to different digital sensors. The big advantage film has is being able to pull infinite resolution out of it but beyond 4K masters nobody really needs more.

The lenses are more important

>>87332065
That looks good but put a still image of Dunkirk beside it and itll blow it out of the water

Digital from a practical perspective
Film from an ontological perspective

>>87332078
>The big advantage film has is being able to pull infinite resolution out of it

Lol, this is so wrong.

File: maya-3dsmax-blender.jpg (68KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 800x450px

>>87328473
Full CGI.

File: vlcsnap-2017-09-05-04h52m28s828.png (990KB, 1920x816px) Image search: [Google]

990KB, 1920x816px

>>87332140
LOL

File: arri_alexa_sxt_hero.jpg (51KB, 740x464px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 740x464px

You're still going to have to digitally capture film for editing in a NLE like Avid or Premiere, and resources for digital filmmaking is much more affordable and readily available in 2017 than film, so you know...

>>87332768
Right, or you can just shoot it right the first time and manually edit with the scissors & tape which isn't actually that much more difficult.

File: Kingsglaive-Final-Fantasy-XV-035-1.jpg (104KB, 1280x536px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1280x536px

>>87332442
This. Thanks to emerging GPU renderers, the cost of rendering is going to come down a lot. A revolution is coming.

>>87332850
That is quite a sensitive and destructive process to do, as opposed to the non-destructive editing process in software. You have to be very careful and meticulous about where you cut, and you have to make sure your skin oils don't make contact with the picture or sound oxide.

>>87333276
Yeah, exactly. Digital enables lower quality filmmakers. Not that it's a bad thing but it means you can hire a team of 50 randoms instead of hiring a master and taking twice as long.