Film Vs. Digital

File: Leos_Carax_Cannes_2012.jpg (45KB, 509x720px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 509x720px

Digital is more convenient and is catching up to film in terms of quality, eventually it will overtake it. Film still currently looks better.

But at the same time that statement is a fucking lie. What it comes down to is the direction and composition of the movie by the cinematographer and director. A good director and cinematographer who know things like dramatic lighting, color, the texture of the environment, and the ability to tell one's story both through the dialogue and action on the screen AND the visual narrative. These sort of people can make a digital movie look as good as a film one.

For a strict example, Hateful 8 by Quentin Tarantino. Shot on ultra widescreen film stock 65mm. Completely wasted on Tarantino, a hack filmmaker whose entire movie was static interior shots with stage lighting and framing, and only a few shots of the night or daytime exterior, using the wideness of the frame. Completely used as a marketing too to lure in film buffs. It looked like shit because Tarantino is a bad visual director unless he's stealing scenes from other directors.

Likewise someone like Dennis Villenueve and Mike Leigh can make gorgeous movies, using the color, lighting, framing, and general visual invention. Their movies are stylized and stand out from the crowd, often using the visuals to convey the unspoken tone or message of the scene. These people are good directors using digital to make great looking movies.

The point being: yes, film looks a little better for now. But it does not guarantee a good-looking movie.

>>87658883
It literally doesn't matter for the most part, shit direct that don't know how to composite a shot will make movies that look terrible anyways.

film is converted to digital before it reaches to screen so why does it matter?

File: rips.png (3MB, 3840x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x1080px

>>87659354
A movie shot on film and converted to digital looks better than the same thing shot on digital.

Like how ripping a blu ray gives a far different result then ripping a vhs

>>87659354
>film is converted to digital before it reaches to screen so why does it matter?

That's just the format needed to display on the projector/put the data onto dvd/blurays.

The difference is what is shot on digital or film will look different as digital and film has different sensors/ways of taking in light, affecting the look of a movie.

Interstellar/Dunkirk is shot on film but it's converted to digital for the screen, but you can still tell it's different and better looking than a movie shot on digital and displayed digitally on screen.

Also the camera you use to shoot the film, whether it be digital or a film camera (such as panavision) plus lenses makes a difference in how a film looks, no matter the format it's converted to for screen/theatre watching.

>>87659411
thanks yifi

>>87659497
Unfortunately Nolan is another one of those directors who sucks at composition and visual direction

What movies are being made on film nowadays anyway?

>>87659584
http://www.kodak.com/us/en/motion/customers/productions/default.htm

File: inception.jpg (48KB, 1620x675px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 1620x675px

>>87659577
Made me kek

>>87658883

Digital. Film is a pain in the ass and digital in a few years will surpass the quality of film.

The large format digital still cameras look better than what film cinema cameras can produce. Not too long until that's the case with digital cinema cameras (and I'm sure like digital large format cams with swap in/out backs we'll get digital cinema cameras that allow you to change out specialized chips).

Film is basically dead.

The range of options in post and the ease of use makes digital far superior for MOST needs.

Quality is close to surpassing film.

>>87659719
Like a Michael Mann shot without any of the style, color or framing

>>87659733
>Digital. Film is a pain in the ass and digital in a few years will surpass the quality of film.

Explain how Film is a pain in the ass.

>The large format digital still cameras look better than what film cinema cameras can produce.

LMAO

>Film is basically dead.

Because studios want to cheapen/water down the costs, as well as the quality of how the film looks.

Batman Vs Superman for example, ignoring the shitty CGI looks far better than any Marvel movie post film, because it was shot on film.

>Quality is close to surpassing film.

Maybe in 10-15 years.

The only thing Digital has going for it is if you make a midbudget movie and want an easier time making it (maybe it's a director's first big project) then yeah, because editing and watching the footage shot is easier, but in the end you are sacrificing the picture quality for less effort.

How many movies do you watch and say "Wow, this film is beautiful." 9 times out of 10 it's shot on Film.

>>87659895

>Explain how film is a pain in the ass

Ever taken a photo on your phone vs a film camera?

I can't be bothered explaining it in detail, but film is more expensive, cumbersome, less versatile and time consuming. Especially in post production. On set you need to rely on the expert guess work and luck of the DP, rather than visually verifying on a monitor. You're all but locked to what you shoot without the ability to greatly modify. This goes ten fold if you're finishing on film.

An effect that takes 5 minutes to achieve in a digital coloring suite can take months of prep work and large insurance deposits to achieve on film (see Three Kings or He Got Game/Clockers).

>LMAO

It's indisputably true, by any objective metric. Subjective tastes may vary.

>Because studios want to cheapen/water down the costs, as well as the quality of how the film looks.

The quality for most films is comparable. It's not far off at the high end, and in a few years will match and surpass. And for a "close enough" product it's infinitely cheaper.

Yes, Marvel films look like trash, but if you have a real DP like Deakins or Lubezki it can look fantastic.

Batman Vs Superman looked great because it was Larry Fong.

Look at Man Of Steel - shot on film but almost as bad as the Captain America films.

>10 to 15 years

Look at the massive jump in quality in the last ten yeara.

And then factor in that film quality and range has DIMINISHED since the 90's and isn't being pushed anymore.

>>87659895
>Explain how Film is a pain in the ass

>enormous cameras
>film stock is costly
>can't start and stop filing as easily as digital
>during color correction you cannot pause the movie to take notes or risk burning a whole in the reel
>film reel can be scratched, miscolored, damaged, shakes within projector
>have to use at least two projectors because a reel only contains so much of the film, forcing them to switch every thirty minutes or so
>not many theaters have film projectors anymore
>very few of the film stock companies produce film anymore

Also Batman v Superman was shot on Arri Alexa XT

File: 1502476010453.png (1MB, 1400x725px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1400x725px

Here, take a look at the same shot of the same scene with the same camera by two different directors

>>87660402
>Snyder brought aboard a frequent collaborator in Larry Fong, ASC. Fong previously photographed Snyder's 300 ,Watchmen and Sucker Punch . Wanting to lend the film an organic texture, the filmmaking duo chose to shoot on KODAK film stock, and while wrapping his latest lensing work on Kong: Skull Island in Australia, Fong explained his methodology behind Batman v Superman .

>InCamera Magazine: Why the choice of film as the capture medium? Was this decided early or later in preproduction?

>Larry Fong, ASC: For Zack and me, the preference has always been film from the beginning. It's what we learned and embraced separately growing up and together in film school. Of course, the film vs. digital discussion must be made with producers and the studio in preproduction, and it's not always easy to convince all parties, but Zack makes it a priority, which certainly helps.

>Were other formats considered?

>At first, it was going to be strictly 35mm anamorphic, but at one point, Zack was considering shooting in 65mm. Later, IMAX came into the picture, and things kind of ramped up from there.

>What did film give you aesthetically and technically that made it your preference over other means of capture for this movie?

>Film is the real deal and is the origin of cinema. Even as technologies evolve-and are certainly valid-film should not be looked upon as primitive or outdated. To do so would be to deny filmmaking history. It's organic and textural, and if someone can't perceive it, well, I can't possibly explain it.

http://www.kodak.com/kodakgcg/sg/en/motion/blog/blog_post/?contentid=4294995322

File: Screen Shot 2017-09-12 at 17.31.09-fullpage.png (102KB, 627x1030px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 627x1030px

>>87660620

>>87660675
Read the article you fucking moron. Look at the other cameras used on your screenshot, it was a majority shot on film but a few scenes were shot on digital.

Film, no competition.

Just the virtue of film being expensive makes it better than digital. Directors didn't just film random shit over and over and piece together a somewhat coherent movie.

take literally any hollywood film from the late 90s and 00s, a teen comedy/drama/blockbuster doesn't matter the director or genre, it will look better than 99.9% of movies shot on digital today

digital ruins the color and makes everything look soft and sterile, here are the only directors who utilize digital well
>MANN
>VON TRIER
>REFN
>???

>>87660953
Leigh
Villenueve
Bertolucci
Lynch
Scott
Godard

File: Comparison Shot.jpg (826KB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

826KB, 2560x1600px

Bump

This thread is a perfect example of why other boards laugh at us
>idiots making arguments with literally zero understanding of what they're talking about beyond buzzwords
>using their preferred mediums as a clear excuse for elitism despite their complete lack of knowledge
>confirmation bias out the whazoo

>>87659719
Amazing! It looks just like footage from my DSLR!

>>87661781
Explain how Film is better faggot

Go on , we're waiting

File: tumblr_inline_ovgn30Fgm41t19a21_1280.png (47KB, 512x392px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 512x392px

>>87661781

>>87661871
It isn't, at all.
Anyone who says it is is knowingly being ignorant. Either it's because they grew up using film and feel safe using it, or else it's because the older generations use film and they assume older people are smarter

In hard numbers, the best film sensors don't outperform the best digital sensors (or at least, not by a noticeable amount) in dynamic range. Film offers less flexibility in post, is more expensive to shoot and to to edit and has an imperfect grainy look that autists have convinced themselves makes a picture better (despite being an objective flaw, and a flaw that can easily be replicated on digital and before autists claim you can tell the difference, you literally can't, they've done tests)

>>87662031
ok but movies shot on film look better

>>87662113
The Revenant looks 100x better than H8ful

>>87658883
Digital is more cost effective and practical than film, and the difference these days in terms of quality are becoming more and more negligible and technology improves.

File: 1505121084427.jpg (909KB, 2500x2100px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 2500x2100px

>>87660869
>Just the virtue of film being expensive makes it better than digital. Directors didn't just film random shit over and over and piece together a somewhat coherent movie.
This nigga gets it.
Digital chapened cinema and downgraded all potential kino into flicks.
That's why absolute hacks like JJ Abrams can still continue to shit out their turds and Marvel/Disney became that trillion dollar monster. If there was no digital Marvel/Disney would have been forced to hire better directors to not make literal liquid dog shit ou of their capeshit, but with digital they can simply hire the most incompetent d-list literally whos that can shoot a sceen for the 200th time and call it a day.
Blade Runner 2049 for example looks like absolute subhuman amateur Youtuber hobby trash despite having MUH DEAKINS MUH VILLENEUVE memes on board.

>>87662211
>and the difference these days in terms of quality are becoming more and more negligible and technology improves.

So you concede that film is better quality.

>>87662272
You realise that the directors are rarely the cinematographers right? You realise that a classic director like Woody Allen is famous for basically telling his dp to go nuts and only really talked to his actors, right?!
You know the same is true of fucking Citizen Kane, that Welles knew nothing about cameras or how they worked which is why the film has so many experimental shots and the dp was allowed to make homages to German expressionist films, RIGHT?!!!

>sees pic
Oh, I see, you're retarded
Touche

>>87662378
yeah I agree that film is better quality, I should have mentioned that, but studios aren't going to throw away money that they don't have to just to use film for a slightly better quality picture

Is there a lack of classical film technique education for modern (((film students))) nowadays like how modern artists learn fuck all in college while people who study the loomis meme and others can draw professionally in 3 years? Do modern directors even know how to develop film? Why do their movies always look like bland garbage, without fail? What happened to aesthetics?

>>87662397
>rarely
Among the higher quality directors that is significantly less rare. Still, shortcuts are a studio issue. They'll take any excuse to hire lower quality directors OR cinematographers.

>>87662426
>slightly better
>slightly better
>slightly better

File: tommy-wiseau.jpg (50KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 600x400px

>>87658883
Why naht both?

>>87662469
Modern film students go for digital because it's so easy for them and also because "omg it's new technology, it's so cool". You have to wonder why modern movies suck.

>>87662490
>caring this much about film
I'm sure modern greats like capeshit movie #106 and spooky horror #56 would have looked beautiful on film, it would have really made them into classic movies

>>87660402
You forgot:
>By the time you're done compositing, editing and duping, at best you're seeing 3rd gen film in the theater.

The reason film looks better is film grain. Digital is too pure, as the reaction to the Hobbit movies showed. I've experienced that for years with photography - throw a layer of film grain on a high res shot from a Nikon or Canon, people like the shot more. Any time I edit photos, I throw a light layer of film grain over the whole thing to tie it together.
Perfect film grain plugins for video editing suites, and nobody will miss film.

Film/digital has no impact on the end result of film. Storing film and copying film to film can cause artifacts but otherwise they're equally blank slate. Your filmmakers will (hopefully) know how to light around whatever sensory apparatus you are working with so it's never an issue.

>>87662713
Film grain is degredation, it's not there from the start.

>>87662272
To me, the difference between to the two is the original is more contrasty than the new. That's aesthetic, not technology. Ridley would have never lit rooms like that in the original. Ridley also has a better feel for color composition than whoever directed the new one.
You could process the new one to look like the old one, with adjustments to the contrast, and some heavy filtering and adding grain.

>>87662713
>Perfect film grain plugins for video editing suites, and nobody will miss film.

The fact that when people shoot digital that they add film grain speaks volumes.

>>87662397
Thats not true at all, Welles didn't know the tech of cameras, maybe, but he was damn sure telling the cameraman where to put the fucker. Like the infamous scene where they had to dig a pit to put the camera in, to get the up-shot of Kane - that was all Welles.

film is better but it really doesn't matter.
a good film is good no matter the equipment.

>>87662946
>speaks volumes
Yes - about the pleb audience.

There's no reason to NOT use superior tech. Most people just tend to be oldfashioned. But once the millennial moviemakers get into full swing, we'll finally be liberated. (I hope.)

>>87662744
That's not the point. The point is, by the time you're looking at a screen, there's degradation.

I'm not arguing against film, per se. I'm just saying that the look of film can be duplicated. A lot of special effects relied on film grain to perfect the illusion - when you see props and sets in real life, and see how cheesy and fake they look, then see them on screen, you realize how much is hidden in the grain - and I suspect a lot of directors rely on that. They don't have to pay as much attention to detail as they would with digital - digital is a hell of a lot less forgiving than film. Like when My Cousin Vinny first came out on DVD, they just dumped it to disc - and because of the higher level of detail, you could see the tape on Pesci's head near his ears, getting rid of the wrinkles. They could get away with that then - now they'd have to hire someone to edit it out in post.
I get it, though, some have a love affair with film. And god knows a transparent medium projected onto a screen with incandescent light is going to have a different quality than a digital medium lit by LED. The key, to me, is learning to reproduce the former in the latter.

File: 465745624572.jpg (78KB, 1300x863px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1300x863px

>>87662946
Some people don't like 60fps because it looks too real, like a home video.
Doesn't mean it's bad.

>>87663184
It's pretty bad. Should probly aim for the minimum amount of information at any given second so you can actually focus that attention somewhere.

>>87663052
>There's no reason to NOT use superior tech.

Compare your shitty little Red Camera to IMAX kid, go on, I'm waiting.

>>87663423
How do you want them to be compared? Or what is even your point?

>>87662713
>Perfect film grain plugins for video editing suites
They already have. When you don't see it in a blockbuster, it's an aesthetic choice.
Audiences liking grain is comparable the 24p/60p debate. They associate one with looking better due to conditioning. But anyone who works in the field professionally (and isn't retarded) knows that grain doesn't look better. When you see how clean and sharp a RED Helium picture can be, you'll never want to go back

>>87663493
Picture quality you cuck. IMAX is king.

>>87663498
Lord of the Rings Vs. The Hobbit.

You already know LOTR looks better, because it was shot on film.

>>87663515
Oh? Why aren't ALL movies shot on IMAX then? It's "the king" after all, like you claim...

>>87663561
Holy fuck you are retarded.

You still haven't refuted how Digital looks better than IMAX.

>>87663423
modern film stock has a dynamic range of roughly 13-15 stops
RED Helium has between 15.2 and 16.5 stops of dynamic range depending on who you go to

So yes, RED cameras have better dynamic range than IMAX film cameras

>>87663597
Can I reuse your argument then? Because digital is king.

>>87663549
No, LOTR looks better because they used less cgi and spent more time making it. In contrast, the Hobbit was rushed
This is an appalling comparison and shows how little you understand the subject

>>87663423
see >>87663609
#btfo

>>87663609
Dynamic range is one aspect. Overall IMAX is superior picture quality with grain, color vibrance, resolution, etc.

>>87663685
samefag

>>87663704
Those are buzzwords
Grain is a flaw that can easily be replicated
Colour vibrance means nothing. Dynamic range is the measurable version of it
Film has no resolution because that's not how photography works. But the Helium is 8k so I wouldn't bother arguing that it falls flat in resolution

You clearly have no idea what the fuck you're talking about

>>87660581
This can't be real

BASED NOLAN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtH6kiPbMBw

DIGITAL FAGS BTFO

>>87663789
No, you're just a fucking moron and I'm laughing at you

>>87663804
>shitty meme director likes outdated format so that he can take an elitist stance
>in doing so, hopefully people won't notice what an absolute hack he is
colour me surprised

File: w7SFDop.jpg (61KB, 720x489px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 720x489px

filmed on imax 70mm and projected with imax 70mm is still by far the best looking way to watch a film.

Until 5-7 years ago, digital was only rlly excusable if you had a specific use for it (ie shooting at night, shooting a stupid amount of vfx, doing some stupid soderberg shit where you strap a camera to a man's ballsack)

Now it's the other way around: you should have a fucking good justification for filming in film. It's more expensive, it's limited by bulk etc etc. Nolan's celluloid usage is basically pretentiousness. He does nothing intelligent with it and he does that retarded aspect ratio fuckery. But there are still good uses for it: if Dunkirk had been a shorter film basically just about tom hardy and his plane, film would have made sense as a choice. As it was, the imax spitfire scenes were the best in the film and i think the medium did have a postive effect on them.


>>87662272
nice cherrypicking, tard. and as hilariously clever as it may seem to you to put the word "muh" in front of someone it kinda makes you look like a retard when you're talking about possibly the most experienced and celebrated cinematographer working today.

>>87663296
Not sure I understand what you mean.

>>87662946
I like film grain in low-light scenes because it looks like phosphenes in my eyes. Like I'm actually there.

Low-light scenes that are very crisp and clean look kinda synthetic/unnatural to me.

Film vs. digital isn't a big deal for me, I just trust directors to use whatever's best ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>87663789
the guy you're replying to is an idiot but you can make some equivalences between film size and resolution - and 70mm still comes out very much on top, even if you don't account for the fact that blowing up square pixels will always look more ugly than blowing up circular grains.

Conservative estimates for 70mm equivalent put it at somewhere around 12k. The nolanjerk likes to throw around numbers above 18.

Obviously this is all completely irrelevant bcos the eye can only see 24 fops

File: digitalfanboys.gif (1MB, 550x229px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 550x229px

>>87664409
DIGITAL IS BETTER THAN FILM

>>87663609
Dynamic range doesn't stay constant over various lighting nor does it shift linearly.

Film still vastly outperforms the latest digital sensors in low-light conditions.

>>87664825
Kind of off-topic, but wasn't there some movie (decades old now, I think) that had a lot of extremely low-light scenes? As in, closed room, no windows, only one candle in the middle, guy's face illuminated by it, stuff like that?

I remember reading about special cameras or something being constructed to film that. It might have been a Stanley Kubrick film.

>>87664730
>digital filmmaking = bad cgi
>>87664825
>Film still vastly outperforms the latest digital sensors in low-light conditions.
[citation needed]
[cause this isn't even slightly true]
[no film comes close to the sony a7sii, nevermind a canon ME20F-SH]
[but thanks for trying]

>>87664825
This

>>87664894
That's not going to change the chemical properties of film.

>>87664905
I can't stop laughing

>>87664894
You're talking about Barry Lyndon, and that was achieved due to the lenses he shot with.
Digital cameras can far surpass what that film did, as mentioned here >>87664905
a sony a7sii could shoot the same shots but with a deep depth of field with zero issues

>>87664956
Of course it could surpass it, it's 40 year old movie.

>>87664998
And of course digital can surpass film as film is a hundred year old medium

>>87665053
Holy shit I spit out my coffee, LMAO.

Dont ever go into films.

>>87665146
>uneducated retard giving advice
lel

>>87665146
>Dont ever go into films.
Don't worry I won't, I'm going into digitals
;)

>>87659411
That VHS rip is a bit of an unfair comparison. The low quality is more bad compression than actual VHS quality.

>>87664956
>Barry Lyndon
Thanks. Haven't seen that one yet, but it's on my list.

Also, I'm kinda new to the film/digital debate. Is there a site where somebody with expert-tier knowledge takes a detailed, comprehensive look at it with lots of comparison shots and stuff? I have no idea how to tell if anons here are full of shit or not.

>>87659411
>YIFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEzhxP-pdos

>>87664825
>Film still vastly outperforms the latest digital sensors in low-light conditions.

That is literally the opposite and one of the strongest points as to why digital cameras are being pushed in the industry. The fact that you are trying to argue the opposite just means you have no idea what you are talking about on the this issue and should be ignored. like holy shit shut up

>>87665490
Watch the documentary, Side By Side

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

>>87658883
Digitalized Film

>>87665490
Unfortunately, not really. Everyone is biased.
It's literally the same debate as vinyl vs cd if that helps though.

On the same front, no matter how experienced you are, there will always be films that are literally impossible to determine if they were shot on film on digital.
Lucas made this point very early on. In The Phantom Menace, he shot one scene digitally and then challenged anyone to tell him which scene it was. No one could tell which lead him to shooting AotC fully digital which basically started digital filmmaking

The best way to understand it is to actually film and edit stuff. But this is /tv/ so...

>>87665522
Film:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nMkf0bkDr0

Digital:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIaauiVU4To

Digital looks more like video

>>87665552
>Side by Side
Sounds neat!

>>87665661
>It's literally the same debate as vinyl vs cd if that helps though.
Sounds like double-blind tests are in order, then.
>Lucas made this point very early on. In The Phantom Menace, he shot one scene digitally and then challenged anyone to tell him which scene it was. No one could tell which lead him to shooting AotC fully digital which basically started digital filmmaking
I find this persuasive.

>>87665713
>Digital looks more like video
?

>>87665552
>Don't hold me to it, Keanu
How did this become a thing? That's great.

>>87662513
I wanna see the digital version of The Room, just for comparison's sake.

>>87665833
The Disaster Artist looks like it's shot on Digital

File: 1465027543330.png (138KB, 375x375px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 375x375px

>>87659719
watch more films

File: QprCeRU.jpg (233KB, 500x501px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 500x501px

patrician here

it doesn't matter

the tools never matter

its always what can you DO with those tools

>>87663647
Not really, LOTR used CGI as well, but still looked good, besides, you can see in the behind the scenes that the Hobbit movies were shot with Red digital cameras, which were inferior compared to the LOTR

>Not realizing the choice of lenses, lighting and colour grade is more important than the camera body

Fucking plebs. Stop repeating shit you heard Tarantino or Nolan say or that one doco John Wick made.

Imagine if interracial BBC porn were filmed on film? Would be a million times better and it would capture the pure passion that the actors exude.

>>87660953
>>87661171
Fincher you turds

>>87667180
his 90s movies look vastly superior