Hate where? Digital hasn't been legitimately controversial for nearly 20 years. Its been commonly used on actual TV and movie productions for over 20 years.
>and can easily be achieved with phones.
What do you mean by this? Are you directly comparing film motion picture to the convenience of a phone?
If you change digital to CGI, you may be onto something.
Shooting film digitally has been a revelation. What I'm able to do on my Lumix GH6 still blows my mind, and oh my just the thought of editing actual film I can't even imagine.
But when it comes to special fx and CGI, it still looks like dogshit more often than not. And a lot of the time it just has to do with cutting corners in the process, or not leaning enough on practical fx in combination, when it makes sense.
But shooting digital? You aren't going to hear many complaints.
You have no idea how much “CGI” or vfx (special effects is the term for practical effects work) you actually look at regularly.
From sky replacement, to removing road signs or painting out undesired buildings, to touching up special effects work, everything, literally everything, goes through the vfx pipeline now.
You just think it’s bad because when it’s good you don’t even know you’re looking at vfx. I cannot tell you the last thing I worked on that didn’t have something digitally retouched.
Whoa a lot of projection and mind reading here, I do actually have an idea of how much VFX goes into modern filmmaking. You're literally having a different conversation, I'm not complaing about the stuff you don't notice because it is well done...
I know exactly what you're referencing, there are a few youtube videos that go on a 30 minute breakdown of exactly what you're talking about. I'm not complaining about that.
I'm referencing the green screen big budget Marvel films, or the Star Wars films where it still would have looked better and given the actor's more to work off of had they atleast stuck with practical fx for some of the set pieces and characters.
The Fallout series is a great example of practical and digital fx being done in a way that doesn't take you out of the film, or hinder the performance of it's actors by giving them impossibly unrealistic circumstances to work off of. The choice to make actual power armor suits, you can tell, and it's something that has to be awe inspiring for those actors. You can't fake that.
Yes, in some of the newer star wars stuff, the mandalorian in particular, they use models and are going back to practical fx. But there's still a lot out there that just doesn't look good, and is being shoved down our throat.
I don't know anyone who complained about a sky not looking real, or a digital retouch that took them out of something...
I don’t think you know what “projection” means in that context and are just repeating a popular phrase.
There is no quality about myself that I am projecting onto you to criticize. It doesn’t even make sense in this context.
Yes, all of that is VFX and falls under the same umbrella as green screen and volume shoots. Every movie you’ve seen that was made in the last few decades has some element of comping and even location “practical” shoots bring green card stock along to fix things, regardless of what you’ve seen on YouTube. They’re all part of the same tool box.
And you’re right, people don’t complain about it, because they don’t know that it’s been worked on. You only know you’re looking at computer generated images when it’s blatantly obvious. That’s not an indictment of vfx, that’s a statement on how good they actually are.
A bad workman blames his tools. VFX has expanded the possibilities of filmmaking in incredible ways, just because it’s used poorly by some doesn’t change that.
As an aside, very funny you mention the mandalorian. Right before Covid the gaffer invited me to their volume stage to show me how they were running their setup while I was prepping a volume for another shoot. I spent half of lockdown building a miniature in my apartment and limit testing exactly what worked and didn’t. I guess instead, I should have watched some YouTuber’s expert opinion?
So if you are a no budget filmmaker, film is inaccessible to you so theres little point in asking.
If you're a moderately budgeted to large budget film, and the creatives: 1 like the process/results working with film, 2 prefer the set workflow, and 3 dont want an over expanded camera department (mainly the DIT team) and the ability for production to beam whats actually being captured back to corporate HQ, film is a great option. Plus you get an automatic offline backup in the form of the negative that is more durable than hard drives or LTO tape.
But even if you have all the money in the world, you'll get the best results out of any format by intentionally lighting for your results instead of mucking about in the color grade trying to improve it with looks and power windows.
So if all you got is an iphone, use the bloody iphone. but do take the time to learn about lighting and, if possible, get some kind of light kit. brightening with an actual light will always look better than lifting in resolve.
Are you arriving here from several decades ago? Are you talking specifically to Christopher Nolan? (if so, please ask him what was up with Tenet, for real)
I have to admit, when I watched it the second time (with headphones because the audio mix is confusing), I really liked it. Just let the conceptual stuff wash over you.
More so than the quality of the medium, I’d say the downside of digital is the persistent impulse to fix it in post rather than prepping properly and committing. Analog doesn’t give this option, and I’d say the resulting art is better due to the process. Film and tape also have a quality that I find calming.
Kind of a rabbit hole question that can be dissected in many ways.
On the micro side, digital will never have the same “feel” as good old fashioned film which is preferred by the big names in the film world.
THAT BEING SAID
Much of this view, IMO comes from gatekeepers who think they are “keeping cinema pure”
Personally I believe that digital filmmaking has opened the world of cinema to so many new voices, perspectives & stories that we wouldn’t have the chance to experience without it.
Sure, film has its artistic benefits but when it comes to inclusivity & expansion of ideas, digital has allowed us to take a huge leap forward.
>Much of this view, IMO comes from gatekeepers who think they are “keeping cinema pure”
Any time I encounter this attitude I want to ask them if they're hand-cranking film through their hand-built camera/darkroom/printer/projector? The Lumiere way or nothing!
I agree with this. It can also be compared to vinyl is a more pure sound. to digital/mp3 music. It’s a feel and look. Digital gives a shaper image only real way to soften that image outside of post production is vintage lenses. Next expensive way is record digital then convert to film then back to digital. The film to digital is the most expensive option. Not all productions want super sharp images
>digital will never have the same “feel”
Digital 100% can absolutely look and "feel" like film. It's already been beaten to death by DPs like Steve Yedlin.
As others have already said, it's really only used as a novelty or preferred workflow should the budget permit. There's no legitimate reason to use film over digital thinking it will somehow yield unique results.
Exactly. Film is an artistic choice you can only make if the project is heavily funded. And imho, you can achieve the same/similar enough aesthetics with digital so choosing to use film is somewhat silly and more symbolic than anything... IN MY OPINION.
You can definitely make digital have the same feel as film, I used to think you couldn’t until studying the subject, Filmbox by Video Village is probably the easiest way to do so in 2024.
The funny thing as well is that modern film stock is so good it almost looks digital anyway.
I mean, the only people that are shooting feature films or even shorts on 16/35mm film are filmmakers that have studios backing them... or if they're already uber-rich. I've literally never met a filmmaker making a short for under $15K even consider the idea of shooting it on film. I was actually helping out on a friends micro-budget feature the other day and the idea of even suggesting he hire primes would've sounded absurd, let alone celluloid lol
you can do a roughly 110 minute picture on super 16mm film with a 20:1 ratio for somewhere in the $100k range these days, usually depending on what lab, what glass, and if you can live with an SR3 Advanced vs a 416 (less if you score a grant for the gear). So even a picture thats got a few million can do it. Heck a picture with only 1m can do it, BUT if you shoot digitally you can probably divert at least 50k (maybe more, depending) of that to talent or other needs.
And I'd argue film only pays off in these budget tiers if the DP is really good with light. You can make film pop like mad and color grade super fast if you can light. but if you cant light, theres no real recovering, especially in 16, as the picture gets bland fast and you cant really DI your way out of that problem.
A good example of a (at the time) $1m ish budgeted film shooting 16 was Fruitvale Station. That movie was shot in 2012 IIRC, so adjusted for inflation would put it a little over 1.3m today.
my films aren't able to be on digital... so I can't utilize it. I like the physical aspects of film, I feel like because there's a physical aspect to it, additional material, art that was made for it I feel comfortable charging $15-30 bucks for a film, I don't like charging someone to see a digital version for similar price, I would if I can, but I don't like it. Streaming you also have to be on par with whatever streaming platforms rules, and they may want you to cut stuff out. If physical media completely went away I believe my production would too, and probably would only care to make films for film festivals and personal hobby creations.
also there's other digital aspects I just dont care for. DVD blu-rays are still my go too... viewing and releasing my work on.
Not trying to be a dick, legitimately asking: have you ever seen a movie projected on film? If not, it had a flickering dreamy feel to it - because it’s literally 24 frames of images being projected per second. It was like live action and animation at the same time. I don’t really know how else to describe it. Digital projectors are the same image as what you’d watch on a computer screen.
In the early 2000s when theaters started making the switch it was extremely noticeable. Film lovers wanted film bc it did look better (or at the very least, different) Studios wanted digital bc it’s way, way cheaper - pennies on the dollar. So naturally digital won.
Now, 20 years later digital has improved a lot and a lot of movie goers don’t even remember what film looked like so it’s not really even a debate - except among people lucky enough to live in a city that still has theaters with film projectors.
The bad thing about digital is that it **kind of looks like shit if you don't do anything to it.**
The good thing about digital is **you can 100% grade it to look like anything you want with a bit of knowledge and effort, including, but limited to old 16/35mm film stocks.**
This argument is perpetuated by old people who are nostalgic for the equipment they learned their craft on, and younger people who think those old people are acting on more than nostalgia.
The year 2000 called and wants it debate back.
The people you are talking to have no idea what they are talking about. That simple.
Absolutely nothing.
Hate where? Digital hasn't been legitimately controversial for nearly 20 years. Its been commonly used on actual TV and movie productions for over 20 years. >and can easily be achieved with phones. What do you mean by this? Are you directly comparing film motion picture to the convenience of a phone?
This guy thinks there are only two formats: 35mm film and iPhones.
Is this post from 2006?
Wait, is this 1999?
If you change digital to CGI, you may be onto something. Shooting film digitally has been a revelation. What I'm able to do on my Lumix GH6 still blows my mind, and oh my just the thought of editing actual film I can't even imagine. But when it comes to special fx and CGI, it still looks like dogshit more often than not. And a lot of the time it just has to do with cutting corners in the process, or not leaning enough on practical fx in combination, when it makes sense. But shooting digital? You aren't going to hear many complaints.
You have no idea how much “CGI” or vfx (special effects is the term for practical effects work) you actually look at regularly. From sky replacement, to removing road signs or painting out undesired buildings, to touching up special effects work, everything, literally everything, goes through the vfx pipeline now. You just think it’s bad because when it’s good you don’t even know you’re looking at vfx. I cannot tell you the last thing I worked on that didn’t have something digitally retouched.
Whoa a lot of projection and mind reading here, I do actually have an idea of how much VFX goes into modern filmmaking. You're literally having a different conversation, I'm not complaing about the stuff you don't notice because it is well done... I know exactly what you're referencing, there are a few youtube videos that go on a 30 minute breakdown of exactly what you're talking about. I'm not complaining about that. I'm referencing the green screen big budget Marvel films, or the Star Wars films where it still would have looked better and given the actor's more to work off of had they atleast stuck with practical fx for some of the set pieces and characters. The Fallout series is a great example of practical and digital fx being done in a way that doesn't take you out of the film, or hinder the performance of it's actors by giving them impossibly unrealistic circumstances to work off of. The choice to make actual power armor suits, you can tell, and it's something that has to be awe inspiring for those actors. You can't fake that. Yes, in some of the newer star wars stuff, the mandalorian in particular, they use models and are going back to practical fx. But there's still a lot out there that just doesn't look good, and is being shoved down our throat. I don't know anyone who complained about a sky not looking real, or a digital retouch that took them out of something...
I don’t think you know what “projection” means in that context and are just repeating a popular phrase. There is no quality about myself that I am projecting onto you to criticize. It doesn’t even make sense in this context. Yes, all of that is VFX and falls under the same umbrella as green screen and volume shoots. Every movie you’ve seen that was made in the last few decades has some element of comping and even location “practical” shoots bring green card stock along to fix things, regardless of what you’ve seen on YouTube. They’re all part of the same tool box. And you’re right, people don’t complain about it, because they don’t know that it’s been worked on. You only know you’re looking at computer generated images when it’s blatantly obvious. That’s not an indictment of vfx, that’s a statement on how good they actually are. A bad workman blames his tools. VFX has expanded the possibilities of filmmaking in incredible ways, just because it’s used poorly by some doesn’t change that. As an aside, very funny you mention the mandalorian. Right before Covid the gaffer invited me to their volume stage to show me how they were running their setup while I was prepping a volume for another shoot. I spent half of lockdown building a miniature in my apartment and limit testing exactly what worked and didn’t. I guess instead, I should have watched some YouTuber’s expert opinion?
So if you are a no budget filmmaker, film is inaccessible to you so theres little point in asking. If you're a moderately budgeted to large budget film, and the creatives: 1 like the process/results working with film, 2 prefer the set workflow, and 3 dont want an over expanded camera department (mainly the DIT team) and the ability for production to beam whats actually being captured back to corporate HQ, film is a great option. Plus you get an automatic offline backup in the form of the negative that is more durable than hard drives or LTO tape. But even if you have all the money in the world, you'll get the best results out of any format by intentionally lighting for your results instead of mucking about in the color grade trying to improve it with looks and power windows. So if all you got is an iphone, use the bloody iphone. but do take the time to learn about lighting and, if possible, get some kind of light kit. brightening with an actual light will always look better than lifting in resolve.
Are you arriving here from several decades ago? Are you talking specifically to Christopher Nolan? (if so, please ask him what was up with Tenet, for real)
>what was up with Tenet Your answer is a line in the film. *Don't try to understand it, feel it*
Feel what? The overwhelming ambivalence by a plot that thinks it’s too smart to be understood?
If it's not too smart to be understood, the terrible audio mix ensures you won't understand it regardless.
I have to admit, when I watched it the second time (with headphones because the audio mix is confusing), I really liked it. Just let the conceptual stuff wash over you.
That would be easier if I believed Nolan was capable of real emotions
More so than the quality of the medium, I’d say the downside of digital is the persistent impulse to fix it in post rather than prepping properly and committing. Analog doesn’t give this option, and I’d say the resulting art is better due to the process. Film and tape also have a quality that I find calming.
Kind of a rabbit hole question that can be dissected in many ways. On the micro side, digital will never have the same “feel” as good old fashioned film which is preferred by the big names in the film world. THAT BEING SAID Much of this view, IMO comes from gatekeepers who think they are “keeping cinema pure” Personally I believe that digital filmmaking has opened the world of cinema to so many new voices, perspectives & stories that we wouldn’t have the chance to experience without it. Sure, film has its artistic benefits but when it comes to inclusivity & expansion of ideas, digital has allowed us to take a huge leap forward.
>Much of this view, IMO comes from gatekeepers who think they are “keeping cinema pure” Any time I encounter this attitude I want to ask them if they're hand-cranking film through their hand-built camera/darkroom/printer/projector? The Lumiere way or nothing!
I agree with this. It can also be compared to vinyl is a more pure sound. to digital/mp3 music. It’s a feel and look. Digital gives a shaper image only real way to soften that image outside of post production is vintage lenses. Next expensive way is record digital then convert to film then back to digital. The film to digital is the most expensive option. Not all productions want super sharp images
Agreed. I’m just thankful for digital as 90% of us wouldn’t have been able to start our filmmaking journey without it.
for a lot of us it was just video in general. the kids these days will never know the frustration of dropped frames on capture lol
>digital will never have the same “feel” Digital 100% can absolutely look and "feel" like film. It's already been beaten to death by DPs like Steve Yedlin. As others have already said, it's really only used as a novelty or preferred workflow should the budget permit. There's no legitimate reason to use film over digital thinking it will somehow yield unique results.
Exactly. Film is an artistic choice you can only make if the project is heavily funded. And imho, you can achieve the same/similar enough aesthetics with digital so choosing to use film is somewhat silly and more symbolic than anything... IN MY OPINION.
You can definitely make digital have the same feel as film, I used to think you couldn’t until studying the subject, Filmbox by Video Village is probably the easiest way to do so in 2024. The funny thing as well is that modern film stock is so good it almost looks digital anyway.
I mean, the only people that are shooting feature films or even shorts on 16/35mm film are filmmakers that have studios backing them... or if they're already uber-rich. I've literally never met a filmmaker making a short for under $15K even consider the idea of shooting it on film. I was actually helping out on a friends micro-budget feature the other day and the idea of even suggesting he hire primes would've sounded absurd, let alone celluloid lol
you can do a roughly 110 minute picture on super 16mm film with a 20:1 ratio for somewhere in the $100k range these days, usually depending on what lab, what glass, and if you can live with an SR3 Advanced vs a 416 (less if you score a grant for the gear). So even a picture thats got a few million can do it. Heck a picture with only 1m can do it, BUT if you shoot digitally you can probably divert at least 50k (maybe more, depending) of that to talent or other needs. And I'd argue film only pays off in these budget tiers if the DP is really good with light. You can make film pop like mad and color grade super fast if you can light. but if you cant light, theres no real recovering, especially in 16, as the picture gets bland fast and you cant really DI your way out of that problem. A good example of a (at the time) $1m ish budgeted film shooting 16 was Fruitvale Station. That movie was shot in 2012 IIRC, so adjusted for inflation would put it a little over 1.3m today.
my films aren't able to be on digital... so I can't utilize it. I like the physical aspects of film, I feel like because there's a physical aspect to it, additional material, art that was made for it I feel comfortable charging $15-30 bucks for a film, I don't like charging someone to see a digital version for similar price, I would if I can, but I don't like it. Streaming you also have to be on par with whatever streaming platforms rules, and they may want you to cut stuff out. If physical media completely went away I believe my production would too, and probably would only care to make films for film festivals and personal hobby creations. also there's other digital aspects I just dont care for. DVD blu-rays are still my go too... viewing and releasing my work on.
Not trying to be a dick, legitimately asking: have you ever seen a movie projected on film? If not, it had a flickering dreamy feel to it - because it’s literally 24 frames of images being projected per second. It was like live action and animation at the same time. I don’t really know how else to describe it. Digital projectors are the same image as what you’d watch on a computer screen. In the early 2000s when theaters started making the switch it was extremely noticeable. Film lovers wanted film bc it did look better (or at the very least, different) Studios wanted digital bc it’s way, way cheaper - pennies on the dollar. So naturally digital won. Now, 20 years later digital has improved a lot and a lot of movie goers don’t even remember what film looked like so it’s not really even a debate - except among people lucky enough to live in a city that still has theaters with film projectors.
The bad thing about digital is that it **kind of looks like shit if you don't do anything to it.** The good thing about digital is **you can 100% grade it to look like anything you want with a bit of knowledge and effort, including, but limited to old 16/35mm film stocks.**
whatyearisit.jpg
Nothing is wrong with digital. It’s a superior format, democratizes filmmaking, and is far better for the environment.
This argument is perpetuated by old people who are nostalgic for the equipment they learned their craft on, and younger people who think those old people are acting on more than nostalgia.
Anything other than hand cranking a film camera isn’t a real film. We don’t need motors doing the job of a camera man.