Could Digital Kill Film?

[Robin R Probyn]

Ah, the invocation of the cappuccino, beret and arty cigarette - the last desperate refuge in arguing a point of view. What's wrong with berets, anyway. Had a cappuccino the other day it was rather good.

 

 

Nothing wrong with each item.. its the sum total... served with a large slice of naivety .. :) a student in Turkey is telling us that all the recent Deakins films dont look good.. presumably because they were not shot on film.. this is all from people who would struggle to light an interview .. I mean really..

[Keith Walters]

It was some years back and I can't remember exactly when, but I'd had a trying couple of days with a team of bozos wanting to bum equipment to make a student film. And as is so often the case, it was almost like they were expecting Panavision to pay them for the privilege of participating in this tour-de-force of fresh, exciting young film-making.
Yep, the beret and arty cigarette image sums it up perfectly, along with the hipster beards when it wasn't fashionable to have beards.

But I nearly pissed myself laughing when a couple of days after that there was a documentary on the ABC (similar to the US PBS) about the history of Australian student film making. There was footage from the early 60s, and I swear, the cinematic hopefuls in that looked identical to the bozos who had been making our lives difficult over the previoust few days....

[Aapo Lettinen]

I think the problem with student films generally could be that the persons haven't yet found their own voices and style and thus it is mostly testing techniques of well known filmmakers and copying their styles for making a kind of mashup...

 

It's like learning to play guitar but not having any voice of your own so you are just playing the music other people have made, the same songs everyone else is playing, and trying to copy their style 1:1, and worshipping some of those idolised artists when dissing the others. and claiming that one HAS TO HAVE certain brand guitar and pickups to archive THE sound which is the only one which should be used in "ANY MUSIC" and only one playing style is the right one ;)

 

It's, how would I say, kind of narrow-minded approach to the world and will be faded away when one learns more and begins to find one's own style and techniques. just check Youtube for example, how many freaking Chandelier or Shape of You covers plaguing the place or channels repeating "cool science experiments" others have done a few million times. or slightly differently edited versions of the same cat or dog videos or "people get hurt and others laughing" material stolen from the user who stole it from the other who stole from who knows where :ph34r:

 

So little original content, so little creativity, just freakin covers and remakes and copy paste content all over the place and everyone wants to do more of them instead of trying to do something of their own, something more valuable and touching and beautiful :( not just another "crappy looking and boring Ridley Scott or Chris Nolan or A. Kurosawa imitation with shoestring budget to test a new camera and led lights"

[Robin R Probyn]

Student films are not the problem .. but a certain self important, arrogant attitude that can sometimes accompany it.. where is the humility of being a student gone.. I was a film school student.. the idea that we would say that Roger Deakins recent films looked like rubbish would have got you laughed out of the room.. or at least embarrassed silence .. and you would be branded a bit of a bell end .. now its seems de rigueur .. we have constantly on this forum.. those with the very least skill sets regularly rubbishing the work of some of the most experienced and accomplished DP,d and Dir in the world of cinema.. its good for a laugh.. but really has to be called every now and again..

[fatih yıkar]

Student films are not the problem .. but a certain self important, arrogant attitude that can sometimes accompany it.. where is the humility of being a student gone.. I was a film school student.. the idea that we would say that Roger Deakins recent films looked like rubbish would have got you laughed out of the room.. or at least embarrassed silence .. and you would be branded a bit of a bell end .. now its seems de rigueur .. we have constantly on this forum.. those with the very least skill sets regularly rubbishing the work of some of the most experienced and accomplished DP,d and Dir in the world of cinema.. its good for a laugh.. but really has to be called every now and again..

 

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with each item.. its the sum total... served with a large slice of naivety .. :) a student in Turkey is telling us that all the recent Deakins films dont look good.. presumably because they were not shot on film.. this is all from people who would struggle to light an interview .. I mean really..

 

Why Mr.deakins can not be criticized? If one of the best Dp in the we world said about film vs digital argument '' these are just tools'' everybody can say something, as a result these are just tools not important, right?

And i'm not using a word ''rubbish'' i said ''not look good'' there is a big difference between two words..

 

My problem not with Mr.Deakins, generally about the technology. I didn't watch blade runner 2049 at theather because principally not go to movies shot digitally but from trailer ıt's look like video-game not looking realistic. Digital fit some genres and movies like john wick, neon demon etc.. but not fit a sci-fi movie. Sci-fi movies are not in a real world (maybe someday will) but digital, digital grading make this world much more unreal. You can't believe the story,world,characters, ıt's not convincing...

 

I love the Mr.Deakins but his old movies (sid and nancy,barton fink,hudsucker proxy,shawshank,dead man walking,fargo,lebowski,Siege,man who wasn't there,village,Jesse James,No Country,doubt) every single of these movies looking better than his recent works. Also all time i use the term of '' for me'' expression, i don't use general expressions i don't make certain judgement...

[Justin Hayward]

 

 

Digital fit some genres and movies like john wick, neon demon etc.. but not fit a sci-fi movie. Sci-fi movies are not in a real world (maybe someday will) but digital, digital grading make this world much more unreal. You can't believe the story,world,characters, ıt's not convincing...

 

In retort, I will now declare my subjective opinion as fact! So there. :P

[Heikki Repo]

Sorry, I'm a real celluloid film fan and I want to shoot as much as possible on real film, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with Bladerunner cinematography. It looked really nice and it was a very beautiful movie, at least imho.

[Manu Delpech]

I don't think we should pay too much attention to fatih. Not being mean, but everything he says is patently untrue. And I'm one of those who thinks Deakins' work on digital doesn't touch his best work on film, I still think so, but BR 2049 is definitely one of his best, and I'm by no means favorable to digital in any way.

 

Also, "digital grading?", I've got news for you pal, 99 % of the motion pictures out there go through a DI, even those shot on film, a photochemical finish is a luxury.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Manu Delpech

[fatih yıkar]

Sorry, I'm a real celluloid film fan and I want to shoot as much as possible on real film, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with Bladerunner cinematography. It looked really nice and it was a very beautiful movie, at least imho.

 

I don't think we should pay too much attention to fatih. Not being mean, but everything he says is patently untrue. And I'm one of those who thinks Deakins' work on digital doesn't touch his best work on film, I still think so, but BR 2049 is definitely one of his best, and I'm by no means favorable to digital in any way.

 

Also, "digital grading?", I've got news for you pal, 99 % of the motion pictures out there go through a DI, even those shot on film, a photochemical finish is a luxury.

 

I'm just saying my own thought and i respect all different ideas, i wanna hear it different viewpoints like somebody can say sci-fi movies not set on real world that's why doesn't have to be look real with natural colors, that's view...

 

As i understand you both like new blade runner and finding beautiful when you compare other digital movies. I agree, i can say the same thing BR2049 looking good but as a digitally . This thread was ''can digital kill film?'' so i i'm thinking film vs digital way.

Sorry but i finding more beautiful and consider a good cinematography original blade runner,alien,total recall and the other movies minority report,artificial Intelligence,event horizon,dark city,fifth element etc..

[Tyler Purcell]

If anything, the beauty of Blade Runner 2049 was in the lighting rigs. Deakins even said how the work he did on BR had some of the most complex rigs he had ever used, and I believe him.

 

One of the reasons Deakins Digital movies look so different is because in his own admission, he can do things with digital he can't with film. Since you can see the final image right there on set, you can push the medium much harder and KNOW exactly what it's going to look like.

 

By the same token, there is something "missing" when you watch BR. Whether it's the longer lenses of the original movie (Deakins likes to use things on the wider side), whether it's the "HDR" look or even the lack of rich blacks, there is something "amiss" when you watch it. Heck, I saw the trailer on 70mm twice and I still felt there was something odd about it. Don't get me wrong, It's not a "technology" issue, it's the fact THANKS to technology, we can do things we normally wouldn't be able to. So filmmakers who shoot digital like film, generally get a very "filmic" image from it.

 

Blade Runner 2049 was Deakins spin on the BR world and I thought he did a great job. Had I not been so adverse to the script, I would have liked it more.

[Jon O'Brien]

I think fatih has made some very fair points. People seem to get troubled when a famous name is invoked but I think that's just part and parcel of the arts. Deakins himself isn't being attacked - fatih's comments are aimed at a huge overhaul of cinema. It doesn't matter that it was 10 years ago. That doesn't mean anything really. Students should be encouraged to make comments on what they like. He's saying that his mates feel the same way too - and that they know film. Some like their steak rare, others medium rare, others don't eat meat at all. Deakins is at the very top - his position is assured. It's digital vs film that is the subject here - not the abilities and talents of individuals. It's just a variation on "Oh, I think rap is boring, I prefer jazz." I agree with fatih that a film shot on film improves the entertainment value of that film because it looks better. But that's just me. Most others don't care, so they say. I'm still not convinced though. There is a resurgence of interest in film projection, and I suspect it's not going to go away any time soon. Queues going around the block? I haven't seen that since I was a kid:

 

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/dunkirk-70mm-screenings-of-christopher-nolans-film-at-astor-sunk-by-distributor-20170713-gxafaq.html

Edited October 25, 2017 by Jon O'Brien

[David Hessel]

Something might have got lost in translation but reading his comments my take away is that he feels it doesn't matter how well acted, well directed, well scripted, or how great the cinematography is - a movie cannot be good if it was shot on digitial. The only way to have a chance of making a good movie is to shoot on film. For me that that is going beyond subjective opinion and is worthy of some criticism.

[Jon O'Brien]

In my opinion fatih is correct when he points out that shooting on film will help a good or great script. But that's just the opinion of some. The look of a movie has a big influence on how enjoyable the cinema going experience is. If you're watching it on tv, it's still very important there too. I can tell on tv if something is shot on film. So if this is all just opinion, what's the point of this thread? Because film lovers want to make sure film doesn't get killed by video, which nearly happened. We keep saying, and it's blatantly true, that most current cinema is projected digital tv. We've already got that at home. Yes, sure, people still want to go out.

[Samuel Berger]

Something might have got lost in translation but reading his comments my take away is that he feels it doesn't matter how well acted, well directed, well scripted, or how great the cinematography is - a movie cannot be good if it was shot on digitial. The only way to have a chance of making a good movie is to shoot on film. For me that that is going beyond subjective opinion and is worthy of some criticism.

 

I don't know. I'm trying to think if I myself have ever liked anything live action on the big screen that was ever shot on digital. I can't think of anything.

[Jon O'Brien]

I think a movie can be great and very entertaining if shot on digital. I just like the look of film even better. It's got to be said - many think so too.

Edited October 25, 2017 by Jon O'Brien

[Samuel Berger]

I think a movie can be great and very entertaining if shot on digital. I just like the look of film even better. It's got to be said - many think so too.

 

Maybe I'll run into such a movie some day. So far, unless I'm watching it on tv, digital videos look "off" on the big screen and it gets me out of the experience.

[Jon O'Brien]

Anyway, what's the big deal? Can't people just re-tool? Is that really such a difficult thing as long as there's a market?

[Jon O'Brien]

I can tell on tv if something is shot on film.

 

Okay, not always.

[David Hessel]

 

I don't know. I'm trying to think if I myself have ever liked anything live action on the big screen that was ever shot on digital. I can't think of anything.

I am sorry but if you are saying that if you could watch the exact same movie shot both on film and digitally, love the one shot on film and dislike the one shot digitally then you are not there to experience the film, you are only looking at pretty pictures. That is the thing I find most rediculous about these kinds of statements.

[Samuel Berger]

I am sorry but if you are saying that if you could watch the exact same movie shot both on film and digitally, love the one shot on film and dislike the one shot digitally then you are not there to experience the film, you are only looking at pretty pictures. That is the thing I find most rediculous about these kinds of statements.

 

Tommy Wiseau shot "The Room" in both film and digital at the same time. It's awful, but at least the film version looks better.

[fatih yıkar]

Something might have got lost in translation but reading his comments my take away is that he feels it doesn't matter how well acted, well directed, well scripted, or how great the cinematography is - a movie cannot be good if it was shot on digitial. The only way to have a chance of making a good movie is to shoot on film. For me that that is going beyond subjective opinion and is worthy of some criticism.

 

I'm sorry that if i misunderstood, yeah my english not well as you see sometimes i can not express myself correclty..

 

About the something shot on digital can not be good movie, i never meant that but everytime i watch a movie shot on digital i can't stop myself saying that ''God i wish that was shot on film, finished photochemically. I defend the idea shooting on film really increase power of movie..

 

''well acted, well directed, well scripted,'' about that thing, i give an example of new twin peaks has this all specifications and not just twin peaks all new hollywood movies all the remakes,reboot,sequels has this specifications they hire best dp best director best writer but can't make good movies as before..Producers didn't find a solution but my advice is maybe the problem look of movies changed in years and maybe people don't like new look of movies but can't say that because they can't notice. Maybe the human eyes can't find digital as cinematic i'm not sure or not expert..

 

Every year movies that i liked decreasing, last year i only like (la la land) and (fantastic beats)shot on digital but i wish it look like early hary potter movies.I like the (fantastic beats) because the plot and action reminds me 80s family-adventure movies like back to future-The Goonies...

 

I'm horror fan and movies in recent years (ıt follows,get out,10 cloverfield lane,the witch) they are good and clever horror movies love them but i wish they had similar look or closer cinematography that movies has (the others,sixth sense,jeepers creepers,candyman,scream or Jacob's Ladder)..That way i believe this new movies increases their influence on audience...

Edited October 26, 2017 by fatih yıkar

[Robin R Probyn]

If you guys are going to the cinema to pixel peep with some sort of cultist dogma against digital... you are really missing out on the cinema experience .. and frankly wasting your money.. very few students will be able to go through their career stipulating in their work conditions they will only work on film.. might as well save yourself the grief and become a dentist..

 

And sorry but for a student to say that Roger Deakins "recent work is not very good" because its digital ?.. is really embarrassing and has to be called..

[fatih yıkar]

If you guys are going to the cinema to pixel peep with some sort of cultist dogma against digital... you are really missing out on the cinema experience .. and frankly wasting your money.. very few students will be able to go through their career stipulating in their work conditions they will only work on film.. might as well save yourself the grief and become a dentist..

 

And sorry but for a student to say that Roger Deakins "recent work is not very good" because its digital ?.. is really embarrassing and has to be called..

 

I dont like his recent works especially when i compare with them his old works, WHAT'S THE THE BİG DEAL

I don't like look of ın time,skyfall(not every scene) ,prisoners, unbroken, sicario, hail caesar...

 

I mean ıf these movies looking good, every hollywood movie looking good. We can't criticize any movie. Nowadays many movies looking so similar to each other..

Edited October 26, 2017 by fatih yıkar

[Max Field]

 

Tommy Wiseau shot "The Room" in both film and digital at the same time. It's awful, but at least the film version looks better.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make with that..

[Robin R Probyn]

 

I dont like his recent works especially when i compare with them his old works, WHAT'S THE THE BİG DEAL

I don't like look of ın time,skyfall(not every scene) ,prisoners, unbroken, sicario, hail caesar...

 

I mean ıf these movies looking good, every hollywood movie looking good. We can't criticize any movie. Nowadays many movies looking so similar to each other..

 

The big deal is its like someone who drives golf buggies for a living saying Lewis Hamilton is not a very good driver.. when you have shot a few big feature films and been Oscar nominated a couple of times .. then it might be taken a bit more seriously .. one can criticize a film as a whole for sure.. but to pick out the craft of the DoP specifically, you yourself would have to have some knowledge of the art.. to pass the judgment .. or be taken seriously.. your dislike is based solely on the camera used..or so it seems .. you also dont seem to know about the process,s involved .. e.g. grading as pointed out by another poster..its digital too !..

Im sorry to be on your case.. and even I was young and stupid many years ago.. :).. your just not doing yourself any favors to say that probably the best living DP in the world..18 ? Oscar noms .. latest work is not very good..(esp when it patently is). seemingly based on him using an Alexa..from the lofty position of a student.. its never going to hold water..