Karim D. Ghantous Posted February 26, 2021 Share Posted February 26, 2021 (edited) it. But wait, don't send me hate mail just yet! I wanted to get your attention. No, digital cameras generally do not look like shit. If they did, then nobody would shoot with them. So relax. But, for a lot of situations, film is still the mature choice, and I'm not just talking about subjective metrics. Here, I'm going to prove it. Have a look at this commercial for Michelin: There's nothing (terribly) wrong with it, really. Apart from the fact that nobody corrected the barrel distortion in post (WTF is post for, anyway?). Oh, and the fact that nobody seems to know how to fix the light source problem. It's very distracting. Have a look at the tail lights of the vehicles at 0:07 and 1:17. This is just the way it is for the moment, but I wonder if anyone has solved this problem? I am aware that you can massively underexpose RAW files, far more than you think you can. But, you need the light to do it. And you need a camera that shoots RAW. I've seen all kinds of projects, high end, low end, commercial, narrative, ARRI shoots, Red shoots, what have you. They all fail. The only kind of film that fails this situation is CineStill, which is Vision3 with the Remjet removed, and packaged in 135 cassettes. Perhaps one day, digital cameras will solve this problem. I do look forward to that day, although part of me doesn't want digital to dominate 100%. But, technology progresses. So, DPs of the Internet: what say you? Edited February 26, 2021 by Karim D. Ghantous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.