Jump to content

Younes Boudiaf

Basic Member
  • Content Count

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Younes Boudiaf

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Occupation
    Cinematographer
  • My Gear
    Canon 5D mark iii
  1. Hi everyone, I have watched so many TV shows, interviews with filmmakers and cinematographers about Cinema, and what really drew my attention was their taste or their preferred films ! 99% of them mention a classic ! Stanley Cubrick, sergio leone, Hitchcock, .... films. or even 1920's films ! I am not arguing here about other people tastes, but I want to understand the point of view of our great contemporary directors and cinematographers about their preferred pictures ! And even if you check the Top films of all time, you will find classics on the top, for example in Rotten Tomatoes the first 20 films are made more than 40-80 yeas ago ! except E.T which is 32 :) http://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/bestofrt/ What is special about classics that don't exist in contemporary cinema?
  2. Its in fact a major problem for Digital technology, because so far HDD still the main storage mean for media, and it is not easy to maintain things on HDD technically and also it needs a trained team and special equipment for that, I don't know if they can use also Film for that !! as it cab be stored easily. But Storage technology is developing through time, and maybe SSD technology will solve part of the problem. another problem, which is the Codecs problem ! how many codec are there !? and is it easy to read those files in the future !? The link bellow is an article about media storage. http://www.oscars.org/science-technology/council/projects/dmpafp.html
  3. That was really poetic and romantic, in fact its really subjective as you said, and honestly that doesn't help much to develop or evolve Cinema, people have new vision and technology is evolving in a way that we have to push our imagination to catch up and imagine what will be happening in the next 50 years from now ! and without doubt film still looks better than digital BUT unfortunately will not be better in the future, even digital (0's and 1's) is not the top notch technology, quantum mechanic s are changing concepts and debayering a 6k image will be a task of a phone maybe !! far from subjectivity we are trying to understand how the medium is evolving and how Art vs Business are contributing in this, so choices are not limited i is not just about Film or Digital its is about CINEMA and TOOLS, no matter the tool is the purpose of Cinema is to tell story to people in an artistic and a good way, life is changing and so the tools are ! and nobody still traveling on a Coal train !
  4. Thanks David, you Sum it up !
  5. I am glad to see my controversial post turns to a huge debate that somehow taught us some new things whether in Cinematography or even Physics, however I think most of you misunderstood me, or let's say it was me who was not clear enough to express my point as I am not a native speaker maybe my language was not really clear, FILM or Video/ Digital or Film vs Digital or Film and Digital, I didn't mean to compare the technical specs between Film camera and Digital Camera or Film and a Digital sensor !or Dynamic range, look, texture, grains, sharpness, workflow,... what I really meant is how the medium is evolving, and the acceptance of the experts (Cinematographer/Directors, Producers) as taste makers to use new technologies to move on and help storytelling to evolve, this on one side, on the other side how some of the Directors and Cinematographers refuse to use a new Medium (Digital) and stick to the Film, some of them refuse to use the Digital for its limitations but Some because they Love the look of the Film and they want it to stay as a choice some of them looking forward maybe for evolving it some of them still make fun of Digital ! So, I believe that its both Artists (Cinematographers, Directors,...) and Scientists, are the one who can develop tools for storytelling, but I am still confused why would a great Cinematographer critic the sharpness that a lens constructor spend time and money and technology to enhance it ! why would a great Cinematographer critic a camera that allow him to use a way less light and power to get almost the same look ( the guy hated the fact he is using less light ! I am not comparing the looks here), why would a great Cinematographer insist on grainy look !! ( which I consider as a Limitation), ........ So there is a lot of cinematographer who are not welcoming Digital or let's say a new Medium that is a bit different than what they used to use to tell stories. so in this period maybe the end of transition period from old medium to another, how Filmmakers ( Directors, Cinematographers, Producers,..) can help in this evolution or development of the Medium (Film, Digital, or anything better) for better quality and better methods to tell stories? Regards
  6. I know exactly what you're talking about Manu ! and I know so many people who thinks the way you think with the same taste and not just About FILM (the Silver halide medium) but about other things, and I think we have different ways to approach the subject, I am looking it from the outside and in long term, and you're making the technical differences, and Hell yes Directors still shooting on Film with its grains because its still has a better look not for the sake of the unavoidable grains ! (and by the way I don't hate grains)
  7. Yes indeed I am not a native speaker, English the the third language, so don't expect from me to be Shakespeare, and for the record the idea of camera came from the Eye, so human being is trying to mimic the eye, and grains are not meant to be on film for artistic reasons they are there because human being is still not enough evolved to make something like an Eye ! sharpness wise or Dynamic range or field of view (Fusion camera system for example), so the fact that you like Grains doesn't make them part of the art !!! and those kids are smart if they noticed a Goddamn grain on something that supposed to mimic their eyes !! so please get rid of the grains from mind and let us discuss a bigger picture not some sharpness and silly grains !
  8. My preferred contemporary director is Christopher Nolan, and I love the look of his films which Wally Pfister give and I watched the documentary side by side for more than 10 times ! but I still disagree with Wally Pfister, and also with Chris Nolan about some of what he said ! you can say whatever you want about Film (grained, has a soul, is a god,...) this will not change what technology will give ! yes film has better look ! but HE ( because he has a soul as you mentioned) WILL DIE ! (fortunately or unfortunately it depends on the point of view), its not about nowadays ! this is life and 100 years of Film is nothing compared to centuries of science developing. and I am pretty sure that Wally or Chris will soon or late use Digital or any other Medium that will give awaaaaaaaaaay better quality in other aspects than Film or nowadays Digital and I am sure that he will not just trade his oil ! but he will throw it out ! and also my eyesight doesn't have grains !! so why should I care for God sake about GRAINS in Film ! its a choice and its a part of the evolution process of the Cinema we will always mention it in history as we will mention Digital one day the 00's and 1's of the Digital when Quantum tech will take place ! so please don't see with a long focal lens make your lenses wide and look at the big picture.
  9. Organic ! that's a fact and no one will argue with that. and Digital will never have that magic is totally subjective ! I am not trying to defend digital, Time will do, and anyone can deduce from how Film has been improved through years and also how Digital has been also improved through time, that one day image will not look this way in the next maybe 50 years, and I don't care if it is Film or Digital..
  10. Bill, what I said doesn't mean at all that I am asking people to use Digital and stop using film or stop loving film and its look, and I'll be pleased if they can make it better than now. the only thing that I care about is the quality, Digital or Film or even a new medium or technique that can be used, I know that there is a lot of things that are going on now (there is even camera that can take more than 4 trillion fps in a low res, Focus free cameras) so in the future so many things will change, so if film will compete also to make something better, everybody will be pleased.
  11. Thank you John for your informative reply, I certainly agree that ALL Cinematographers/ directors choose whatever they need FILM or DIGITAL to accomplish their stories, in fact I am talking about a bigger picture, I am just against some orthodox point of view against digital, some of the big names are even making fun of DIGITAL medium and I am pretty sure some of them are afraid that they will lose the voodoo they used to have ! now with digital they have more competitors than old days. so some of the open-minded ones adapted with the new technology and conditions and start using whatever it takes to tell a story and stopped praising old things ! and one day history will mention the people who participate in making a certain technology useful and beautiful, I am certainly also not against film, I even still prefer its quality in a certain concept, but we can use Film and at the same moment participate in the evolution process of the digital, because one day no one will use film because at that time digital will be certainly better in all aspects ! so no one will use expensive and and a not so good thing ! at the end I hope everybody (especially qualified cinematographer) will help doing the right thing to help things go on, and not taking one side just because they like how it looks or works at that time, Film started more than a century ago , and cinema will continue to exist until the end of the days ! so you can imagine what technology will give us in the next dozens of years or even centuries !
  12. John, 1) I don't think that a digital camera can make a movie by itself ! DP has to compose and paint scenes with light along with other responsibilities. its the same for painters, you don't have to use oil on Canvas to be an Artist ! 2).. 3) I believe in quality, but the billion dollars that Avatar got or any blockbuster film came from people that 90% of them if not more doesn't make difference between sharp or too sharp or an image came from film or digital camera ! they even don't even realize that some of the scenes in a movie are in 3D Animation or so. Anthony Dod Mantle got an Oscar in Slumdog Milionaire using sometimes a sensor with laptop (SI camera) he even uses a Canon 1D ! My point is, I want that people see the big picture and respect what others use to tell stories as long as it make it in a good way. I can mention an example here : Roger Deakins is using Digital and he never used Anamorphic glass (if I am not mistaken) and he still one of the Gurus ! he is open to use any technique that makes storytelling better and easier.
  13. Hi everyone I am sorry if I brought such a subject which has been discussed I guess so many times which is Film vs Digital, I don’t want to discuss the technical aspect I want more to see your opinion about the evolution of cinema and how tools can help doing this I watched recently the THR (The Hollywood reporter) roundtable (Cinematographers) you can watch in the link bellow. And they started as usual praising Film, which still looks better than Digital until NOWDAYS and I am sure Digital will surpass it in the next decade. And I can quote some what they said: Bruno Delbonnel “we are going from watchmaking if I may say so, an ArriFlex Camera or a Panavision Camera were like a Swiss Watchmaker, it was really precise, it cost a fortune .. $300k and now we gonna use camera which gonna be $2000, the problem is It’s an economical decision it’s not an Artistic decision, ….. “ With all my respect to them, First off, I don’t know if the guy has a clue about Digital cameras prices or he is comparing Film Camera to Panasonic DSLR’s !! And something that we really have to know, is it really just about money? Or Cinema/video tools have to evolve to give us better tools in the future that we can use to better tell stories ? If you watch the Roundtable, you find a lot of opinions regarding Old vs New tools which is for me a kind of “Orthodox” traditional way of thinking, that some of the Great Cinematographers still believe in, not just in this roundtable but in general, I would like quote some other things that have been said (About lenses sharpness, film grains, look, 3D,…) but I guess the post is long enough to mention this here. And I hope I can discuss this in details if people are interested To put it in a nutshell, Are we supposed to take care of Digital, evolve it in way it can be better than Film and even to Mimic Film for Film look lovers, or still praising film until the end of the days? Regards
  14. Hahaha That's awesome ! did you know at that time? how the crew reacted to this !?
×
×
  • Create New...