fatih yıkar

David thank you for kind answer, i think i have to explain what i meant with more example, i will open a topic in 3 days and i hope i'm going to clearly show there my view about the difference finished with D.I movies.

If that's so, why the all the photochemical finish movies has a certain look (with a few exceptions) or why i never saw a movie digitally graded look like photochemical?

Only thing i can do frame grabs in that situation, i can't say people go watch the scream 1-2-3-4, hostel 1-2, american pie 1-2-3-4 and see the difference, i have to show what i meant. I notice every decades movies look change 60s,70s,80s,90s looking different than each other but none of this changes disturb me until the digital grading.After that i feel like movies start to look like music videos(which i like some some music videos), movies lost their significance,solemnity,intensity for me... David, i don't understand what is odd.I don't know how much this photochemical finish movies digitally corrected for blu-rays but they don't look like to me digital and i think they still have ''filmic'' elements Stuart i mean when watching Godfather or scream from blu-ray or movies like that color,texture doesn't seem to me digitally as you seen from the screenshots this first(photochemically) movies has different texture and colors. but unless a movie remastered like this i can't say they make so digital adjustment for blu-rays...

As you remember i opened a topic 6 months ago and i share some screenshot, make a comparison...I generally give an example from comedy and horror movies because they make sequels a lot but these pictures really showing what i meant about digital grading and showing what i like.As you seen sequels have digital grading and looking so different from first movies. For me this look is briefly not cinematic and things i said about colors,depness,texture etc..i can't see that features in digital grading movies but this is just my personal thought, everybody has different taste...

This is the thing we can't agree on. I don't think photochemical finish is just about three lights.The things i notice photochemical process adding the picture more texture,more intense looking,depness, natural colors, like ıt's buries the image inside the frame, making it image more balanced,more fluffy, does not destroy the grain but I can't see these things so much nowadays photochemically movies but movies done between 2000 - 2008 really has difference... I can only blame modern film stock and shooting style... Yes movie can go digital environment and just using rgb,replicate the contrast, image maybe look like photochemical finish but i never saw a picture like that and if the these things are not done on modern movies, in my opinion film-makers making wrong decisions in that case.If the digital grading has this potential but no one use, just having possibility does not mean it exists.. I don't miss the gate weave, scratches and dust but this things can be look good on some movie genres. Digital cameras or grading can't even make the colors as beautiful as technicolor 3-strip does which is years ago, so what's the point of all the technology we have after we can't reach the level of beauty that people have 50 years ago...

Paul Thomas Anderson Is Not the DP of 'Phantom Thread'. No One Is. http://nofilmschool.com/2017/11/paul-thomas-anderson-not-dp-phantom-thread http://ew.com/movies/2017/11/02/phantom-thread-paul-thomas-anderson-interview/

:) I mean Digital Color grading process ıt's not just basic scan, i like the color of photochemical finish somehow. If you make the colors in digitally i don't think decision is important anymore because process itself can't give the same results that photochemical gives, as for as i know

I'm not saying ''''scanning film removes all the 'filmic' elements, all the film elements have been removed by the digital process'''''' when i said ''D.I'' i refer to digital grading, digital grading removes filmic elements. Yes watching movies from blu-ray is digital representation but for me movies shot on film,photochemically finish,scanning for blu-ray(without digital adjustment) still have filmic elements.In this way i can make judment and compare movies... Thanks to blu-rays i can say so many old movies looking much better than nowadays movies, otherwise how can i make an assessment, there is no way watching old movies from print..

What do you mean? If ı'm going to say something about movies look, i only need to watch in the theater. The things i said about D.I you can also see the difference and changes from blu-ray my basis is blu-rays. I saw many print but that was years ago so i can't exactly remember how it looks from print. I will open the topic about this subject, i hope i can describe myself there. About ''a movie cannot be good if shot digitally.'' the thing what i insist on, a movie can be good shot on digitally but i can't say same thing for cinematography. For example ''birdman'' is good movie i give the 8.3 points but if the movie has some classic film look (not mean 50s generally 90s) i could give 9.3 points, e.g if ''birdman'' kinda looks like ''jackie brown'' ıt would not be bad... My main problem not film or digital, digital has different own look which how much is true called 'digital' we have to say 'alexa' i guess anyway in these days even if you shot on film movies still looks close to digital and for me every passing year movies looking much more worse, i feel like cinematographically cinema is getting weaker, none of the new movies amazed or excite me anymore cinematographically ..

Early days of D.I i feel the samething, that wasn't so bad, music videos,tv shows looks so filmic but every passing year movies come out from D.I start to look more digital..

What!!!!!! D.I kills the all film elements,destroy grain.texture,deepness make the colors artificial after the D.I revolution movies already start to looking digital before digital cameras...

Tyler, i wonder do you know what type of Ektachrome stock wil back? 100D 5285,160D 5239 like used in 90s-00s or will it be more vintage stocks like 400D 7251,64D 5017,25T 7252 used in 70s-80s movies or maybe kodak will create new Ektachrome which we never seen before... Hope that Ektachrome 160T 5239 will back ''Buffalo 66'' one of mine favorite, all movie look like a polaroid picture love that...

This is one the things i really don't understand about hard lighting, sometimes hard lighting looks so well but sometimes looks so cheap,lack and amateur... E.g. when i looked behind the scenes footage of original evil dead (1981) so many scenes they use hard lighting inside the cabin but ıt's look so well on movie. I guess for using one strong key light make it image more balanced. This is most probably belonging to evil dead 2 e.g.

I saw the interview on kodak website and want to share, it has been a long time i'm not seeing Ektachrome stock shot on 35mm..Burning scene looking so mystical but youtube,vimeo compression awful.. https://www.kodak.com/us/en/motion/Blog/Blog_Post/?contentId=4295004403 .

I think show looks awful to the problem is this show set on 80s but the image look so new, when i watching i don't believe it was set on 80s and dont feeling. It's just look a set in 2017 and dresses,set design from 80s, they only create so much fake 80's look.

David, i wish that couple of scene from ''Love Witch'' shot on Alexa in this way we can make a really fair comparison.. For me i'm not sayin digital and film has so much difference nowadays, movies from old times, 90s and early 00s looking so different than nowadays movies and i think they lookin so much good. Recently i watch the (wonder woman) i can't believe ıt was shot on film because ıt's loooking too digital. I don't know what exactly changes shooting on film process or technologies but only conclusion i have (film stocks changes) and (digital intermediate) responsible for extreme difference.

Before this thread i never thought Digital projection is a big problem. The last movie i watched from film projection maybe 9 years ago, i can't really remember how it looks but i watched several old movies from digital projection, a year ago i saw Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) i can say ıt has the same look to i saw on dvd and blu-ray but i will never know how ıt can be look on film projection..

:) i know we'll never agree on. I can give many examples like (new twin peaks) (new X-files) (dumb and dumber 1994 dumb and Dumber To 2014), (bad santa 2003-bad santa 2 2016) how digital can ruined movies, they may have bad acting,story but at least they can look good as the old ones. Or movies like (scream 4) how digital grading ruined another movie, scream 4 has great acting,well directing,great story and script better than third one and equal to second but movie become failure at boxoffice and criticism.There are so many movies,sequels,tv shows in similar situation.. Last night i watched (spiderman homecoming) nice looking for a digital movie but i can't even compare Sam Raimi's spiderman 1-2, they look stunning.. As cinematographically when you're not look as good as old one or not even try, you are joining a competition 2 points behind... There are many bad movies shot on film and photochemically but when i watching them i say at least ıt's looking good so cinematic so watchable. The movie (Hellraiser:Hellworld 2005) is a bad movie but ıt's look much better than all the horror movies came out these days in my opinion.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0354623/?ref_=ttspec_spec_tt

Ohhhh, maybe he also said that he want to make a remakes of barton fink,shawshank redemption,fargo,big lebowski and want to shot all of them digitally now. ohhhh wait no need to Fargo there is a tv show of fargo which shot on digital and looking much better than original movie according to you, right? :D

Well, i will ask soon :D but somebody ask similiar question before i ask Mr.Deakins wrote ''As I have said many times, I often go to the cinema and I can't tell whether a film has been shot digitally or on film. I have to look it up on imdb. Of course, some stand out as electronic but some also stand out as grainy but a well shot film is a well shot film.'' https://www.rogerdeakins.com/camera/the-problem-of-the-flat-digital-image/

About the '' magic'' staff i wrote that before but i think digital capture the image so close as the human eye sees.For me no magical thing to watch something you can see that every moment in your life but film capture really differently and give another perspective that with no human can see the world that way.It's so magical... ''soulless'' ıt's really hard to explain, i opened a topic 5 months ago and put so many screenshots.Because we talking about visual stuff thats why i try to visualize things that i said. Everytime i put a screenshot everybody said different lighting,lenses,grading,genres etc. in there you can't make comparison but at least it will help to me explain what i'm mean. Which i'm not expert technical stuff... (Everything i said not just about film vs digital. Mainly film+photochemical finish vs digital) Skin color: In digital mostly skin colors to whitish doen't seem to right to my eyes, i really miss that orangish-orangy organic skin color. Reflect: Many lighting setup i notice in digital movies human skin and objects reflect light more than something shooting on film but digital grading also destroy this feature.It's like film absorb that negativity Color: Fully another subject but all time in digital i feel colors are artificial. Blacks are too black, whites are too white.Doesn't feeling right. Harmony: Film+photochemically finish movies has every scene and all the color in the movie are very compatible with each other. they got sweet harmony maybe ıt's relevant to color timing but i notice in digital movies night-morning inside-outside image changes strikingly. Sharpness: I don't why but to my eyes sharpness doesn't look aesthetic, maybe ıt comes from human nature and digital movies,modern lenses too sharp. Depth sense: This is not about focal lengths,format or wide lens thing but film+photochemically movies has some kind of deepness that make you feel the place, movies was shot on more larger than exist, so many time when the camera focus on front object a 3d effects occurs in 2d movie.It's can be done in digital but ıt never feeling the same to me. Texture: Hard to tell but image looking fluffy,puffy something shot on film+photochemical. We are watching things like we are there. Like there was no screen or television between movie and us. İntense looking: Most difficult to describe but Film grain that crystal particles are always on the move. It makes the image alive thing for me.. I hope i'm not disrespectful to anyone, these are just my own thoughts :rolleyes:

From my old post i wrote Deaking is the one of the best Dp in the world there is no doubt that. Yes i'm just a student, i'm sorry that i got no oscar nominations :( , i don't know the rule that you must have oscars nominee before you say something. In recent years i don't take oscars seriously, they taken politically decions. They given nominations just by name. If a movie got so many nominations just because that reason they given best cinematography nomination. They ignore some movies because their genres. There are so many great Dp in the world got no oscar nomination. I'm write a long list that why i don't like Mr.Deakins recent works, because i finding more beautiful so many other movies in those years.. My personal opinion,according to me, i think In 2015 when Sicario nominated, that year (Force Awakens,Bridge of Spies,The Lobster,the witch,Macbeth) deserve to be nominee rather than Sicario In 2014 when Unbroken nominated, that year (Interstellar,Gone Girl,Inherent Vice,Nightcrawler,Fury,Boyhood,Foxcatcher,Mommy,The Rover,Predestination) deserve to be nominee rather than Unbroken In 2013 when Prisoners nominated, that year (Her,Great Gatsby,Dallas Buyers Club,Captain Phillips,Evil dead,Enemy(other Villeneuve movie),Only God Forgives,Great Beauty) deserve to be nominee rather than Prisoners In 2012 when Skyfall nominated,that year (The Master,Argo,Looper,Les Misérables,Moonrise Kingdom,Flight,Holy Motors,Perks of Being a Wallflower,Cloud Atlas,Spring Breakers,Cabin in the Woods,Place Beyond the Pines,Lo imposible,The Paperboy,Beasts of the Southern Wild) deserve to be nominee rather than skyfall In 2010 True Grit nominated, that year (Shutter Island,The Fighter,Blue Valentine,Biutiful,Submarine,Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) deserve to be nominee rather than True Grit And yes i don't like digital, i couldn't find cinematic,texture deepness,colors doesn't feeling to me i'm watching movie there is no mystery or magic.I think the image looks flat and soulless IMHO

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..

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...