fatih yıkar

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..

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...

And on the internet so many viewers start to open topics and asking why older movies look different? look so good? http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=264151 https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/42qdls/why_do_older_movies_look_so_much_different_than/ https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/4s1opp/why_do_relatively_older_movies_even_90s_era_look/ https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/2py8z8/why_do_older_movies_look_well_old/ http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1194137

I disagree that the idea, you really underestimate of movies look. Cinematography,appearance can be really decrease or increase power of the movie. Did you watch last movies of Mr Deakins? which one has bad acting? but after the (A Serious Man) all of his movies are overrated for me and not that good cant compare with them his old ones,also they don't look good. Nowadays he can't reach that level of barton fink,Shawshank Redemption,fargo,Big Lebowski,The Village,Assassination of Jesse James etc..... And what is the definition of success? Box office, oscars, People always go to movies no matter what and every year academy must be give the oscars some movies, even the spotlight, moonlight won the oscars and how they look as cinematographically? for me cheesy,slipshod The bad thing is not just audience even the academy no more care about the cinematography.. Can you imagine godfather look like this? Because i can't

It doesn't look bad but below to my expectations from Pta and Tyler do you remember i ask you a question from other topic that nowadays even photochemical finish movies kinda start to look digital, i feel the same thing for trailer. Of course ıt's not the right come to a conclusion from trailer...

Perhaps it was a bad idea being dp for Pta

Color, Crews and Shooting Digitally: Ed Lachman and Vittorio Storaro at NYFF 2017 http://filmmakermagazine.com/103696-color-crews-and-shooting-digitally-ed-lachman-and-vittorio-storaro-at-the-nyff/#.WeiAWmh-rcs

Did someone say Long Take? :D :D :D

Tyler, as you mentioned above Hateful Eight-Dunkirk-Inherent Vice-The Master photochemical finish movies and they all look good really different than digital and D.I movies. I don't want to be so paranoid but something keeps bothering me that even photochemical finish movies kinda start to look digital, i can't explain too much because of my little knowledge For example Nolans movies after (insomia, the prestige, incepiton batman trilogy especially dark knight rises) colors and image texture not look organic .. Pta movies (magnolia-boggie nights-Punch-Drunk Love) looks fantastic but (the master) color looks punchy and movie was too sharp. (There will be blood) doesn't have that intense looking (magnolia-boggie nights) has. Movies i remember in years (Transcendence) which i cant believe it was photochemical or (Funny People) also photochemical but when compare with (40 year-old virgin) In (Funny People) texture is very low, it seemed to be changed in colors too .. So in recent years is something changing in photochemical process??? like printer lights technology or machine they used to i don't know and there's not much info about process that's why i want to ask maybe you know something. In recent years only movie i satisfied was (Inherent Vice) as you said it's kinda s16 because of pushed hard but you should look again from bluray maybe 70mm prints make the movie more grainny than exist. (Love witch) really made me happy and i love the movie look, ıt's was feast for my eyes thanks again David..

No i don't think shooting on film just solve all the problems but it's a good start.. I saw many movies shot on film doesn't reflect film elements . I'm not expert i don't know why is this but most probably reason is D.I.. My biggest problem with digital cameras,they capture image and output like same as the human eye sees,with fake colors and wrong skin tones. That's why so many people called ''Film is magical'' because ıt's just creates a new perspective of that no human can see world that way. It's so magical to see world with new eyes. It's like (renaissance painting) no human can see the world like this way, that's why you feeling good when you saw something. Recently i watch (the crow 1994) it hasn't got good script so many holes in story dialogue,directing, acting was okay but cinematography really outstanding, ıt's create a great atmosphere and fixing the movie lacks. In 70s,80s,90s even a small budget, independent movies can surprise you with look,cinematography etc.. Nowadays big budget,best dp,best director collaborate but results is just not even close the 20- 30 years ago movies. I know technology develops, movie tastes change but why we have to see things like which we already had much better in 40-20 years ago.. Worst thing is i got no hope, everything is getting worse for me about the cinematography ... :unsure:

Why you just quote one sentence from a paragraph.You changing meaning. I'm not joking nowadays good script,good actors,good director are just not enough make a movie good . That's why i give an example about twin peaks or new alien and blade runner..

Where is the appalling logic here? I'm 23 not obsessed with grown-up films because not watch them before 2010s. Objectively i'm defending movies-tv shows look more pleasant in old days. Some people can say ''i like more digital looking'' but i just can't stand that.... So you say new season of twin peaks better than the original, or new Blade Runner new Alien look more beautiful, has better cinematography than the originals, right? About the tv show nowadays the quantity is increasing while the quality is decreasing.

Compressed picture doesn't show evertything, you have to watch in high resolution... Lighting and focal lenghts are kind of different but you missed point, what i want to say all image,texture,color,depth sense much better in film especially in 90s. I make comparison between film and digital because above written '''Digital or film neither make that story any better or worse than it is written''' I am against this opinion, new twin peaks has a good story good written show but shot on digital old one is film. Film or digital make the story better or worse because it changes the perception of people.. If the film is apple digital only can be apple worm and uneatable. :D

I totally disagree idea of good script,good actors,good director make the movie good. Appearance of the movie make change the every opinion about the movie even if you not notice that your brain your eyes make judgment. Like the Alex Lindblom said about the twin peaks, i love old twin peaks everything is good about that but new one just look horrible nothing special nothing mysterious, magical same dp same director similar composition but it doesnt feel the good because of look. I will say directing,script,actors not good season 3 but its not true. Actually appearance make me think of that and ıt is acceptable for all people because of aesthetic judgments of humanity...

I believe emotional connection alyaws be there but people can always make objective judgment. I'm 23 didn't watch any movies from 70s 80s 90s on theater first movie i watch on theater was spiderman 2 (2004). After i grow up and watch movies like godfather, taxi driver,midnight cowboy,easy rider,blade runner,scarface,pulp fiction,scream,Saving Private Ryan,boogie nights,fight clup,mulholland drive etc.. from bluray i amazed by how movies look old days and i wish them to see at theater :( Sometimes i watch old movies (jaws,back to future,jumanji) with teenagers or kids on tv and each time they shocked movies look and said to me ''ıts look so beautiful'' ask me all time ''why this is look more better? why too much different than nowadays movies?'

I hope every movie theater accept that fact. http://www.thewrap.com/imax-moving-away-3d-consumers-shown-strong-preference/ http://freebeacon.com/blog/imax-admits-3d-sucks-increasing-2d-offerings/ https://www.themarysue.com/imax-3d-phase-out/

David, did you know totally budget of ''Love witch''? and how much of this money goes to cinematographic elements like (renting camera,film stock,photochemical finish,lighting etc)? I wonder because love witch indie movie i guess and nowadays every producer and director said they don't shot on film because ıt's to much expensive but I'm hardly believe that...

I really dont want this conversation turning to cgi problem topic, Of course everyone here and all audiences prefer practical effects but nowadays we got really good cgi,vfx or special effects... This video honestly explain So many people think cgi is bad but they dont know actually they didn't like movie look not just effects but just blaming cgi. For example 90s early 00s movies has cgi but they don't look bad for me doesn't disturbing because movie itself looking good. At the same time we got teribble cgi as i remember (mummy returns) (die another day) but even bad cgi doesn't make movie bad. For example this cgi effects are not good i dont know scooby,casper called cgi or cartoon but the movie itself looking good,cinematic, has real film look cgi not unpleasant beside movies looking digital nowadays.

that's truly a good point Another great example from hostel movies what i'm trying to tell... Both shot with 35mm and same dp Milan Chadima but we got totally two different looks . About second movie Who is the genius make horror movie to much colorful, high saturation? just why Like i said first one has more depth,texture,natural colors, more intense,cinematic look i think so many people will like the first ones look.. Written in imdb both photochemical finish (Super 35) but that's not true info, second is must be digital intermediate i need to change.. Cgi is problem but not the main problem, people think cgi ruined movies but thats not true. In my opinion digital cameras, digital intermediate and a little bit film stocks must be blame... 2005 2007

As far as i understand what you said, D.I give an opportunity to cinematographers makes lots of ability to change images like (crush the blacks, bump up the saturation, push shadows/midtones/highlights in different color directions, add a tracking vignette) but i don't think same way. Nowadays movies looking to much similiar to each other, to me before D.I every movie has unique look and there was so much diversity between movies.. Maybe the D.I makes cinematographers lazy, you said 'you really had to work hard for unique look'' so they didn't have to work hard anymore because they can change everyting in post and when they making changes in post actually you are doing the same thing to other cinematographers did.

And also i want to add example from music videos, i hope you dont get mad at me :rolleyes:

but conversely, I always have an intellectual reaction against any argument that art was better in the past. Plus I work in the present so if present cinematography isn't good, then what does it say about me? Please David dont take anything personel, i think you're really underrated cinematographer... i called bad when i compare them the old ones, of course interstellar or breaking bad,westworld not looking bad but okay for me.. I only watch your three movies entirely love witch,Jennifer's Body,The Quiet and take a look at The Astronaut Farmer,The Smell of Success i like them all but i also take a look Twin Falls Idaho,Daddy's Girl,The Perfect Tenant and Teacher's Pet(aka Devil In The Flesh 2) even the low resolution i love them, they got that intense looking i said. Especially Teacher's Pet i wish we can see them in blu-rays high resolution ...

No i just shot with digital, i got no experience with film. I'm not cinematographer or expert but i'm a really careful audience and i love the look of 'love witch'.... For example; all i'm saying If you compare 'six feet under' 'sopranos' 'Carnivale' with 'breaking bad' 'westworld' Or for Pta compare (Boogie Nights-Magnolia) with (there Will Be Blood-the master-Inherent vice) Or look ''Interstellar'' and compare with ''contact'' ''gattaca'' ''Event Horizon'' I don't want to disrespect, difference i saw between them (more depth,more texture,more vibrant natural color,more cinematic feel, more intense looking) ''film stock hasn't changed that much in the past decade'' As you said I understand this, If you want make a movie like this appearance yes you can,ıt's possible with vision3 stock and without D.I but for artistic,stylist choice director or cinematographers don't do ıt nowadays. (I chose movies randomly)

'''35mm hasn't really changed in a decade,digital that's becoming indistinguishable from something shot in 35mm''' I dont agree with you David 35mm change a lot and lost the magic this the my problem So many time i watch bad movies or low budget unloved movies and i think even these movies has better look than nowadays best looking cinematography movies (shot on digital or film doesn't make difference)