Could Digital Kill Film?

[Robin R Probyn]

 

Filmmaker's opinions and preferences should be based on what suits the particular film best. A choice based on the needs of the movie and story rather than only one's personal preferences.

There is no "right" or "wrong" shooting format for a movie IN GENERAL, one needs to evaluate and decide the formats based on the particular movie in question.

 

there is lots of "movie nerds" around who watch some stuff others have made and some Deakins and Fincher and Nolan interviews and mash up a very strict opinion about how all the people in the world should make movies, making it some kind of personal crusade for or against a format or shooting style which they (or their idols) do or don't like.

 

To me it's kinda... extremely unprofessional attitude and kind of movie elitism and at times also lack of personal reasoning and experience (thus absorbing the opinions of the idols rather than creating one's own opinions)

 

Kind of "you are stupid person because you are shooting on film" or "you are stupid person because shooting on video" type of high school attitude. persons throwing curse words like "CELLULOID LOVER!" or "PIXEL PEEPER!" on each other :blink:

 

 

 

This discussion is getting quite silly.

To Robin R Probyn, let me take some heat of Fatih's back here.

 

Sure bashing for bashing sake is unnecessary, but the notion that you can't have your own point of view as filmmaker, is ridicules. That's the whole point of film making (that and making money of course, probably in reverse order.)

 

Let say I want to shot a western, now since this is a film, not a book, or a stage-play -- it's a film, it needs to have a look, a tone, a vision if you so will. So in your mind you start with two polar opposite images The Searchers and The Revenant, and you say what do I prefer (of course, in the real world the man with money pulls the strings, but say you agree on the vision in this case.)

 

I my case it's The Searchers, but it's not quite right, I never liked the cutting between actual locations and stage exteriors, and do I really need the VistaVision frame? So your mind wanders on and says -- Pale Rider. Yeah that seems about right and practical, so let us start from there.

 

Now, that doesn't mean that, The Searchers or The Revenant's, look and approach due to artistic intent or technical limitations of the time, are any better or worse than Pale Rider. But, and this is the big but again, they are different.

 

And if you are, or want to be a filmmaker. You really should have an opinion/preference, otherwise what's the point?

 

Alex I would agree.. a film maker is interested in a story.. or a message through the story.. as I said a good script that is poorly shot is still a good film.. but not so the other way round.. a filmmaker doesn't really care if they shoot on film or digital .. that will not take make their film good or bad.. they might have a preference sure.. but there are people here seeming to say .. a film cannot be good f its shot digitally and even a world renowned DP ,s work will be "not very good" if they do so.. Im fine with either.. because its not what makes a film good or bad.. but this film or nothing attitude is a bit odd I think.. and well yes I still think its a bit off for a student to say RD work in digital is not very good.. you do have to have some knowledge and experience to say this.. its not like not liking a film as a whole.. its arm chair quarterback time.. i

[fatih yıkar]

 

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..

 

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

Edited October 26, 2017 by fatih yıkar

[Adrian Sierkowski]

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with anyone at any point in their careers;oscar or not, saying, "hey ,I don't think think so and so is as good these days as they used to be in the old days," nor expressing an opinion on what they would've done differently (e.g. shoot film) in a similar situation because of ANY reason they find important. It is exactly because we are all unique people with out own tastes and ideas that we progress our visual medium. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Deakin's recent work either; for many reasons. It's not a popular belief, and honestly I don't care if people agree with me or not, because it's just my own personal taste.

We shouldn't chide each other over disagreements of opinion and we certainly shouldn't put down students, or ANYONE for opinions which run contrary to our own.

 

Everything in "art," and i so dislike calling what we do art-- this is my own personal philosophy borne out from years of arguing with my ex over the notion of art (she was a painter )--changes. The "artists" change, and their style changes. Sometimes we like it, and sometimes we don't. Sometimes it gets tired, and sometimes, even the best of artists produce work to which a viewer may go "eh." The fact the rest of the world goes "ooooohhhhh!" is irrelevant, because on the individual level that viewer is just forming their own value judgement on the work. Hell people often "ooohhh" over things I've shot and honestly my own opinion on my own work is ALWAYS "eh." The reverse is also true on occasion (generally quite often). I haven't won't an oscar, i'm not ASC, but does that somehow make my own artistic "values" somehow meaningless?

[Tyler Purcell]

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

True Grit looked great and was shot on 35mm. I can't think of another film that year which retained that look. That court room scene at the beginning of the movie is one of the few scenes I show my students in class.

[Tyler Purcell]

the Interstellar was especially bad

I personally loved it. I really like well done SciFi and it was really well done. It checked every box for me, including having a very "dynamic" mix, which is totally lacking these days. I especially love the soundtrack and how Zimmer recorded it, the whole thing was very impressive. I hate to say it, but I do think it's my favorite Nolan film and honestly, when I saw him I totally forgot to mention that lol.

 

If you nail the "technical" and have a so-so but very compelling and interesting script, I'm good.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I personally loved it. I really like well done SciFi and it was really well done. It checked every box for me, including having a very "dynamic" mix, which is totally lacking these days. I especially love the soundtrack and how Zimmer recorded it, the whole thing was very impressive. I hate to say it, but I do think it's my favorite Nolan film and honestly, when I saw him I totally forgot to mention that lol.

 

If you nail the "technical" and have a so-so but very compelling and interesting script, I'm good.

 

to me it had lots of those moments when I'm feeling like some kindergarten teacher is trying to teach me how a drinking glass is used :blink:

 

Loved the visuals and most of the music and sound design except those moments when the screeching sound was too overwhelming,

the audience being like

 

Anyway, would have hoped the movie to have a better script and less dumb characters.

it was not Shyamalan-bad but could have used a lot more work on the script before actually shooting anything I think. maybe Nolan script =no need for quality control before green light :P

[Samuel Berger]

True Grit looked great and was shot on 35mm. I can't think of another film that year which retained that look. That court room scene at the beginning of the movie is one of the few scenes I show my students in class.

 

I was about to post exactly the same.

[Jon O'Brien]

 

the image looks ... soulless

 

That's the word I was looking for. Digital cinema, shot and projected digitally, to many people looks soulless. It isn't just the idea of it. It's literally the look. Okay, if people like the soulless look, or don't see it as soulless, that's fine. Soulless to some extent suits certain genre and the current vibe of much of popular society. It's cool and it's in. So yeah I guess there's a market for it. But that word grasps the very definition I was looking for. Metallic, plastic, flat, glassy, cold, perfect, electric, with very often strange choice of colour. Electric particles buzzing across silicon - that's exactly what it is and that's exactly what it looks like. It can't be anything but what it really is. Film is light particles travelling through celluloid and emulsion. It can only be what it really is. One is the essence of light and dark and one is the essence of electricity and on and off. It's not unprofessional to have a preference. I reject the idea that a professional should be happy shooting either digital or film (it's fine if some professionals have this view) - that only script/project would dictate the medium. To some professional filmmakers, and to some audience, real film makes the whole project overall better regardless of script or subject. If film has survived what it's survived in the last few years it must be a very robust and much loved medium. It's come through and its future is looking better.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

I'd even go so far as to predict that film may have a bigger 'comeback' than vinyl records. Vinyl is a home consumer medium. Film is that plus a large scale public performance medium. Big difference.

 

To my list in the post above, of digital's shortcomings, I'd also add a 'milky', leached sort of a look that reminds me of tepid lattes. Not all films have got this but a lot do. Even Rogue One had this at times, eg the beach attack scenes, plus the 'space' star cruiser shots didn't look good. The star destroyer shot didn't have the 'presence' of the original Star Wars model photography. Would have looked so much better shot on film.

Edited October 26, 2017 by Jon O'Brien

[Jon O'Brien]

My final point. True cinema is theatre. The mystery of cinema is that it's a public performance medium. It's a stage show. In that respect it's different from tv. Treat cinema like tv and you will start to lose sales.

[Robin R Probyn]

 

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

deakins-min.jpg

 

 

fair enough .. I agree re the Oscar gongs.. the nominations are a better idea as they are from other DP,s.. the winner is a different thing.. Im not against people having an opinion .. that would be nuts of course.. maybe it just seems a bit disrespectful to be saying someones work is not so good "recently".. till you have been in their shoes or anywhere close .. peace and love..

[Robin R Probyn]

Personally I don't think there is anything wrong with anyone at any point in their careers;oscar or not, saying, "hey ,I don't think think so and so is as good these days as they used to be in the old days," nor expressing an opinion on what they would've done differently (e.g. shoot film) in a similar situation because of ANY reason they find important. It is exactly because we are all unique people with out own tastes and ideas that we progress our visual medium. Personally, I'm not a huge fan of Deakin's recent work either; for many reasons. It's not a popular belief, and honestly I don't care if people agree with me or not, because it's just my own personal taste.

We shouldn't chide each other over disagreements of opinion and we certainly shouldn't put down students, or ANYONE for opinions which run contrary to our own.

 

Everything in "art," and i so dislike calling what we do art-- this is my own personal philosophy borne out from years of arguing with my ex over the notion of art (she was a painter )--changes. The "artists" change, and their style changes. Sometimes we like it, and sometimes we don't. Sometimes it gets tired, and sometimes, even the best of artists produce work to which a viewer may go "eh." The fact the rest of the world goes "ooooohhhhh!" is irrelevant, because on the individual level that viewer is just forming their own value judgement on the work. Hell people often "ooohhh" over things I've shot and honestly my own opinion on my own work is ALWAYS "eh." The reverse is also true on occasion (generally quite often). I haven't won't an oscar, i'm not ASC, but does that somehow make my own artistic "values" somehow meaningless?

 

 

Yes all fair statements .. its not you have to be an Oscar winner.. :). maybe I was wrong.. I didn't mean to demean anyones right to an opinion.. I guess its just seemed sort of disrespectful .. maybe another DP who is also shooting big budget feature films could pass judgment on the work on another fellow professional.. although mostly I think they wouldn't out of courtesy... but yes I shouldn't impose my values others..guilty as charged..

[Max Field]

It's not about needing clout for an opinion, it's about needing clout for an opinion which could be perceived as extreme or disrespectful. If I hear random kid on the internet #87 saying Citizen Kane is a bad movie, my immediate reaction is "yeah whatever sure". But if someone with the film understanding of a James Cameron makes the same claim, I cannot brush that off. From a filmography perspective, not accolades like Oscars.

 

The one-in-a-million minds may not lead you to immediately agree, but can elaborate on sub-points of their claim in a way leaving you more educated.

Coincidentally (or not), I've found those with consistently bombastic opinions less capable of educating others.

[Aapo Lettinen]

the main problem is that most of the persons commenting on cinematography of the films don't have enough information about the actual working conditions on set, the challenges which needed to be solved, how the cinematographer collaborated with the other departments and actors (simplifying the lighting to give more room for the actors for example) .

persons analysing movies as a series of stills images (I like that shot, I don't like that shot) forgetting that most of the actual "cinematography" in movies is about finding the most practical solutions (THE BEST COMPROMISES) for any challenges during the production (extremely quickly if needed) and making the best compromise possible to get the best possible end product AS A WHOLE.

 

It may sometimes require making the image look less perfect because you are trading that perfection for something more important, more needed for the scene.

It is not Vimeography or Photography you know, the idea is not just put beautiful looking images after each other to make a slideshow with music.

 

the goal is to tell the story the best possible way and one has to compromise for that, every single shot and scene

[Aapo Lettinen]

It's not about needing clout for an opinion, it's about needing clout for an opinion which could be perceived as extreme or disrespectful. If I hear random kid on the internet #87 saying Citizen Kane is a bad movie, my immediate reaction is "yeah whatever sure". But if someone with the film understanding of a James Cameron makes the same claim, I cannot brush that off. From a filmography perspective, not accolades like Oscars.

 

The one-in-a-million minds may not lead you to immediately agree, but can elaborate on sub-points of their claim in a way leaving you more educated.

Coincidentally (or not), I've found those with consistently bombastic opinions less capable of educating others.

Yep the problem is the IGNORANT OPINIONS and persons bashing the movies with too little information (or experience) to analyse which cinematography related things were made for which reasons and what were the faced restrictions and challenges.

 

Kids analysing movies like Instagram photos is the main issue and people commenting on cinematography without necessarily even knowing which parts of the critique were actually cinematography related and which were actually acting or directing or art dept or script related.

Edited October 27, 2017 by aapo lettinen

[Mei Lewis]

 

...I think the image looks flat and soulless...

 

 

 

It seems to me the point of this forum is to discuss, learn about and advance cinematography. Certainly opinions and subjectivity come into it, but if we're to progress we need to be able to accurately and unambiguously describe the aspects of cinematography we're talking about.

From that point of view, saying an aquisition or display system is 'soulless' is useless. That statement can't be acted on.

A digital sensor or projector maker can never make their system less 'soulless' because you can't tell them what it is you mean by 'soulless'.

We're not talking about magic, we're talking about recording two dimensional images inside small rectangles, where each point within the rectangle can be completely specified by three continuous variables (for example, R, G and B values). There is nowhere in there for a soul to hide.

[Aapo Lettinen]

Maybe it has something to do with the slaughtered animal souls going to the gelatine and later transforming to the film's silver crystals and finally to the colour specs when the film image is exposed and developed.

 

So a film image DEFINITELY has more "soul" in it compared to a digital image.

(Though I don't know if electrons have souls, maybe they are too small for it, who knows ^_^ )

 

When projecting a film image, the souls are in response of moving around randomly in the image area so that the audience can experience pleasant "grain" structure in the image.

That is, actually, millions and millions of small piggy and calf and chicken souls running around in great soothing harmony, creating an artistic expression of the reality :lol:

 

----------

Anyway, I think that the "soulless" would reference to the colour+contrast (grading) of the finished image which is purely an artistic choice of the filmmakers and may enhance the story/mood of the film or not.

The texture is a different matter but most of the content is shot rather clean anyway, both film and digital and noise/grain can be enhanced or reduced if needed. film can also be shot relatively grainless looking depending on the format and lighting conditions and one can also make film image look "clean and flat and soulless" very easily

[Justin Hayward]

...I think the image looks flat and soulless...

 

 

I think you should go to Roger Deakin's website and ask him if he's just too lazy to shoot on film, or if he's too stupid to know he has bad taste. :P :D

[fatih yıkar]

From that point of view, saying an aquisition or display system is 'soulless' is useless. That statement can't be acted on.

A digital sensor or projector maker can never make their system less 'soulless' because you can't tell them what it is you mean by 'soulless'.

We're not talking about magic, we're talking about recording two dimensional images inside small rectangles, where each point within the rectangle can be completely specified by three continuous variables (for example, R, G and B values). There is nowhere in there for a soul to hide.

 

So a film image DEFINITELY has more "soul" in it compared to a digital image.

(Though I don't know if electrons have souls, maybe they are too small for it, who knows ^_^ )

 

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:

[fatih yıkar]

 

I think you should go to Roger Deakin's website and ask him if he's just too lazy to shoot on film, or if he's too stupid to know he has bad taste. :P :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/

[Justin Hayward]

Sure, but then referring to a digital vs. film test, he went on to say, "...people tend to see what they want to see." Of which I wholeheartedly agree.

[Aapo Lettinen]

I just realised that the digital devices will definitely have a soul or two as well..think of all that child/forced labour used by the warlords for mining the minerals used for the camera electronics.

 

Maybe thats why digital imaging does not look as pleasant and calming to the eye: instead of just dead animals the digital image has a lot more frightening souls in it and the viewer of course senses that difference

[Aapo Lettinen]

Cant tell the difference duh. Mr Deakins have been captured by the story then which is good for him because it may be very difgicult for a professional cinematographer to actually watch movies without analysing them at the same time for everything :)

[Tyler Purcell]

to me it had lots of those moments when I'm feeling like some kindergarten teacher is trying to teach me how a drinking glass is used :blink:

Welcome to mass entertainment, it made $680M in the box office, so it was doing "something" right. I honestly like telling people technical things instead of them having to "guess" all the time. It takes balls to have your lead actor take a whiteboard and draw poop out.

 

Have you seen what's in the theaters today? I can't watch any of it. When a filmmaker "tries", I give them a lot of credit.

[Aapo Lettinen]

Welcome to mass entertainment, it made $680M in the box office, so it was doing "something" right. I honestly like telling people technical things instead of them having to "guess" all the time. It takes balls to have your lead actor take a whiteboard and draw poop out.

 

Have you seen what's in the theaters today? I can't watch any of it. When a filmmaker "tries", I give them a lot of credit.

 

Of course, he definitely did something right if lots of people willingly watched the movie and paid for it and maybe even thought they liked it :)

and even thought that it was "challenging and intelligent"!

 

It's just like... why the mass entertainment needs to be done in a way that it feels like I would need to tune down my brain activity to 20% or alternatively multitask web+email+some gardening conversation at the same time to be able to watch a hollywood film...

they are generally somewhat entertaining but most of them are just plain dumb and underestimate the viewer a lot just to ensure that even those persons like it who can't concentrate 2 minutes to a movie without doing something else at the same time, like playing/checking web on the phone or talking with someone when the movie is rolling :blink:

 

I don't know how much film origination would benefit a generic Hollywood movie if at all. depends on the movie I guess. film is generally much better for some genres than others and it would need "more humane" approach to the characters and a deeper, more emotional story which is kinda unseen in Hollywood in general.

 

Maybe it just adds to the viewing experience on some films to have those countless slaughtered animals running and screaming on the screen rather than projecting the neat and slick story on the skin of thousands of tortured slaves suffering quietly for our viewing experience ;)