Jump to content

Could Digital Kill Film?


Max Field

Recommended Posts

Imagine overhearing a group walking through a public art show of paintings. They're all painting lovers but none of them paint - or maybe some of them are starting out as painters. One says "Ooh, I don't like that look - this one here is so much more artistic". The other responds, "No way, that famous artist got that such and such a look - it can't match the look of this other one". "No, the one you like looks awful." They are doing what people are supposed to do - have an opinion. Question things - sometimes question the way things are done at the top (but what is the top?). The most honest who are actually very very good say there is no top. You just do what you can do.

 

Suddenly an actual professional painter (makes his living from selling paintings he's painted) overhears the conversation and walks up, offended. "How dare you say that! I am a professional painter!! You can't say that - you don't paint and don't know what you're talking about. You know nothing, or very little. You're being disrespectful. Only another professional painter, someone such as I, can comment (touches chest with gentle, artful gesture, eyelids lowered)". People turn around and stare. They quietly think, sheesh man, relax, it's a free world.

 

Regarding bombastic, yes it's funny but everyone else has noticed that foible of human beings, too. See the log in your own eye. If learners can't make critical comments, for legitimate reasons, the discussion just becomes an in-house back slapping society which some professional organizations do become. Real film is great. It's epic.

 

It's wizard, it's smashing ..... it's keen.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What has been going on in this thread is more along the lines of people not liking or recognizing the artistry and talent of a painter simply because they use acrylic instead of oil paints. There is no such thing as a good acrylic painting and it can only be a true painting if the artist used oil paints...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the reality of the art/entertainment/call it what you will world. You don't like that violinist because he plays with vibrato and a lush tone? Are you going to buy tickets to that concert? Nope. Life is too short and too expensive. To you, that violinist is uninteresting. That's life. That's reality. Would I go and see a Roger Deakins film now? Probably not. If that offends your professional sensibilities you need to calm down. Don't worry - there will be plenty of fans who love what you do, if you're good.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Imagine overhearing a group walking through a public art show of paintings. They're all painting lovers but none of them paint

Imagine looking at a painting at a public art show, then suddenly the artist yanks the painting off the wall and starts shaking it all over the place.... That's how I feel when I watch a Paul Greengrass movie BOOM!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, David, I agree with you. Yes, it's terrible to write an artist off because he or she paints in oils or in acrylic. That's a form of snobbery. But in the world of painters, it's an issue that doesn't arise. We can truly say that we love all types of great paintings, whether painted in oils or acrylic. If it's great art then I don't care what it's painted in. I love acrylic and oil. I've got artists in the family and they paint in both and both are great. They have that choice.

 

Start talking about film/cinema it's a different kettle of fish. To keep using that painter's way of seeing it, if it's acrylic or it's the highway, artists are going to start saying, "WE WANT OILS."

 

Same with buyers of paintings, the ones who never take up a brush.

 

They will end up getting what they want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A photochemical finish would sure throw a spanner in the works of digital piracy, would it not? According to an industry insider who has spilled the beans on Hollywood, it is starting to have a definite effect on revenue from films. And ticket sales in the US is on a prolonged downward line for many years now despite more screens and larger population. What's going on?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine looking at a painting at a public art show, then suddenly the artist yanks the painting off the wall and starts shaking it all over the place.... That's how I feel when I watch a Paul Greengrass movie BOOM!

 

I have to remember to be scrupulously polite while attending an art show with friends who also have definite opinions. I've seen paintings I wouldn't spit on if they were on fire. Chook house liner.

 

("Chook" is Australian for chicken, as in chickens in the coop)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is poor VHS? Water paint?

 

I'm here all night.

 

Actually I liked VHS. It was so fuzzy and 'grainy' or static-y and also the colour was well saturated (it was if you beefed up the colour on the tv) it looked arty a lot of the time. Mind you, in the VHS years I wasn't into filmmaking so much. But it was so like that that you couldn't really see what the digital photography process was truly like. Again, though, VHS wasn't a patch on film.

Edited by Jon O'Brien
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine overhearing a group walking through a public art show of paintings. They're all painting lovers but none of them paint - or maybe some of them are starting out as painters. One says "Ooh, I don't like that look - this one here is so much more artistic". The other responds, "No way, that famous artist got that such and such a look - it can't match the look of this other one". "No, the one you like looks awful." They are doing what people are supposed to do - have an opinion. Question things - sometimes question the way things are done at the top (but what is the top?). The most honest who are actually very very good say there is no top. You just do what you can do.

 

Suddenly an actual professional painter (makes his living from selling paintings he's painted) overhears the conversation and walks up, offended. "How dare you say that! I am a professional painter!! You can't say that - you don't paint and don't know what you're talking about. You know nothing, or very little. You're being disrespectful. Only another professional painter, someone such as I, can comment (touches chest with gentle, artful gesture, eyelids lowered)". People turn around and stare. They quietly think, sheesh man, relax, it's a free world.

 

Regarding bombastic, yes it's funny but everyone else has noticed that foible of human beings, too. See the log in your own eye. If learners can't make critical comments, for legitimate reasons, the discussion just becomes an in-house back slapping society which some professional organizations do become. Real film is great. It's epic.

 

It's wizard, it's smashing ..... it's keen.

 

 

A painting is nothing like the camera work on a film.. it solely serves the story.. a painting on a wall is well.. a painting on a wall.. the comparison is a strange one to me..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because while painting is a talent usually accomplished by one person, feature filmmaking is a talent accomplished by many. To be like "Oh the medium sullies the entire work" disrespects the efforts of many others in addition to the cinematographer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

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)

attachicon.gifAds?z-min.jpg

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.

attachicon.gif1412_4_large-min.jpg

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.

attachicon.gif601_5_large-min.jpg

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:

 

 

Your seeing what you want to see.. all you list can be equally applied to film or digital .. or manipulated/achieved in post production eg..you have never seen very sharp footage from a film camera..skin color ..totally down to lighting/makeup/filters /post...reflect more light that film..?? Harmony.. depth sense.. its not a very scientific analysis to back up your theory of the intrinsic values you apply to film.. that digital doesn't have.. its a romantic view that just doesn't wash when actually put under scrutiny . thats my only point..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger just emailed me.. he's giving up digital.. he's seen the light.. he now realizes all his mistakes and is repentant .. Cohen bros.. yesterdays news ..

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

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Yes he mentioned actually those exact films.. he felt they looked a bit old fashioned and needed the benefit of more recent technology .. well TBH I think the camera work should never be the main point of any film.. and if it is.. then something is wrong in the first place.. but as you bring it up.. yes I when I first heard of the TV Fargo I thought it would be career suicide for anyone involved .. although I admired their balls for even trying.. But behold.. all I have seen are fantastic .. well written and acted .. and camera work that serves the story too.. I think they look as good as the film did for sure.. although as my main point is.. I dont think a film or TV series lives or dies by its camera work or ever should .. :).. would Fargo still be a good film if the story,directing and acting were shite..? there are many films very well shot that are rubbish.. and quickly forgotten.. even shot on film :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes he mentioned actually those exact films.. he felt they looked a bit old fashioned and needed the benefit of more recent technology .. well TBH I think the camera work should never be the main point of any film.. and if it is.. then something is wrong in the first place.. but as you bring it up.. yes I when I first heard of the TV Fargo I thought it would be career suicide for anyone involved .. although I admired their balls for even trying.. But behold.. all I have seen are fantastic .. well written and acted .. and camera work that serves the story too.. I think they look as good as the film did for sure.. although as my main point is.. I dont think a film or TV series lives or dies by its camera work or ever should .. :).. would Fargo still be a good film if the story,directing and acting were shite..? there are many films very well shot that are rubbish.. and quickly forgotten.. even shot on film :)

:) 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

post-69480-0-66309700-1509289957_thumb.jpg

Edited by fatih yıkar
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:) 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

attachicon.gifhellword-min.jpg

 

 

Yes lets agree to disagree :).. but I think if a film was a box office failure.. or universally not "liked" its very rarely ,if ever to do with if it being shot on film or digital .. audiences dont really care.. as long as the work is competent in either medium of course..:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Different technologies, products, processes, look different, no argument here -- look at all the passionate arguments about Cooke vs. Zeiss vs. Leica lenses that some people fall into. Back in the 1980's, there were similar discussions on Kodak vs. Fuji vs. Agfa, or even between processing at Technicolor vs. Deluxe. And that doesn't even factor in how individuals affect the performance of these tools. And even another factor is simply stylistic over time, 80's cinematography versus 2010's, whatever.

 

But the degree of difference is sometimes exaggerated because we all have a personal bias.

 

But when I see a carefully shot comparison test like those done by Steve Yedlin, ASC:

film_digital1.jpg

 

My impression is that the visual difference between the two technologies are not so extreme as to justify a "this is good... but that is bad" sort of conclusion.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...