Dream 'job', massive budget - would you shoot digital or film?

[Stuart Brereton]

19 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Had the DP known these things, they would have shot on film. However, digital DP's just don't know these tidbits. 

Yes, I'm sure that Larry Sher, ASC, was completely unaware of modern video taps, 3 perf, and push processing. Perhaps he should have consulted you before making his decision, as you are evidently better informed about film technology than he is.

 

19 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

They shot digital because the Cinematographer who is a digital guy, wanted to shoot with the Alexa 65. He hasn't shot film since 2010! So why would he go back to shooting film 9 years later. 

Larry Sher is on record as saying that the movie was going to shoot on 35mm well into pre-production, and it only changed because of the practicalities of the way they wanted to shoot. Greg Irwin has described how they shot much of the movie wide open, and underexposed. To shoot that way, right down in the toe of the negative, and then try to push process to increase ISO just results in mushy, grainy images because all your picture information is way down the curve. I know you'll say you do it all the time, and perhaps you do, but the quality of your results remains to be seen. It's also hugely difficult for focus when working wfo at low light levels. There's simply not enough contrast in a film viewfinder to see clearly when it's that dark, and even HD videotaps are no substitute for a digital signal straight from the sensor.

So, I stand by my statement that it would have been almost impossible for them to shoot Joker on film, because of all the things they didn't want to have to deal with. Could they have changed their workflow, their working practice, their lighting package? Yes, of course they could, but in the real world, not everything is subordinate to format.

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Greg Irwin has described how they shot much of the movie wide open, and underexposed. To shoot that way, right down in the toe of the negative, and then try to push process to increase ISO just results in mushy, grainy images because all your picture information is way down the curve. I know you'll say you do it all the time, and perhaps you do, but the quality of your results remains to be seen. It's also hugely difficult for focus when working wfo at low light levels. There's simply not enough contrast in a film viewfinder to see clearly when it's that dark, and even HD videotaps are no substitute for a digital signal straight from the sensor.

Clearly you didn't watch the movie and/or see the other modern films that have used no-light like "The Favorite" and "Phantom Thread". Those films have scenes pushed 2 stops because they had to light with candles! Joker has nothing like that, every single scene has PLENTY of light and sure, there are moments where it's under exposed, but buy what? Half a stop? If you watch Joker, you'll see how much light they threw at it. If you were to shoot that same movie, identically on 35mm, there would have been zero issue. I've shot in just as dark of a situation, without lights and never had a problem. 

If you have ANY key illumination source of any kind, even if it's from outside the window of a cop car as it whizzes by street lights, with a bounce on the actor, that's enough to prevent the highlights from being muddy. It's not rocket science and it doesn't need to be a perfect exposure every single frame of every single scene. It can dip and be dark, that's only natural. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

8 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

I would have thought film was greener, even with the processing chemicals. Digital doesn't seem greener to me at all. I suspect the claim digital is greener might have had some traction once, and was used to try and add some extra push to its shove ?

They both pollute pretty crazily sadly. 

[AJ Young]

We've sidetracked into a lot of conjecture, here!

If I were to have a dream budget, I'd also spend a lot of R&D creating or using new equipment like an experimental sensor, new light source, etc. I admire the innovation Lucas spearheaded with Attack of the Clones. The last most recent person, I think, to do this was Cameron on Avatar. He seriously set the bar for motion capture, CGI animation, and 3D. That's what I would want to do with a dream budget.

[Stuart Brereton]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Clearly you didn't watch the movie 

If you watch Joker, you'll see how much light they threw at it.

Actually, Tyler, I have seen the movie. I don't comment on things I have no knowledge of.

I'd like to hear how you know how much light they "threw at it", simply from watching it. That's a magical skill.

Of course, you know more than I do. Apparently, you also know more than Larry Sher as well.

[Tyler Purcell]

37 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

I'd like to hear how you know how much light they "threw at it", simply from watching it. That's a magical skill.

Can you remember ANY scene with no light? Whether it's overhead lights in the subway, to street lights driving around in the car. Nearly every single location had some pretty decent "practical" lighting, even if the cinematographer didn't augment much, there was plenty for any photographic process. The Alexa 65 isn't magical, it's base ISO is 800 and I don't see any reason for them to have gone much above 1600 if they wanted perfect exposure. Ya don't need perfect exposure, as long as you can get SOME detail in the blacks, the rest isn't a problem. With HDR scanners these days and since they're shooting in NYC, they could literally get fresh/new stock right from the factory and process within 24hrs. There is really no excise. 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Yes, I'm sure that Larry Sher, ASC, was completely unaware of modern video taps, 3 perf, and push processing. Perhaps he should have consulted you before making his decision, as you are evidently better informed about film technology than he is.

Also... why would he be up to date on film camera tech that came out LONG AFTER he switched to digital? 

[Stuart Brereton]

1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Also... why would he be up to date on film camera tech that came out LONG AFTER he switched to digital? 

You’re right, Tyler. There is absolutely no reason why ASC member Larry Sher would have been aware of 3 perf cameras, or push processing. I’m equally sure that he pays no attention whatsoever to technical developments by camera manufacturers.

if only he had had the benefit of your knowledge, and had asked you for advice.

[Gregory Irwin]

Tyler, Tyler, Tyler. In reality, Larry Sher, ASC is one of the most intelligent people I’ve ever met. He is fully up to date on everything cinematography. In fact, he just shot a smaller budget feature in LA on film. He simply prefers the digital process.  As for JOKER light levels, there were many times our sets were so dark we all had our iPhone flashlights on simply to see. Many of our night interiors and exteriors were at 5 -10 foot candles of exposure. This would be 1600 ISO at a T1.3. We could not have done what we did and how we did it on celluloid without more lighting expense. 
 

G

Edited October 29, 2019 by Gregory Irwin

[Tyler Purcell]

16 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

this is exactly what I have been saying .. you are saying that the only way a film maker can make their film stand out is to shoot on an alternative platform eg  film.. ... really thats it.. no other ways..

I didn't say it was the only way, I simply said it was an easy way. If you have a lot of money, you can hire great actors for $25 million each and spend $250 million on marketing. Those things help drive an audience to your movie for sure. However, if you only have a few million to make your entire movie, you need to attract people in as many ways as possible. Obviously, spending a bunch on talent, does help greatly. However, you need more avenue's then that. One great way to do it, is to use a format/medium that is unconventional and market the crap out of that fact, in order to draw audiences. 

Put it to ya a different way. What differentiates the movie theater from Netflix? 

Currently nothing. Currently, when I turn on my home theater projector and get a UHD 10 bit 4:2:2 source, I'm actually getting BETTER resolution than most movie theaters and I always have the best seat in the house. Excellent surround sound that shakes the room, bright DLP image that rivals any non laser cinema projector and with modern sources, why go to the cinema? For new releases? I can wait. For audience participation? Do you mean the guy next to me with the hot dog and coke who smells like shit and grunts like a pig when eating. For the sake of getting out of the house? Movies here cost $14 - $16 per person. Then you add a "date night" dinner, and you're talking $35/PP easily. All to watch something in the same quality I can get at home? 

Movies shot on film and/or movies shot digitally and presented on film, are an "attractor" because you literally can't see that at home. I would argue, what Quentin Tarantino did on "Hateful Eight" is something more and more people should do, it did work in the major cities (not so much in the middle of nowhere) and honestly, it made more money per screen with the film prints, than the digital. I made a comment about how difficult it was to get "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" tickets, it's the same deal. 

16 hours ago, Robin R Probyn said:

 the directors you list would made films that were all the same if they shot digital .. Im going to tell Quentin you said that.. he won't be happy .. and I'll going to tell Roger you think  he a videographer ..

How do you know? I watch the film prints, so I know what they look like and no, they don't look like digital. 

Digital cinema shot with digital cameras and presented with digital projectors, is too clean. Filmmakers have to add layers of film grain to make it look decent, nearly everyone does this. Otherwise, it's an unappealing look, just like the early days of digital cinema where you could see the lines between the mirrors on the DLP imager. They solved this by making the projectors slightly out of focus. IMAX had such a problem with it, they force theaters to buy TWO projectors. One for a clean sharp image and one for a out of focus image, overlaid on top of the clean image, to "soften" it up a bit.

Ohh and Roger Deakins? Not a single person thinks his move to digital has made is movies look better. Just re-watch any of the Coen brothers movies and compare them to Rogers recent work. Even on BluRay, they're entirely different, not even remotely the same. Yes, Roger is still Roger, he still has the same lighting and the same framing techniques, but it's just not the same. Maybe he's worked on some higher-budget projects which don't have the level of creativity, but Deakins had full reign on the new Bladerunner movie. Yet, it still looked like plastic, it still looked too much like reality and not like cinema.  

[AJ Young]

I believe you're over simplifying the theatrical experience vs. home viewing experience.

• Resolution isn't black & white. Steve Yedlin ASC points this out in his Resolution Demo's: http://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html
• Theatres have been struggling for years to combat home theatres. A decline in ticket sales is one example, so the industry has responded with higher ticket prices. However, they're implementing new experiences to the theatre that draw in the crowds like alcohol, premium seating, and projection marketing buzz like "laser", '3D", and yes even "film". Theatres are now innovating with subscription models which could bring back more viewers. (oops, conjecture!)
• I was a projectionist for 6 years and I'll swear on my life that film projection is archaic, inconsistent, and unreliable in comparison to digital.

I don't disagree that how a movie is exhibited can be some sort of a draw for audiences (IE IMAX 70mm), but distribution is about the lowest common denominator. Most of the money major motion pictures make are through digital projectors and DVD/VOD/Blu-Ray. IMAX/70mm/35mm draw in niche crowds, but are insignificant in comparison to how the rest of movie makes money.

However, how a movie is shot has ultimately no effect exhibition in regards to distribution (which is about the lowest common denominator). Fringe exhibition formats like IMAX 70mm definitely show the short comings of anything that wasn't shot on IMAX 70mm, but it's a fringe exhibition format. When we boil it down to the reality of distribution, shooting format doesn't matter. Yedlin shows it here: http://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/index.html

25 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Ohh and Roger Deakins? Not a single person thinks his move to digital has made is movies look better. Just re-watch any of the Coen brothers movies and compare them to Rogers recent work. Even on BluRay, they're entirely different, not even remotely the same. Yes, Roger is still Roger, he still has the same lighting and the same framing techniques, but it's just not the same. Maybe he's worked on some higher-budget projects which don't have the level of creativity, but Deakins had full reign on the new Bladerunner movie. Yet, it still looked like plastic, it still looked too much like reality and not like cinema.  

Here are a few quotes from Roger Deakins ASC BSC:

"Mostly, I found shooting digital very freeing. If I were shooting film, I would always try to err on the side of safety when I was doing something risky, to make sure I didn’t lose my blacks or reveal something I didn’t want to see. With digital, because I could basically see the final image while I was shooting, I felt I could push myself a lot further creatively."

"Sometimes I get annoyed with the garbage I hear about film vs. digital. Most of it is simply nostalgia and silly thinking. I love film, sure, but [the Alexa] has brought us to a point where digital is simply better. In my opinion, there are now more advantages than disadvantages to digital cinematography."

Source: https://theasc.com/ac_magazine/November2011/InTime/page1.html

In my opinion, some of Deakins's best work has been recent: Prisoners, Blade Runner, and Skyfall. GORGEOUS movies.

[Tyler Purcell]

36 minutes ago, Gregory Irwin said:

This would be 1600 ISO at a T1.3. We could not have done what we did and how we did it on celluloid without more lighting expense. 

Nobody in their right mind is going to agree that on a 55 million dollar budget, 'cost' was the deciding factor when it comes to having a few lights on a soundstage. The reason they didn't light is because they didn't feel it was necessary, they got away with a few practicals. Getting the foot candles up to 20 - 50 in those "set" night interiors, wouldn't have taken away from the story, nor would it have been any issue. 

 

[Stuart Brereton]

3 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The reason they didn't light is because they didn't feel it was necessary, they got away with a few practicals. 

And you know this how? Were you there?

[Satsuki Murashige]

The end times must be near, as I actually agree with Tyler about something!

I didn’t like ‘Blade Runner 2049’ very much as a film, and I much prefer the look of Roger’s pre-digital work in films like ‘No Country for Old Men’, ‘The Assassination of Jesse James’, ‘The Shawshank Redemption’, etc.

Maybe that has more to do with direction, production design, and VFX than the cinematography, I don’t know. But the visual conceit and execution of scenes like lighting the night sky with rows of 18Ks to create the dawn effect, Tommy Lee’s double shadow, the train steam silhouette, the heavy prison shadows with warm dim light - those images are seared into my mind. 

Aside from ‘Skyfall’ and ‘Sicario’ I think the newer films have not been to the same (albeit extremely high) level as the older films.

[Tyler Purcell]

13 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

• Resolution isn't black & white. Steve Yedlin ASC points this out in his Resolution Demo's: http://www.yedlin.net/ResDemo/index.html

Yep I know all about it and I agree with him somewhat. I'm not a resolution nazi, but viewing distance and screen size do force the resolution topic to be brought up from time to time. 

13 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

• Theatres have been struggling for years to combat home theatres. A decline in ticket sales is one example, so the industry has responded with higher ticket prices. However, they're implementing new experiences to the theatre that draw in the crowds like alcohol, premium seating, and projection marketing buzz like "laser", '3D", and yes even "film". Theatres are now innovating with subscription models which could bring back more viewers. (oops, conjecture!)

We're still closing theaters tho, due to higher cost of operations thanks partially to the studio's charging more for releases. IMAX and 3D have been complete failures, with theaters left with the tab and needing to charge higher ticket prices. 

13 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

• I was a projectionist for 6 years and I'll swear on my life that film projection is archaic, inconsistent, and unreliable in comparison to digital.

 Well yea, it's a 100 year old technology that hasn't changed function much. However, those nuances are the cool think about film in general. You are literally viewing history and when it's done right, Film projection can be a magical experience that evokes the pure definition of "cinema". 

Digital, well... we all know what happened to CD's. They died and Vinyl replaced it as the #1 physical home audio format. Will that same revolution happen in the cinemas? It can't at the current cost, but if you were to decrease the cost, I think it could. 

[Tyler Purcell]

31 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

In my opinion, some of Deakins's best work has been recent: Prisoners, Blade Runner, and Skyfall. GORGEOUS movies.

I mean he's Roger friggen Deakins! Of course they're gorgeous! 

Do they look like his "film" movies? No, not at all. 

He even mentions why... because with digital, he can push the image more on set. With film he needs to be more reserved and honestly, that's a good thing. It helps prevent mistakes that can't be fixed in post. 

[Tyler Purcell]

35 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

And you know this how? Were you there?

What other reason would they have? 

[Stuart Brereton]

16 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

What other reason would they have? 

So you don't know, and you weren't there, and this statement was just another example of you speaking beyond your experience.

Here's a few reasons that maybe you hadn't considered. Perhaps Larry Sher likes the look of the Alexa sensor at 1600 ISO. Perhaps the balance of highlight and shadow range are to his taste. Maybe he likes the noise floor. Maybe when lighting a dark and dramatic movie, he likes the sets to be dark and dramatic. Maybe he feels it helps the actors to be in an environment that echoes the journey their characters are taking. Just about the only thing you got right was that it had nothing to do with budget.

There are many other reasons why he could have chosen to shoot the way he did. I don't know them, and neither do you, and despite your obvious lack of respect for his ability and knowledge, you don't have the right to criticize him.

[AJ Young]

22 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yep I know all about it and I agree with him somewhat. I'm not a resolution nazi, but viewing distance and screen size do force the resolution topic to be brought up from time to time. 

We're still closing theaters tho, due to higher cost of operations thanks partially to the studio's charging more for releases. IMAX and 3D have been complete failures, with theaters left with the tab and needing to charge higher ticket prices. 

 Well yea, it's a 100 year old technology that hasn't changed function much. However, those nuances are the cool think about film in general. You are literally viewing history and when it's done right, Film projection can be a magical experience that evokes the pure definition of "cinema". 

Digital, well... we all know what happened to CD's. They died and Vinyl replaced it as the #1 physical home audio format. Will that same revolution happen in the cinemas? It can't at the current cost, but if you were to decrease the cost, I think it could. 

The Yedlin piece I shared discusses that viewing distance and screen size are unrecognizable in the example you mentioned earlier in the topic.

An awful lot of conjecture and misinformation here. What stats do you have on theatres closing? From these ticket stats (not gross, but number of tickets), there hasn't been much change in theatrical attendance since 1995: https://www.the-numbers.com/market

Your nostalgia for film exhibition doesn't equate to quality or general public opinion (or even your own: "IMAX and 3D have been complete failures")

I don't understand the relation here with digital exhibition and CDs. CD's were replaced by streaming, not vinyl. You can cherry pick the stats to make it look like vinyl made a comeback, but distribution is about the lowest common denominator, so streaming/VOD has taken over as the means for musicians/record labels to make money. At the end of the day, digital (wether streaming, CD, DVD, CRU, etc), is the format that makes money, the format that makes a profit.

21 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

He even mentions why... because with digital, he can push the image more on set. With film he needs to be more reserved and honestly, that's a good thing. It helps prevent mistakes that can't be fixed in post. 

That doesn't make sense, given these quotes from Deakins on shooting digital:

"The Colorstream process is really, really precise. Between the on-set calibrated monitor and calibrated dailies, you always know the image you’re going to get. So several months later, in the color suite, you don’t have to go back to scratch. That saved us a lot of time."

"With digital, because I could basically see the final image while I was shooting, I felt I could push myself a lot further creatively."

It doesn't sound like he's making any mistakes if he's able to correct them on set.

[Tyler Purcell]

7 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Here's a few reasons that maybe you hadn't considered. Perhaps Larry Sher likes the look of the Alexa sensor at 1600 ISO.

Then use ND filters. 

7 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

Maybe when lighting a dark and dramatic movie, he likes the sets to be dark and dramatic. Maybe he feels it helps the actors to be in an environment that echoes the journey their characters are taking. Just about the only thing you got right was that it had nothing to do with budget.

So no dark and dramatic movies have ever been shot on film? 

7 minutes ago, Stuart Brereton said:

There are many other reasons why he could have chosen to shoot the way he did. I don't know them, and neither do you, and despite your obvious lack of respect for his ability and knowledge, you don't have the right to criticize him.

I'm not criticizing his work at all. I think the film looked great and have said so many times. 

I'm criticizing the concept that it was IMPOSSIBLE to capture "Joker" on celluloid and make it look decent.

[Tyler Purcell]

5 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

The Yedlin piece I shared discusses that viewing distance and screen size are unrecognizable in the example you mentioned earlier in the topic.

Again, I don't agree with everything he talked about. I know Steve, I've talked with him personally and I really like his work and praise everything he's done to help clarify this discussion. There are just a few things I disagree with and that's fine, we're allowed to have disagreements on things based on experience. 

7 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

What stats do you have on theatres closing? From these ticket stats (not gross, but number of tickets), there hasn't been much change in theatrical attendance since 1995: https://www.the-numbers.com/market

Where I don't have a compiled statistical chart for you to see. You probably know the same people I do, being in the projection world and all. What's happened is that the smaller theaters have been closing pretty rapidly, a few dozen in 2019 alone and have been replaced with megaplexe's. So it means fewer locations, but MORE physical screens per location. This is a problem when you don't live near a city. I'm pretty up to speed on the ticket sales numbers, the "the-numbers" website is one I frequent. 

16 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

I don't understand the relation here with digital exhibition and CDs. CD's were replaced by streaming, not vinyl. You can cherry pick the stats to make it look like vinyl made a comeback, but distribution is about the lowest common denominator, so streaming/VOD has taken over as the means for musicians/record labels to make money. At the end of the day, digital (wether streaming, CD, DVD, CRU, etc), is the format that makes money, the format that makes a profit.

The musicians don't make shit on VOD and neither do the filmmakers who sell their products to streaming platforms. Theatrical is sadly the biggest money maker for the studio's and for musicians it's physical media, where they make the profits directly. Since nobody buys CD"s anymore, the biggest physical media format is currently vinyl. 

20 minutes ago, AJ Young said:

"With digital, because I could basically see the final image while I was shooting, I felt I could push myself a lot further creatively."

Well yea, I mean I've worked on many shows where we've used the same process and in post the shot looks identical. Then you find out you need to make changes for various reasons and realize, holy crap... there is nothing in the shot we can alter. Whoops. 

[AJ Young]

26 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Again, I don't agree with everything he talked about. I know Steve, I've talked with him personally and I really like his work and praise everything he's done to help clarify this discussion. There are just a few things I disagree with and that's fine, we're allowed to have disagreements on things based on experience. 

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, but if you're expressing it as fact then you've got to back it up like Yedlin did.

27 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Where I don't have a compiled statistical chart for you to see. You probably know the same people I do, being in the projection world and all. What's happened is that the smaller theaters have been closing pretty rapidly, a few dozen in 2019 alone and have been replaced with megaplexe's. So it means fewer locations, but MORE physical screens per location. This is a problem when you don't live near a city. I'm pretty up to speed on the ticket sales numbers, the "the-numbers" website is one I frequent. 

So, then it's a wash in terms of theatres closing/opening? As in the theatre industry is responding to the home viewing experience by adapting to the market? How is it a problem when an audience doesn't live near a city? (I'm getting close to conjecture here)

29 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

The musicians don't make poop on VOD and neither do the filmmakers who sell their products to streaming platforms. Theatrical is sadly the biggest money maker for the studio's and for musicians it's physical media, where they make the profits directly. Since nobody buys CD"s anymore, the biggest physical media format is currently vinyl. 

Forgive me, but I'm using my anecdotal experience with independent features to assume that musicians make most of their income from streaming/VOD. Do you have any stats to back up that they don't?

As for filmmakers making money on VOD/streaming, I can confirm from both personal experience and case studies that VOD/streaming makes a lot of money for filmmakers. I've shot 9 features so far and all of them are making money from VOD/Streaming. Furthermore, the case studies at Sundance and Film Independent confirm that VOD/streaming generates revenue for the filmmakers, putting them into profit territory.

This is my experience with independent film, so I can't confirm that major motion pictures make more money at the box office or online. However, revenue for those films goes beyond box office sales because they're tied into merchandise and licensing. Additionally, those films are designed for maximum box office success unlike independent films.

How does the argument that a physical medium like film or a film theatrical run can make more money for a movie, given the reality and nuance of distribution?

45 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Well yea, I mean I've worked on many shows where we've used the same process and in post the shot looks identical. Then you find out you need to make changes for various reasons and realize, holy crap... there is nothing in the shot we can alter. Whoops. 

So then, what does film have to do with it? What does shooting in a "reserved" fashion have to do with it?

[Gregory Irwin]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Nobody in their right mind is going to agree that on a 55 million dollar budget, 'cost' was the deciding factor when it comes to having a few lights on a soundstage. The reason they didn't light is because they didn't feel it was necessary, they got away with a few practicals. Getting the foot candles up to 20 - 50 in those "set" night interiors, wouldn't have taken away from the story, nor would it have been any issue. 

 

Thank you Tyler. I appreciate the lesson  in cinematography. 
 

G

[Jon O'Brien]

Conjecture is okay. We are really just chatting, testing ideas and talking about dreams and what we would like to do remember. If flat-out incorrect statements are given as fact, okay that has to be challenged, but some strange things can be said on both 'sides' of the 'debate'. It is not mere "nostalgia" for film exhibition. That is a bit insulting to say. This is also a discussion about where the film industry is clearly going, and where it's been headed for a while now. I agree with Satsuki's comment about Roger Deakins more recent work. To a lot of people, something has been lost or is in danger of being lost in the movie going experience. And so many don't want to see it. Just pay me my money is the only thought. Tyler's comment is spot on. Digital filming and projection results in an image that looks like what we already see with our own eyes. That's a theatrical failure! We go to the theatre to be transported to another world, not to see what we already see. THIS is why real film has value and will grow in value, especially in cinema-release movies. Another thing is that a lot of industry people clearly don't even bother going to the cinema anymore. That's a mistake. Get to the cinema.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Jon O'Brien

[Miguel Angel]

I would love to shoot on IMAX some day but I would really love to shoot on a digital camera that produces an image as large as that of a 8x10 large format photo / sheet film. 

Imagine a true large format digital camera!.. paired with some obscure vintage anamorphic glass that covers that sensor! That's the dream! ?

Edited October 29, 2019 by Miguel Angel