Видео

THE MOST MOSTER OF ALL CAMERAS THE GUY OWN

I think you're incorrect There will be digital simulation that represents real life or whatever version or aesthetic you would want to live There will be software where you'll be more immersed in an environment that you choose to design yourself Movies in general will die People will have simulations where they live in the environment of the movie People will create their own living simulation of a life they would want to be in Like total recall .

I agree with you when scenes are shot in film, it gives a warmth to the picture of some sort. Directors could experiment with the medium used to film a movie based on the story the want to tell on a film, for example, futuristic high paced technological toned films like blade runner 2049 or Tron could be shot on digital. Darker more serious mysterious and dramatized toned films like Oppenheimer and Se7en could be shot on film so it could benefit from the warmth that the medium gives to the film Just an opinion of a movies fan

What other movies combined film and digital other than Dune?

There is a place for both. But movies generally just look superior on film. The clean sharpness of digital doesnt look anything like how my eyes see the world. Film makes it real and at the same time more stylized. Its difficult to express these things in words. But I respond emotionally to film in a different way for sure.

Bias and subjectivity. Period 🤣 We don't experience life thrue digital nor film. Comparison sounds futile in my opinion. It should be a simple choice only about what render you are searching.

For newer films, I often find it difficult to tell if it's shot on digital or film. In my opinion, that's the best case scenario. Just like the best visual effects are the ones you don't notice, the best cinema technology is the one you don't notice.

yeah nah film is just objectively better

Super surprised by the subscriber count! One thing I’d recommend, since you already have the “chapters” of the video layer out I would love them to show up on the timeline.

I really appreciate the aesthetic of film shot in the late 70s and 80s. There's something about the warm tones and grain that you don't see in modern digital, but modern movies shot on film don't have that same aesthetic of those films from the 70s and 80s either. Processing has changes and they can scan that film and do a lot of post processing to make it look more like it was shot on digital. If Indiana Jones was shot on digital instead of film and that was the only difference and the scenes, actors, cinematography was all the same, Indiana Jones would still be a timeless classic. I think the look of those older films appeal to me for nostalgia's sake but does the medium make or break a movie? I don't think so.

People like what they are used to, but in 100 years, movies will be like black and white silent movies are today. I'm pretty sure when color film came along a lot of people came up with tons of arguments why black and white was so much better but the truth is that all those arguments are bullshit. You just don't like digital because you grew up with film, but that doesn't make film better in any way, and those who only grew up with digital will never say that film looks better. End of story.

The Hobbit always looked weird. It was like watching TV on the big screen. Now you get films like Top Gun Maverick and I couldn’t tell if it was digital or film.

Here's the argument ive used on this subject when talking to analogue fans in the audio world... Yes analogue looks or sounds great, but everything we see or hear now is digitally stored/processed before we get it. 100% of visual media consumed at home is digital, the vast majority of cinemas are digital, 95% of audio is digital, even 90% of vinyl records made now are digitally mastered or recorded. With this in mind even if you think you prefer analogue, what you're seeing and hearing is a digital representation of it. Digital can completely represent analogue in a way that means its differences are imperceptible to a person. If a digital source is different in some way then it was a choice to make it that way.

I can't relate to cinematography much because the 35mm film I have access to is just for photos. Digital sensors align pixels perfectly in a grid (not to mention Bayer matrix, that's a topic on its own), whereas film consists of randomly scattered particles, similar to how light scatters. This randomness in film, especially when enlarged, creates that "non-digital" look when enlarged. When you scale a digital image down for printing, you encounter patterns, lines, squares, and aliasing issues. For example, if you scale a digital image of random noise by 98% or 102%, it turns into a grid where some pixels expand and some squeeze. Noise here is just for better demonstration, this problem affects all digital images in any editor, and there's no perfect solution. While with analog sources (like projected film) and analog targets (like photographic paper or movie screen), fractional scaling is flawless, and continuous enlargement only reveals grain, which always has some shape and never becomes pixelated no matter how close you are looking. When it comes to dynamic range, projecting film using light (importantly good full spectrum light source, not some spiky LED) provides that wide dynamic range of film. However, scanning this dynamic range and viewing it on SDR displays is not possible. A camera with AE bracketing can capture the entire range of film, but result can't be fully viewed on without tonemapping (which doesn't replicate the original experience anyway). In the early days of digital cinema, pixelation was very noticeable and the dynamic range was limited. That's probably why many (like Tarantino) disliked it. Now HDR displays bring us closer to the experience of projected film, but there's not too much content still. Movie theaters have high dynamic range projectors too, and more pixels. But still in film, details fade naturally into grain, whereas in digital, they just fade into fewer pixels, causing either aliasing or blurriness due to anti-aliasing filtering. Add motion to that and it this difference, while subtle, can be felt by some viewers, that's also visible on sharp edges in motion not only in fading detail.

Hi! I am from Argentina. I really liked your video. I see you made it quite a while ago, but if you're going to make more videos like this I'm looking forward to seeing them.

Hey man, I just watched this video and I subscribed immediately. I'm wondering why you haven't uploaded for about a year now.

An interesting question would be, would your view change if you didn't know what medium in which a movie was shot. The Creator (digital). Man of Steel (film). Arrival (digital). The Martian (digital). The Batman (digital) And does it make bad movies better?

I was wondering why movies look better now but actually don’t look better and I think it might have to do with what you’re saying. I would like to see more movies shot on film. For me I see movies now not having that cinematic feel that they used to.

The thing about BR2049 is that Deakins does not grade it alot. He shoots it very much like film. One LUT already made for the look of the film. Most of the color is done in camera with lighting. Interesting approach which I think puta emphasis on creating stunning images on set, not in post, where I think many modern movies fall flat - both figuratively and literally.

If you don't watch a film movie shown from a film projector on a film screen - then you're not watching film. It's digital. If digital is introduced to the viewing experience anywhere along the line - it's digital. Make it on 35mm film - watch it on a 4K Tv - it's digital - it looks like crap - but it's digital. It's the same argument with records vs digital.. Got to be a tube amp to listen to analog .. They don't really make them anymore.. Thanks for the cool Video - great thing to hash out..

What I recall is that ~24fps was chosen as the slowest framerate that most people perceive as fluid motion. It would have been a compromise between ease of watching and film costs.

This is a well thought out produced video on the topic, thank you for that. My thought on this film vs digital, I can say that I have lived through about 20 years of each medium, as far as they matter and involving in my life. from early adult life it was film(before digital image era, movies-photos, small photography) then later when digital imaging has risen and I had heavy on DSLR hobby also digital films was increasing both filming and projecting in theaters. the last movie I watched in theater was MI:6 (checked on IMDB they used mostly film), but I watched in a digital projection theater and felt something wasn't right, I was feeling like I was watching it on my own PC monitor, didn't feel like watching movie at all. I didn't go to movie theaters since, not because of digital projector but other reason. then increasing watch movies online regularly until now. recently I started to realize, personally, If the movie look like shot on film, or even shot on digital but did a good job of film emulation (more of grain than color), it will look better than cleaned smooth perfect look from plain digital film. And for me, is not about nostalgia.

I think it's lazy to always do it one way without thinking. You can create so many different feelings. Wether it's digital or film. 4:3, black and white, imax. Heck even those 4d cinemas. But mainstream movies are all digital 1:85 or 2:40. Why limit yourself?

Digital is real, film is SURREAL. I know which I want my fantasies in In my opinion digital is “too real” to be romantic. Like the reality is always there and it doesn’t let you forget actual real life and insert into ANOTHER world

The overly dark Game of Thrones episodes: digital can film much darker, but the displays people watch them on are various degrees of tuning & most simply couldn't see anything. Digital has to take a step back & not be lit so darkly.

Why is it so infrequently mentioned *viewing* films. You're saying that no digital representation of an image can stack up to film whilst simultaneously watching a movie shot on film that has been digitally scanned so you can view it. Doesn't that affect how a movie looks?

this was an amazing video dad. i wish you showed it to me so we could watch it together. i’ll miss you forever.

Something that dawned on me a while ago is when you watch a Movie on VHS that was initially shot on Film - the image never Rests or Sits Still, it's constantly moving around in the scene. It's especially visible when looking at Title Screens - you see the Lettering moving around ever so slightly. Every time I see a Classic Film on Netflix, it always seems like something is missing? It's that subtle movement of the Film passing through the Camera.....

Hello Sir, i have question... if the movie was filmed in 35mm, how they make so realistic and beutiful CGI shots back in 90's? As a CG artist and 3D visualizer, i can see the CGI limitations in 90's, but also cant explain why i like them so much?

i agree with you film looks more real

i love your perspective! humanity needs to move beyond deciding whether things are good or bad because black and white morality is entirely made up and most things are just a shade of grey. film and digital both have their merits and detriments and we should focus instead on making the most of each medium, not judging them. I hope you make a new video soon! this was a great watch

Does it make any difference to working with CGI? Like i would imagine it's easier to use digital for CGI but I have no idea.

The hobbit was a nauseating experience compared to the LOTR, and the light and colors were so heavily manipulated it becomes visually exhausting and sterile. The beauty of the fellowship really stands out for sure.

Aa a professional artist I LOVE the questions you have brought up. at @8:29 is it the camera? My initial thoughts on the visual would include several components. i.e. the staging of the figure, the back lighting to emphasize the silhouette, the movement of the camera, and of course the quality of the picture as a result of these elements in play. Most high level directors/ of cinematography have a wonderful eye for composition and to me it becomes so closely related to painting or illustrating a picture. I also believe that any creative utilizing a tool to tell a story makes sure that the elements involved enrich and push the narrative forward. With the Revenant example, the clarity of the actions happening through the digital camera make for a viscerally horrific moment; however, my eye is prone to noticing the falsities in the graphics and generated images i.e. the bear. Perhaps, with film the granular quality would lift the realism and ground the bear more comfortably in the shot making it appear more real. This is something I've experienced with LOTR, watching it from Film to Digital. To me the original presentation reads so much better because of the film and when cross referenced with the digital version most of the practical elements look cheesy and even stand out as false: costumes, make-up (especially). In fact, the jump to blue ray and digital had me thinking it was a televised show with its clarity and oddly over rendered visuals on some of the orcs and urukai. I LOVE LOTR by the way.... XD

Right? Wrong? The biggest problem with film is the price. We are getting railroaded by the government & the FEDs inflation. 35mm film stock is beyond most of our budgets. The Arri Alexa’s, the R3d Raws & others combined with dehancers and davinci resolves & plug ins CAN replicate film. Not luts, I’m talking hard, knowledgeable work, we can get your Revenants, Blade Runners etc. if you can afford Film, knock yourself out. The money required is just too damn high

Would love to see this interview reshot on 35mm panavision

As someone working in Hollywood, the simple reality is that film is prohibitively expensive and a non-starter for 98% of all projects. It does look cool, yes, but it's a pain in the ass to work with, mistakes are more common and again, it's crazy expensive.

Those gandalf shots were really eye-opening.

For some reason, I didn't like how new movies feel, and I wasn't sure exactly why until I understood the difference between film and digital. It really makes a difference for me, mostly how I used to see movies when I was younger. I think digital ones are closer to reality and feel like I am watching a documentary rather than a fictional story.

It's so funny when people compare digital vs film on RUclips, when clearly both is digital. When film is on RUclips - it's digitally. It is ones and zeros. If there is enough data, and you know what you're doing, you can emulate film.

Make more videos about filmmaking you have a nice calm podcast voice and a good perspective!

I think both film and digital are superb and if used correctly and in the right circumstances will produce outstanding results. I admire both formats.

One looks real, the other is real.

Analog > Digital. Time will tell

While digital can create cinematic look as good or even better then film. It has the potential to screw up the look with all settings that are available. To give an example. Open shutters. Film can’t use open shutters while digital can, but it looks like home video.

Ok, let's sum up everything - Film is just better for movies. That's it. You can make digital also very good looking, but for a movie film will always be a little bit better. It's just harder and pricier to shoot on film. And by the way - do you want to know why dinosaurs in older Jurassic Park really look so good even till this day ? Why are they so organic ? Cause movie was shot on film. Digital dinosaurs combined with filmic look. That's why it looks so great till this day.

I remember an interesting reddit discussion (which unfortunately i doubt i could find again) in which, it was explained that digital looks more like how you see the world with your eyes and film like how you view your dreams and memories, which actually makes film more evocative despite not being as realistic.

I think according to me that with this point I will say many things, it is a shame that nowadays you cannot enjoy equipment for public use in 6mm (just as the super 8 was) the problem is the recording time, nowadays with digitally with almost any camera you can record up to 3 hours!!!, that is a good point. On the other hand, if you try to "emulate" film grain with effects from professional programs... IT WILL NEVER BE THE SAME because that is something particular to recording tapes greetings.

Absolutely love this style of commentary and video and your voice suits the style very well. Really nicely done.

Notice everything digital is dark