Why Are Movies Still Shot On Film? | Why Do Some Directors Like Film | Film vs Digital
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- #movies #imax #film #disney
In 2023 a surprising amount of directors still shoot their movies on film. In this video we take a look at why directors like Christopher Nolan and Quentin Tarantino still choose film over digital.
Please consider joining the channel to support Movie University
/ @movieuniversity
📺 What's the difference between HDR and WCG?
• What is High Dynamic R...
📺 What Does "Filmed for IMAX" mean?
• What Does Filmed For I...
📺 How Do Aspect Ratios Work?
• Aspect ratios explaine...
Subs: 34,148
Tags: film vs digital cinematography, film vs digital photography, film vs digital movies, why do directors use film, why do directors still use film, why does christopher nolan use film, how are movies shot on film, why are movies shot on film, digital vs film, why is film better than digital, is film better than digital, is digital better than film, Film vs Digital, why do director prefer film, why do some directors prefer film over digital
![[Limbus Company - PV] Chapter.7 - Oblivion](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VUpkXPkvoxU/mqdefault.jpg)
Brilliant Video! Summs up the most important. 3:41 exatly, there is some heay post work on it, and some don't even do that at the end, which results in a very digital look. Newcomers and low budget production of course have to go digital, but Hollwood should really shoot on film, even Today.
A lot of errors in this. The films mentioned are pretty much entirely shot on film, rather than ‘partly shot.’ You can absolutely get a playback on set. You have monitors and video assist (fun fact - Jerry Lewis invented video assist). You can even cut the video assist. When I did the first Harry Potter films (all shot on film), we began working vfx to a video assist before scans arrived. These days, the film is processed overnight and sent back with you the next morning as 4k scans and proxies. You can be cutting literally hours after wrap. On set, a DoP shouldn’t be lighting to a monitor. Jack Cardiff never did. Gordon Willis etc. They had a light meter, and experience. Exposure is easy to manage. Film has great latitude and technically it has no resolution, only what you scan it at. If we need 8K scans of a film in the future, we can go back and rescan it. We cannot accurately upres a film shot at 2K or 4k (without trickery). And let’s not talk about archival and whether some digitally stored films are accessible any more because the technology to store them has become outdated. The monitor is always for performance, not for lighting shots. So film or digital it’s irrelevant. Many older directors never even looked at a monitor. They just watch their actors and trust their DoP. Regarding costs - film medium is more expensive, but actors and crew are on point when they hear money whirring through a camera. Aesthetically a photochemical and photoelectric process are different and do not look the same. It is an artist’s choice in the same way that the Mona Lisa is an oil painting, not a watercolour. Most of your grips and crew will be the same - a crane costs the same for film or digital, as does a focus puller. The clapper loader actually loads film, though and you don’t need a DIT to manage data as it comes out of the camera. One less person to hire if you shoot film. Shooting film may attract talent and crew to your project. It’s happened to me before. Also, hard drives and memory cards fail (happened to me before) and if a digital camera breaks, you’re screwed. Film cameras are easier to open up and fix a problem mechanically. Like older cars vs newer cars. I hope this clears some of this up.
Brilliantly stated!!!!
Bingo ❤
Nice to know ! so the video recording/assist is pure for the post edit of the analog film, what i understand of this, and the colorist did not use the video material for this and used the measurement made on the set for for color grading/correcting,(at that same moment, with the experience) otherwise with video only, one would work on the RAW video recordings/files…to correct in post, a lot is possible using both methods, more then i could imagine….
Thank you for this info!
I'm on team film. Digital may 'look better' but film 'feels better'. My 2 cents.
Film is a more true-to-life representation of how the eye sees. Digital captures more than the human eye, which is why when I am watching a 4K digital film on my 65 inch TV, I see every pore or little hair on someone's face, which is not how I see real life. It is distracting. Film flows like music and is more natural for our human eyes. Digital is technically superior, but film is vastly more beautiful and true-to-life.
@@phillipbanes5484 film has a higher resolution than anything digital ever made… the way you develop the images determines it how it comes out and it requires true mastery to fine tune it in production rather than post production. That’s why the filmmaker’s that still use film have such beautiful films full of intent and control. It forces you to actually make art with intent rather than just film stuff and then fix it in post, using cgi at the smallest problem. This is why Nolan doesn’t use green screens even tho anyone else making a Sci fi space movie in 2010s would call you crazy. IMAX is also shot on film. The most advanced camera and projection system right now is film.
But of course the world is full of people who don’t understand true beauty, art, and qualities beyond the cold hard facts of mechanics that the new technological revolution has brought.
@@phillipbanes5484 hahaha you even talk like a machine.. No wonder. You’ll never make anything worthwhile. Why do you think the greatest directors rn still use “archaic” technology even when older filmmakers have switched to digital? The masters of this field must be idiots.
And you conveniently left out the IMAX topic. I guess you survive on biases like the idiot you are. Go back to your whole and jerk off to your AI generated hentai- leave the discussion of art and beauty (which what filmmaking is about) to others.
Tell me which digital camera comes close to 70mm Imax.
Agreed, totally team Film. Looks and feels more authentic.
I asked my 2nd Assistant Cameraman how he liked using digital vs film. He said it was the first good nights sleep he had in years. He went to bed knowing they got the shot versus finding out at 7am the next morning that he missed the focus pull. From a Production Managers point of view I'll take digital any day.
That's a great point.
comfort over quality.
Definitely prefer film in movies and photography. Colors of some of the old film movies look amazing to me in their vibrancy (and I'm color blind). And if you look at some of the old film photos for example, like movie star head shots, they just look more real and natural.
go watch the old crazy ass movie Natural Born Killers!it got some of the hottest slow motion and colour saturation ever!
@@phillipbanes5484 It's a taste thing. I don't like photographs with a lack of "noise." Lots of digital photographs look too scientifically sharp. I can distinguish a digital from film photo 8 out of 10 times even when the digital is purposely trying to look like film. How do I know 8 out of 10 times? Because I ask people to test me all the time. Usually, I am right. Not 100 percent of the time, though :P
I'm still waiting for someone to make a digital look like Kodachrome.
As the saying goes, people say they know what they like, but actually they like what they know. It seems to me kind of like when music went digital, when people heard their favorite albums, that they have listened to for years on vinyl, on digital for the first time, it didn't sound precisely the way they were used to hearing it, so they did not like it. Some people are so into the nostalgia & romanticism of film that they can not look beyond it. If you are doing a period piece of a narrow time in history when color film was used (e.g. 1950's, 60's etc) and you want to capture that 'look', then perhaps film makes sense, otherwise give me digital as I like hyper realistic & more realistic is better.
@@phillipbanes5484 I too remember when music made the transition to CD as I am in my mid 60s. I agree most people did like CD better, but there were those who claimed that vinyl sounded better. I was not one of those, nor were most, I agree that was a minority, but they existed and that is what I was referring to. Remember those guys who would ritualistically apply a few drops of liquid to a kind of brush to clean their records pretty much anytime they played them? That was the type. It's odd that as far as I can tell we seem to agree very much on the core question but you seem to find so much fault on the fringe of what I say.
With digital I appreciate the convenience of instantly being able to see the dailies, without endlessly filming take after take to see and not being able to see a mistake until you get it projected on a different day. I rather see the cut on the set, after each shot.
Back in the old days, its almost common to see your favorite scene from the dailies, only to realize the boom mic is also in the shot. And be like "wish I noticed that on set that day."
You're talking about the really old days, there. Video taps/ video assist has been around since the early 70s, so you could totally instantly see if there was a boom mic in the shot. For judging framing and performances, a video tap will totally get the job done. It's really only in critically extreme situations of exposure or focus that you might need to look at dailies.
@@dereknolin5986 The first film to use Video Assist was The Party (1968)
Its sorta like why there are still vinyl releases...rappers love dropping their albums on vinyl. There is a noticeable sound difference
True true.
Some directors also hate film.
@@MovieUniversityword. And some rappers only love to drop on soundcloud lol
It’s a little different, but same idea. More like rappers like Dre who record on tape - it’s the acquisition at time recording that’s gives a natural “forgiveness” and is engaging to the ear like film is to the eye : it seem or instincts are more likely to desire a smooth analog wave rather then the instruction set of one’s and zeros in binary digital. I feel we have lost so much since 2007..
Vinyl is good when it is newly minted. The audio quality superiority is gone after first playback.
It's a much more huge difference when it comes to shooting movies. Directors that love chemical film emulsion had better invest in factories that make it, because it will be GONE pretty soon, never to return again.
The difference in the cost of using film stock vs digital video is astronomical, at every single level.
Some good stuff. But there’s a lot of errors in this video…
- You can do video playback on sets shot on film. They have a feed from the camera lens to “video village” so the director can monitor - at the very least - in real time.
- The comment about “redos” on film doesn’t make sense. It might be more expensive to do another take since film is more expensive. But in a big budget, film stock is pennies on the dollar
- Film doesn’t capture the “intended look” right out of the box. It still needs to be “color timed”.
- Film scans do take up large files... but so do digital cinema camera files.
Film allows for potential future remasters as higher resolutions become standard (as long as the film stock is sufficiently large to capture the needed detail). With digital cameras, you're stuck to a fixed resolution and that's as good as it will ever look. Old movies shot on large film stock look absolutely amazing today when remastered in 4K.
The best film look is when you color time chemically in a lab not digitally.
Film definitely has a cinematic look, films shot digitally to me just look like a Netflix production.
No they don’t. Just because you can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean the rest of us can’t. Any time I’ve seen a movie and gone “Wow! How did they get it to look so incredible?!” It was film. The best digital can achieve is “close enough”. Art is like the Olympics. You’re trying to reach the greatest heights possible. And just like in acting, music, and writing, the immense effort required to push your work just that bit farther may seem trivial to most, but it’s what excellence is all about.
@@PolarisBanksMany films shot digitally look like an advert, it straight up captures more that we see with our eyes. It looks far worse in comparison.
"Generally speaking, resolution of film is higher than most digital cameras", well if you don't know what you're talking about, maybe do some research before sharing information that was relevant 10 years ago, but not anymore, at all. Also, don't take advice for shooting format from film directors, they're not technicians, their arguments will mostly be related to some mystical feeling such as "film captures the world as it really is" and nostalgia, but nothing concrete or technically verifiable
I'm getting that mystical feeling from your comment. Nothing concrete or technically verifiable.
@@merickful A 35mm scan is roughly equivalent to 4K and a dynamic range of 14 to 15 stops; the Red Helium and the Sony Venice shoot at an 8K fully exploited resolution, the Alexa Classic was shooting at 14.5 stops of dynamic range since 2011 and the Alexa 35 has a confirmed 17 stops of dynamic range. But maybe you’d like me to go more in deep at technical aspects, or you’re just here to blindly follow your idol film directors’ stupid statements about film, I can’t really say
Movies are about emotion. If film gives a certain "feeling" to select directors/cinematographers, then who are we to argue with them? Maybe the benefits of film are in it's _imperfections_ and not how well it scores on a spec sheet?
You bring up RED, but I can consistently tell when something is shot on RED and I _hate_ that look. That much I know for sure. 😂
Side note, I also think film objectively handles highlights better then almost any digital cinema camera. (Excluding the Venice 2.)
Question : Imagine hypothetically that movies had always been shot on digital (ie film stock had never been invented) and someone came along and said I’ve created this new type of format called film but you need bigger cameras, you can only shoot 4mins rolls before changing into new roll so it slows the performances down and you need to send it away to special place called a lab and it takes 24 hours before you can see the rushes and its more expensive. But the plus side is it gives you better dynamic range and type of look which is difficult to explain (although very few people would notice this) do we think film would be taken up with such enthusiasm?
I would have to say a definite no on this one. The advantages of digital far, far out weight the advantages of film. In fact, the gap is so wide that I doubt film would ever see the light of day.
I think film then would be taken up with even more enthusiasm
Interesting perspective. Hard to say, but the projection is definitely more detailed and I guess some need people would start to appreciate it quite soon. One thing that I like about film photography as wel for example, is that you really have to think what you are shooting, it is not endless trial and error like digital. For the actors, the pressure to perform in less takes separates the pros from the heard.
Here's a fact well known to marketers: For any new thing, you get "early adopters" - people who will get teh latest thing just because it is the latest. They are a small percentage of the market. You get "stick in the muds" - people who stay with what they know and understand. They are a sizeable percentage of any market. In the middle sit the practical joes who just want to get the job done and make money. Since film is more expensive, the practial joes won't have a bar of it.
Everyone is looking for an edge. Anyone can shoot a film digitally, they’re practically giving away 8k Red’s and Alexa classics. So what separates the look of your film? Is it just lighting, composition and coloring or is it something else? Film gives people that other option. So yes I think it would be embraced.
Top Gun: Maverick might be the only digitally shot movie that has "matched" the film look for me. The Venice 2 is a monster of a camera.
*There needs to be a clarification made here. It's not just simply an issue of shooting on film versus digital, it is shooting on 65mm motion picture negative film versus digital, which is the key determining factor in the overall look of the image. All 70mm film is shot on 65mm in the camera, in two main 70mm formats, mainly 5 perferration high frame height , or 15 perf through the camera sideways frame size. IMAX is 15 perf. Super Panavision 70, Ultra Panavision 70, Showscan, and TODD-AO are all 5 perf 65mm formats in the camera. These formats produce image quality results far above any digital cinema format extant in terms of resolution and depth of colour and detail.*
I'm surprised you didn't refer any Denis Villeneuve films considering they're shot in digital and yet have recieved multiple nominations and wins.
Well back in the day when it was a choice between either film or analog videotape, film was the obvious choice until microprocessing became advanced enough for shooting the insane digital stuff we do today. Nowadays, it’s basically just like digital music vs vinyl. Both sound great, but film (like vinyl with sound) just has its own unique charm and look to it that digital cannot truly replicate.
I think most people can’t tell a difference. Only a small percentage can hear a difference between an LP and a FLAC file.
@@MovieUniversity The issue is that vinyl really only makes a huge difference when the entire audio setup is analog. Vinyl records are generally pressed using digital files nowadays, which means you get to have a lower quality digital file. I still prefer vinyl, though, because it's just more fun.
Vinyl can't even separate stereo correctly and renders a different sound wave every play. I get the "fun" factor, but when it comes to quality, especially in an industrial level... digital clearly beats analog out, you can rely on it.
@@MovieUniversity There basically is no difference, and I put that to the test myself. It's more imagined. People, now our younger kids, are liking vinyl because it's vinyl and give them a peek at how we old timers enjoyed music. What is fascinating is that isn't now so much about the sound quality of older LPs, it's about the quality of the music, and I mean the artists. Today we are giving crap, back then we were given Jefferson Airplane, Grance Slick, Janis Joplin, Eric Clapton, Jeff Beck, Bob Dylan, Donovon, Led Zeppelin, Moody Blues, Frank Zappa, etc. What do we have today? Don't get me started.
Way back when?? How old are you? Analog video for films was not used that much, and not that long ago, except maybe for the home video market, or the news, sitcoms, and porn.
Digital is great, but as a viewer,I’ll always love the look and texture of a movie shot on film. There’s just a richness to it that digital lacks. Also after learning that film can have more details locked in it that can be coaxed out later (like in the example of the restoration of say Lawrence of Arabia), what’s not to like from that standpoint.
💯 film
According to what I study in modules like Signals and Systems, comparing Film vs. Video is like comparing continuous signals to discrete signals. Film has no such resolution specified. So we can even rescan and restore old films in 4K. Meanwhile digital video is in pixels. So even though a 1920x1080 emage is enough for a 42"TV or a 15" Monitor to display with no pixelation, you can see the grid of pixels if you view that in a projector that's far enough.
You're not wrong. But people need a reference point with which to understand the level of quality and pixels are an easy go to to understand the level of quality since they're in all of our electronic displays.
@@MovieUniversity He is wrong in that film has always had a resolution spec. It's called grain.
When the US electronics industry was developing analog television, they decided on 525 lines. Why 525 lines? Because its resolution was about the same as 16 mm film. Later, of course, film resolution got better, making analog TV look not so good.
By the time the Europeans set their TV standards, they went for 625 lines - which gave a resolution about the same as improved 16 mm.
@@MovieUniversity use a greater surface and more pixels makes that right.
@@phillipbanes5484 It is not clear who you are refuting. However, grain in film equates to pixel count in digital. Both set a limit of resolution. Of course picture quality depends on the weakest link. Image resolution cannot exceed the resolution set by grain or pixel count, and cannot exceed the resolution set by the lens and lens depth of field.
A 20 mp digital sensor does not match modern 35 mm film. Magazine editors consider 20 MP the minimum for a half page photo in high quality colour printing. 35 mm film since the likes of Kodacolor 2 in 1972 was acceptable for full page images, though 70 mm was preferred.
The magazine National Geographic owed its success by being the first to allow colour pictures taken with 35 mm back in the 1950's thus reducing photography cost and enabling pictures of scenes where 70 mm or quarter-plate could not be used. And film has improved dramatically since then.
The software in consumer cameras uses interpolation and edge finding tricks to make images look sharper, however this is not acceptable in professional work as software cannot create detail than was lost.
Interestingly, not many people know this, but it is possible to sharpen up film technology prints by chemical means - some 1950's movies were sharpened up this way.
@@keithammleter3824I'm a graphic designer for almost 30 years. I've worked with analog film scanners in the past and of course with digital images today. I would say a 35 mm film scan can roughly hold about 4k resolution in detail level or slightly above that depending on the film stock, which is around a 9-10 MP image. Of course you could scan it at any resolution your scanner allows for, but you won't get any more meaningful detail out of it above 9-10 MP, only more high-res captured film grain. The standard resolution for full color print is 300 dpi, which means you can print an A4 or letter sized page in landscape in full quality. So you really don't need a 20 MP image for only a half page magazine.
Dynamic range of best film is 14 stops. Modern digital cameras has more than 16.
High resolution of film is only “theoretical”. In real world only what you have is a grain.
Only reason to shot at film is “aesthetics” and feeling that you shot «canonically».
This is absolutely the same when now amateurs takes film stills cameras and think that they produce pieces of art
Which camera has more than 16 stops? I haven't heard of one. Also digital and film both handle highlights/shadows completely differently.
Really appreciate the quality of this video: informative, unbiased and well edited. Will subscribe to channel.
Next video: Why do some musicians use instruments to make music instead of using computers? Roll eyes.
Film looks sooooooo much better than digital! Sadly, if Nolan and Tarantino retire, we're screwed....................
+ SS Steven Spielberg
I made a couple of short films and I had to go with digital. It’s not only cheaper but just finding an editor who can edit film on a small budget is nearly impossible. Plus a lot of festivals only accept digital.
Nobody cuts on film really. You scan the film into digital and do post that way. It creates a look which is not like your competitors digital files. If you wanna stick out from a crowd, it’s what ya gotta do sometimes.
Yeah even tarantino, nolan, scorsese, pt anderson shoot on film but edit their movie digitally
@@chrisszyyy Nobody edits on film. It doesn’t matter how you edit. They still cut the negative.
Its good to learn the basics of cinematography on digital before going to film
People say they know what they like, but actually, they like what they know.
Film vs. Digital is a great example of this proverb.
Roger Deakins & Greg Fraser have made digital masterpieces that would rival film. Great video!!!
@@curiositytax9360 the Alexa mini is one of the best cameras out today, deakins shot all of 1917 on it.
@@Ljm488I doubt this guy actually cares that Deakins shot it on digital or that it's considered beautiful. He's seemingly put his stake in Film Purism and probably won't budge.
Deakins has until you look at motion blur and halation. Then you kinda scratch your head and realize it’s shot digitally.
if it's good enough for Roger Deakins...
I like both film and digital.
Film : It has occasional imperfection like oil or acrylic painting to convey the idealised image of our perceived world.
Digital : The images look sharp and clear, very immersive, it doesn't avoid unpleasant or sordid aspects of life, it concerned with how things appeared to the eye, rather than containing ideal representations of the world.
As a mere viewer of movies, I like film.
What i was thinking is, that you can have a higher resolution by having a greater film or sensor surface, the greater it is, the less the grain or pixels have influence on it, you have more grain in a surface of a 8mm frame, then one has in a 70mm frame, latest tech will have also much smaller/finer sized grain, pixels for sensors getting smaller each time or sensor sizes getting bigger. there will be "an end" to it, at a certain state..
One of the few digital films that looks as good as film would be 1917. Whatever they did on the compositing made it magical. I don't even think it would look that much better on film.
1917 looked great but still looked digital for sure. No real contest. The moment you see night scenes with lack of contrast, then you know it’s digital. Film doesn’t have as many stops below middle gray as digital does. So any dark scenes will have to be well lit.
Sorry, but the colors in 1917 looked washed out. Even though the camera work was great, I don't like the image quality.
@@summerlove7779 Agreed. There's definitely a trend that's been going for a bit now to create these murky, muddy, yet extremely mid-tone images with digital. Nighttime cityscapes can definitely benefit from this, I will give you that. However, overall I personally don't get anything emotionally out of this kind of visual "style." Very sick of it, actually, and hopefully it will go away sooner than later and folks shooting on digital will start to at least embrace contrast, shadows and highlights again! But, the beauty of celluloid is that this dynamic range and contrast is already built in to the material, so even if you wanted to get that digital washed out, cat vomit look, it would look undercooked and nasty, and you'd have no choice but to grade it with contrast, shadows and highlights in mind. With that said, there is very little doubt in my mind that audiences to a certain extent, and certainly new filmmakers, are discovering and embracing celluloid again because it offers a feel and mood like no other and harkens back to the "elemental" of filmmaking -- and that is optical image creation in-camera vs. the nauseating over manipulation of digital images in post. Disgusting.
Shooting on film made sense up until maybe 10 years ago, but modern digital cameras deliver superior resolution and dynamic range, and also provide so many other advantages over film, as discussed in the video. And if a director likes a softer “film” look, that can easily be achieved in post with simple adjustments. If a project is shot on film it is much harder to adjust the look in post. It’s more of a status symbol to shoot on film these days, like the rock star insisting on only green m&m’s in their candy dish. It makes no practical or aesthetic sense, but is rather a way to demonstrate your clout.
There are many benefits to shooting digital, but it is untrue that digital cameras have superior resolution in all cases. IMAX 70mm has the highest possible resolution still. Also, the whole idea of "we can create a softer 'film' look in post" really doesn't make for a nuanced argument of how digital is superior. If you are seeking to achieve the aesthetic of film, and you have the means to make it happen, then it stands to reason that shooting on film itself may be your best option rather than aiming for an approximation and then having to try to alter the image in post. It just depends on the specific vision of the director and DP, what the look is that they want to achieve, and where they plan to allocate most of their time/money. Shooting on film may be costlier during production, but if this is the aesthetic a director and DP want, then it can save a lot of money and time in post. And this is not just an argument for the huge budget input of Nolan, Tarantino, etc. I can say from firsthand experience that smaller budget movies can actually cut down on # of days due to less time being spent continuously rolling on multiple takes. All of this is not meant to discount your opinion about the benefits of digital, but merely to say that it is just your own personal experience, not everyone's. Many filmmakers prefer celluloid for its richness of color, resolution, and the image that it is able to capture on the day of, making color grading and other post effects a lot less necessary. There are plenty of pros and cons to both mediums, however, and just as an artist can choose how to paint their canvas, a filmmaker should be able to continue to have the choice between digital and film!
Even when projected digitally movies shot on film looks way better!!
Modern Film stock has a lot finer grain than older Films so they don't have that Film look in the same way that Film from say the 60s does, the only exception I can think of is the Lighthouse, which does look like it was Filmed in the 30s.
100% agree! The Lighthouse was shot with Kodak Eastman Double X, which is a very old emulsion, and virtually unchanged since it was introduced around 1960. I don't think there is an available color film stock that can look genuinely that old, even through processing. All variations of Kodak Vision 3 look great, but great in a very modern way.
Film looks better, digital is more comfortable to shoot with
Digital is indispensable for a lot of applications, for economical and practical reasons. Film is artistic and if well shot and graded it looks fantastic. I wouldn't take movies shot on film from the 2000s as a reference, since they were scanned at 2K resolution and very often with bad digital color grading since it was new at the time. I'd say the movies looked their very best during the 1990s, when the gorgeous Eastman EXR film stock was used. I'm also a fan of Fuji stocks BTW. When working with film, you earn each shot, since the workflow is more cumbersome. You did it, not software.
Interesting how many film makers who started using film switched to digital saying they prefer digital over film Roger Deakins really like’s digital
his feud with Tarantino over film is legendary.
Except Roger Deakins hasn’t made a great looking film in years. The best thing he ever did was “the assassination of Jesse James“ which is still shot on film. Now that he’s switched over to digital, his stuff looks like crap in comparison.
@2424rocket Hard disagree. His current films shot digitally look amazing and there's a good reason why he's won two Oscars for films he shot digitally. You can't tell me Blade Runner 2049 and 1917 don't look amazing just because they weren't captured on film
@@2424rocketBlade Runner 2049 was shot digitally and is one of the best looking films of the past decade. He won the Oscar for that as well.
@@2424rocket Blade Runner 2049? Prisoners? Sicario? Skyfall?
As a portrait photographer who uses film, there have been many movies that stopped me in my tracks. The first was Girl with a Pearl Earring. Then the skin tones in so many movies like The Pacific. I often wondered how much of those skin tones was makeup til the Sharon tate in bed scene where her leg skin was amazing. Now what do these films have in common? Kodak vision 3 film I'd use it for portraiture but it is a royal pain to remove the remjet black coating that is on the back of the film to prevent static electricity as it flies through a film camera. But the skin tones, even better than Kodak Portra.
Digital is better but Analog is better for advertising "look we shoot this on film"
Because they’ve bought into the romantic idea that shooting on plastic somehow makes their movies better, when in reality all that 99% of filmgoers care about is storytelling.
I don't disagree per say. But I think there's something to consider that if the director is telling the story in a medium he or she believes in more than that translates to more passion for the work at hand thus giving viewers a better product in the end.
But they do make their movies better though. There's no greater example than horror films. Old horror films are greately elevated by their look, lighting, feel, charm of their time and music, they often didn't have great scripts, actors or anything. You'd have completely different films and much worse ones if you shoot the same scripts on digital without any effort to make it look good, with modern sensibilities and without that music and charm.
Wonder Woman was wonderful to watch at the theater. The grain was perfect. What a shame when I got the 4k release and started to watch it and seen that all the grain was digitally removed.
I’ve shot both and if digital was clearly better, so many projects wouldn’t be using elaborate LUTs and plugins to mimic the look of film.
I love both but if money weren’t an issue, I’d do film for all narrative projects. The setup and lighting time are about the same but I feel that film forces you to make a lot more choices and planning ahead of time that make for a better end result. You plan for a specific look and cast/crew tend to focus more since you can’t just roll continuously. While I do wish I could view things back right away, it’s not something I found that I missed a whole lot and there’s no bigger dopamine hit out there than getting the footage back and seeing you nailed it.
If film wasn’t as expensive as it is, I’d use it all the time
Funny thing is that a good film is still a good film if shot on film or video. The same is also true in reverse.
Probably less than 5% of the public care one way or another. Sadly, I know many people are very happy to watch a film on a telephone with mono sound. The same can be said about sound. Most people simply do not care.
You missed Vista-Vision.
Yep they do not care.
Digital looks to me too clean most of the time. I much prefer a softer image, raw resolution is not everything.
I started watching the Series- Supernatural recently and noted that the colours look amazing. The contrast is phenomenal. Blacks look crisp without those pixilated artifacts showing up. And my TV is 7 years old.
Astonishing what film captures. Yes I do realise high cost in processing, but the look is amazing.
This is really a misconception. The so-called 'film look' is vastly overrated since any movie, shot on film, is routinely digitally scanned, graded and edited on a digital pipeline and eventually re-exported in film or in DCP for standard projection. Anyways modern cinema camera (the cheapest too) are basically capable of reproducing the film aesthetic qualities in terms of texture, blacks, subtle grain and diffusion matrix and so on... Furthermore there are some production - like Dune. Part 1 or The Batman -, whose workflows switch form digital to film scanner to digital rendering again. So this topic really is totally pointless.
I mention all that in the video that you can recreate the film look from digital. But then again, that's the point. I've never read or heard of a director wanting their film to look digital. Instead you hear of digital trying to look like film. Which can be achieved out of the box with actual film.
@@MovieUniversity maybe but I dont what is better: load a reel in a box, set the perfect iso, time the negative, scan the negative and so on, or run the digital raw and get the post-production
You don’t get it and we can’t help you.
@@2424rocket well except that this is an arrogant answer, maybe you dont know what I can afford 😁 in fact I have shot on film in the past - even in low budget situations -... and anyways this is a debate not a personal fight. Anybody - in the 'business' - knows the beauty and the tradition of film pipeline but the statement in this video is so pointless and completely sectarian
I mean you’re right, you can manipulate digital to look like film. However it’s just faking it. People who actually care, they don’t even try. They shoot film and many strike prints. Even if those prints don’t exist at your local cinema, here in Hollywood they are screened. Many films like LaLa land, had film screenings locally because that was the directors intent! Shit even Nope got a 5 perf 70mm print made and screened.
My first thought when seeing this video's title is that film (and photography) is mostly a chemical process that processes images similar to how the human eye does. It just feels warmer, more alive, than digital which is an electronic process and less of what the human organism does.
I hardly watch professional sports anymore because the images look dead cold to me, at best cold and artificial.
Yes, I understand that digital is more economical.
Comparable to the difference between organic and processed food.
Higher dynamic range with broader color spectrum when exposed to light
You need to have a mature and experienced team to take part in shooting on film. You can't be 6 months out of film school and shoot a 350 million dollar project shot on film (and neither in digital for that matter).
I mean that’s obvious lol
The look of a movie shoot on film is magnificent.
Film is simply better.
I think "feel" is very subjective. Its why guitarists own so many guitars.
From a person who works in the post-production industry and as a vfx on set supervisor, I don't think that what you get shooting on film is worth the price of what you lose. Most of what you get shooting on film can be recreated in post. What you lose shooting on film there's no way to get it back.
Great insight, thank you for that!
@3:45, I argue that film is always harder. Most people like Nolan actually digitize the film, edit in digital then actually cut the film after the digital edit before final print. Digital editing is always easier in all regards.
I watched oppenheimer once on imax digital (what most people called imax) and then on imax 70mm *it blew every molecules in my body apart!* And then I understood why Nolan likes film!
This shouldn't even be a question let alone a video of any length.
BECAUSE IT LOOKS FANTASTIC!
Digital can also looks good, but they will never be the same, and it's good to have both.
Even today Kodak reels has better quality then digital
it's more of a "tool guiding you" then actual benefit. when you are dealing with modern hi-end digital raw video you just naturally get to other place, picture wise. i think you can emulate film and when it gets dialed in the last pervs will switch.
Considering IMax 70mm film is like 16K resolution, Film is future proof for a good while. And the files never "get out of date". Hell 35mm film is 5.6K equivalent. With that being said the movoes can be remastered in the future and make more $$$ where with digital not so much. You can shoot in 8k or 10k and rendernout in 4K but 8K is already becoming a thing so...
As long as it's projected digitally, I'm happy. I grew up watching film projection. The problem is, most theaters have projector issues of one sort or another. They all seem to have jitter, for starters.
Excellent point.
I shoot film nearly exclusively with Canon EOS 1, 1N or 1V. I use digital when I'm goofing around.
😮😮😮😮😮 24 minutes of raw digitally scanned footage takes up 1TB bloody hell I did not know that sheesh that has to be some big @ss server room that that footage is worked from. Man that’s insane.
lol.
Rian Johnson shot the First Knives Out Digital Film Grain wish more Filmmakers would adopt this technique.
can't lie, matrix revolutions looks absolutely incredible on a 4K HDR OLED. but there's something about seeing a movie on film with all the little bits of dust and dirt and jitter that really tickles my fancy.
I agree with everything you say. Matrix looks fantastics on my LG OLED. But something magical about Nolan movies shot on film.
You need a digital camera with the same information retention as the scanner used to convert film to digital, which is always needed before the edit. The Alexa 35 is a good step in that direction.
Not really. You can compress the signal as it’s being scanned to retain the detail in the film. It’s called a “flat” or log scan. HDR is also an option on many scanners where they snap two images per frame at different brightness leveled and combined them automatically in post, it fixes the blacks.
@@CinemaRepository the blacks are the whites in a negative film and visa versa...
@CinemaRepository this tech will find its way into a portable camera someday. But that may take awhile. It's the inevitable progression of technology. For now, film looks great and we don't have to do the hard work ourselves.
@@TimsWildlife Oh the dynamic range and color science of the Alexa 35 far outweighs that of film. We are way past what film can do “technically” but it still does not necessarily deliver a filmic look out of the box.
Since when digital technology became part of if film making ?
Thank you my friend.
Film is a more true-to-life representation of how the eye sees. Digital captures more than the human eye, which is why when I am watching a 4K digital film on my 65 inch TV, I see every pore or little hair on someone's face, which is not how I see real life. It is distracting. Film flows like music and is more natural for our human eyes. Digital is technically superior, but film is vastly more beautiful and true-to-life.
Film definitely has advantages. That being said, the presenter got the dynamic range part technically incorrect. The ARRI Alexa S35 now has confirmed 17 stops of dynamic range - far more than film, but not IMAX 70MM Film. That still remains king of the castle.
I'm very curious, how to edit a movie that shot in film?
I just saw Oppenheimer. And for all of Nolan’s allegiance to film - it looked like the most digitally processed movie I’ve seen in a long time. Any high-end digital cinema camera such as a RED or ARRI or even SONY could have gotten the same end result. I hold the same view when it comes to “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” and other modern day movies shot on film.
Are there any 65mm sized sensors in digital camera's ?
Nolan does not like to color grade his films.
@@gabrielalamberti5860 I used to shoot on film - and back in the day we called it "color timing" because it was a chemical process that was actually timed to get certain looks. Today it's all done on computers and they call it "grading". Just like every film back in the day was "timed", every film made today is color graded - including Nolan's. Any statement to the contrary is pure hype and/or complete bulls**t.
@@xavierzander4201 In a film with 85% medium or tight close-ups (like "Oppenheimer" and most movies) It's irrelevant what the film/sensor size is. I've seen movies shot in 8K (and less) and when projected on huge screens they look absolutely stunning. IMAX and all it's hype is just another way to lure people back to the theaters. But I think it will backfire because most movies are not shot in IMAX and most movie goers are reluctant to drop $18 and more to see a movie. And here is a fun fact: most IMAX theaters project in 2K digital which is far less resolution than the 70mm film stock of the IMAX cameras used to shoot true IMAX movies. So, in the end you would hard pressed to tell the difference between film and digital origins.
@@Rainonasphalt I agree, but I think modern audiences do not have the patience for the glitches and imperfections inherent to film projection. All the theaters near me including IMAX are all digitally projected.
Even if the movie is shotvon film, it is still required digital coversion for post production.
Something about digital is just too clean & perfect. The image looses depth and weight to me. Plus, the digital projection in theatres looks awful to me. I saw Oppenheimer in 70 mill. Never seen a movie in digital look as good as that.
Is there something called digital fatigue regarding the sound?
This didn't mention the fact that reels of film need to be delivered to all the theaters. The cost there is huge. And you can't show the same movie at the same time unless you have multiple copies.
My guess is it's more nostalgia and having (too much) money, because in digital, in the RAW recording format a lot is do-able in post, color, shadows, a lot of camera settings can even being changed in post, which with analog film can't be done(that much),….. an advantage of film negative is maybe that white is black on the negative and dark/black is white on the negative, which means dark parts have no grain/noise when scanning to digital ? analog film does age, discolors….
Digital colorists are true artists in color correcting/grading, an analog film has most of it's colors "baked-in" ?
Filming in 8K or more leaves also room take out a different image part of that large frame to work with in post, one could also wonder if one needs that much optical resolution in the end…
Also ….digital is easy to transport .. like streaming, by any connection or media, unlike rolls of films that also wear down in quality by the use of it. one does also not need a soundproof space for the projector.
Leaves that using analog film is a matter of taste. and digital electronics are getting more advanced over time, which is user friendly and saving money each time.
Gravity was shot on digital. A beautiful film. Some of Nola's shots (on Interstellar) were ugly, bright, McDonalds horrible. Ditto Dunkirk. Digital vs Film is nonsense. Image is all down to the sensitivity of the artists involved.
Old is always gold!
When it comes to Film vs. Digital debate, I hear all sorts of reasoning, and I agree with them mostly. However, there is one aspect that hardly being talked about, which is the capture of "movement"... When I look at a still image, whether it was taken on film or digital camera, doesn't really matter much, sometimes it certainly matters, I am not gonna lie. When it comes to moving pictures, there is one thing about "the look" only, the colours, the textures, the grains and such. Sometimes with digital editing we get pretty close to film look, movement however is different beast altogether. In a film camera, it's literally 24 frames per second, and then when it's played our brains combine the images into this illusion of movement, optically. In a video however that is not the case. Sure, when you pause a video it looks like a still image, but in totality video is only an approximation. It is already a moving image before reaching your brain, whereas in case of film stock that effect is an optical illusion.
So, basically when the source code of the movie is so different, the mechanism I mean, it is bound to feel different too. Our minds can tell the difference without fully understanding why.
If I were to use an analogy, I would say, not every shining object is gold. When there is difference in atomic and molecular level, the object itself is gonna feel very different too.
Although, it can still trick the untrained eyes sometimes, and we may not notice the difference. In my experience that usually happens when you are so indulged in the movie, the story and the characters that you forget to notice. But, you do notice when the shutter speed changes sometimes.
digital movie cameras also use 24fps, 24 still frames that are processed electronically per one second.
@@christoph404 that's what I said, it's an approximation. It's already moving image when it's on screen. whereas with film, the processing happens directly in our brain.
Yes the motion blur is entirely different. This is mostly because CMOS imagers on digital cinema cameras have a rolling shutter. So they look kinda “digital” and wrong when you have a lot of motion in a frame. You can fix it with post tools, but many of us can’t afford the time to fix every single frame. Also, high ISO makes a very glossy look due to the noise reduction on CMOS imager cameras. Ya don’t get that on film. So where shooting at base ISO of digital cameras is the best, looks the best too, it’s still different especially with motion, halation, softness, grain and color space. Steve Yedlin did a great comparison between his post digital processing of digital vs film and he can make digital imagers sing, but only he has that package . Nobody else has gotten close. Then if ya add film projection? No contest.
An experienced photographer can tell the difference between film and digital.
Soon We will see movies made on Super 8 Single 8 full length features as 35 mm is split down to this gauge film stock has improved enormously and with digital stabilisation it can look as good as any 16 mm print the colour is outstanding in low lighting
Why not be full purist and edit on film too like the old days? Why convert to digital to edit?
Well one, could, but one would still need digital compositing for the effects, and titles, since non of the optical printers have been run in decades. There are very few theaters that can show film prints, so i guess the film would bomb pretty badly, as well as not being able to be shown all over the country, or world. Digital editing I think is a better solution than editing on film, one can easily make changes in the edit, which was not quite as easy in the old days. Still, plenty of amazing films have been made in the past that way.
I believe the film vs digital argument is pointless. Digital is the way. Digital can do what film can do. You want grainy - add it. Big deal. I much prefer the content of the movie than if there is grain or not. Color? Please, you know you can apply that digitally.
Argument for film are just for the luddites.
People say it's not noticable nope its really noticable film has superior quality and feel it's burning the colours which is real that gives the richness and realism
One can tell if what they are watching is a film or video. I consider film to be Cinema.
While I love the look and feel of film and have worked with it before everything went digital, there are some downsides to it. 1. It is EXPENSIVE!! It would easily cost northwards of $20 to buy a 3 min reel of 16mm, plus another 20 to process it. 2. No instantaneous results. Digital allowed for seeing and reviewing your footage on set. 3. You can use older film lenses with the newer equipment. Those are my main ones. Don't get me wrong, film looks a lot better, but Digital is more user friendly.
Specifically in Nolan's case, once the final edits are made and locked in digitally, they go back and cut the original negatives (I'm not sure if they're cutting the camera negatives, or an internegative. I assume they don't want to risk damaging the original negatives) and make the final prints for the physical film releases completely photo-chemically. So, if you go to see Oppenheimer on 35mm, 5-perf/70mm, or IMAX 15-perf/70mm, then the picture you're seeing has not been touched by a computer but exposed directly from a negative and developed.
(Though if they have any special effects that must be done in computer, I think those effects get a film out. I don't know if it's for a whole scene with special effects, or if they only do the filmout on the effect and transfer it to an internegative.)
each generation copy loses quality though with photo chemical so mass production of the film to be projected should be as close if not a copy using the original.
The workflow according to Kodak (have their workflow diagram on the wall beside me) is: the film gets used, developed and then hi-res scanned and all work, including editing, is done digitally. In many parts of the world, they don't have theatres or cinemas with film projectors any more. They are art-house rarities.
Correct, but the best way to watch any of those films is on the original format, which for the case of oppenheimer is 5 perf 65mm.
@@CinemaRepository I think you will find there is no film to watch according to the Kodak workflow I have on the wall here is the film is scanned at 4K THEN edited and sfx and audio added. NOTE when recorded the film and sound are separate. The "film" that you see at the cinemas will be a digital edit with digital SFX added and then digital audio added. So you want to take this digital film and then put it back on to film..... and see this fill where? Most parts of the world use digitial now. You are going to he hard-pressed to find any film projectors these days.
@@JAmediaUK I think he filmed it in 70mm Imax and then there were Imax prints made, there is no CGI or converting to digital than back to film for distribution which doesn't make sense and would diminish the quality and detail as 70mm Imax 5 perf has like 18k resolution so would defeat the purpose of a 4k scan. there are about 30 theaters in the US that has the Imax 70mm projectors and the film roll is like 600 lbs so it's definately all Imax 70mm not digital.
another THUMBS UP
Digital cameras have already surpassed film's dynamic range, the signal to noise ratio is excessively superior in digital. The "color" that's cited is also completely made up, all these movies still get scanned and graded as a Digital Intermediate and then get printed out to film, the "film aesthetic" doesn't exist, especially with legacy directors financed by studios. Nolan uses CG all the time, especially in his epic shots, those are digitally scanned, cleaned, manipulated, regrained, graded and then printed out.
Film for me brings a magic that digital does not capture.. Digital if not done properly with lighting, it can end up looking like video instead of film. Perfect example are the yoda scenes in empire strikes back. Film had a quality that made it work.
The question should be why are movies still shot on digital, it’s like asking why do people still choose fine dining it’s a stupid fucking question. Film is superior and nobody here can change my mind about it.
Money has entered the chat. But, I agree with you all the way. I will defend this hill with you!!
I prefer digital for workflow. Film is nice but the difference isnt big enough to justify the process
Why do they HAVE to convert to digital. Just let them. I am 53 and it gives me a good feeling when it is shot on film. Nostalgic.
They know the result is good when it is shot on film. As you say they have a lot to think about during filming. One less worry to consider.
My opinion.
Hellooo nerds! May I add something to your never ending celluloid love affair here?
I just watch films whose screenplays are written on a REAL TYPEWRITER, like in the good old days! Think of TRUMBO when he sat in his bathtub, hacking away and smoking and drinking wine! Those screenplays had a totally different feeling, sharper, higher resolution, clearer dialogue, real VISION - compared to those written on a computer or on a poor laptop!!!
So, before I watch a movie, I make sure it was written on a typewriter, on PAPER!
What do you say... nerds... hmmm?
The differences are merely a psychological perception. Even media shot on films goes through tonne of Digital editing, the edit work has major implications on how the picture eventually turns out . Using Digital systems to edit and then generate the final movie again on film is a waste of resources. It's very hard to believe that humans have not been able to come up with Digital cameras that can capture image as accurately as films, this is just a myth to please some people
Yes! So much nonsense babbled here! I am so glad to be able to do my photography digitally now, saving so much money, winning so many opportunities (especially in bad lighting conditions) I would never want to go back. And I think those who stick to analog are just nerds trying desperately to be interesting! Was the same with CDs vs. Vinyl. Ahhh, this ugly scratch in the pianissimo, always reliably in the same spot - but not belonging to the work of art - and then... gone forever! What a reflief!
Just to be clear, they're NOT talking about the difference between film and videotape as it pertains to television shows from the 70s, 80s and 90s.
Unless you're a cinematographer or other kind of film professional, you'd have a hard time discerning the difference between a modern film shot on digital video vs actual film stock.
The general public have absolutely no awareness of the difference.
Yes for 35mm and 65mm acquisition this is accurate. For super 8 and 16, eh… you can usually tell pretty fast.
I find vinyl vs digital audio harder to notice than film. There is an unmistakeable difference in film. The slower frame rate adds an almost intangible but very important suspension of disbelief to the motion. The super high frame rate of digital looks too real to me sometimes. Not real in an impressive way but real in a way that somehow makes it look like it’s a home video. I think that’s why people like Tom cruise like film better.
All feature length 2D theatrical movies have been 24fps since the late 1910s. There is no difference in frame rate between film and digital. Film projection does not hold the image on screen quite as long as digital projection so there is a slight difference there, but seeing as very few new movies are released on film, it’s almost a moot point. Nearly all movies are finished digitally anyway, with unique exceptions that happen every once in a blue moon. So the difference between film and digital with digital presentation, especially 35mm and 65mm is nearly unnoticeable by the layman.
Vinyl generally sounds like crap compared to even 16 bit 44k CDs. Only the audiophile pressings and even then, I’d go one step further and say 45rpm audiophile pressings, made from master tapes, even remotely hold a candle to good digital. Excellent digital like DSD which is SACD, is unmatched by any other audio medium. I love my audiophile vinyl records but a little groove can’t store enough data, it just can’t.
Film is different in that it not only holds as much data as digital but it also colors the data entirely differently which is a look most people strive for.
@@CinemaRepository "Vinyl generally sounds like crap compared to even 16 bit 44k CDs". Couldn't help but laugh. Seems like you can roughly divide people into two camps: The ones that explains "quality" using a lot of techincal jargon, and pretty much only looks at it from a technical standpoint, talking about bitdepth, resolution and so on. Which I guess makes the conversation a whole lot simpler. The higher the number, the better "quality". Then there's the other camp, where people explain "quality" from a more subjective standpoint, talking about "the look" of film vs digital, the "feel" etc. Reading a lot of these comments, people are in one camp or the other.
After most films are shot on digital, I personally lament the lack of noise, the lack of dirt. If you want a more rough look to your film, today you have to make a conscious decision to add that in. In the old days, you got that for free. Most movies looked like that to begin with. Personally I think they looked great, and added to the atmosphere of the movie (again, a non-technical term that camp 1 people won't accept). Same with digital audio. Out of the box it is extremely clean. To the point of being boring, if you ask me. Again, you have to make a conscious decision to make it more gritty. Which I think explains why so many productions today sounds like they were produced in a laboratory.
99% of movie goers cannot tell difference lol
film is a discipline. it forces you to know exactly what you're doing.
Stock footage is so insulting to the audiences intelligent.
Also digital is not unlimited, film has replay too, film cameras are just as reliable as digital ones, film has broader exposure latitude than digital meaning exposure isn’t as critical, film is also not a finished image but a negative that still need aro be interpreted like a digital raw file, most contemporary digital movies look muted and flat while film is traditionally vibrant and punchy, and after going over a certain threshold of budget the difference between the highest end digital camera and shooting even large format film is non existent.