Quentin Tarantino and Roger Deakins Polarizing Opinions on Film VS Digital
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 июн 2024
- We thought it was so interesting that these two giants in the film industry can have such polarizing views when discussing Film VS Digital. One of the top directors in the industry, Quentin Tarantino, discusses why he think film is a much better medium to shoot and view movies on, while one of greatest cinematographer alive today, Roger Deakins, argues completely the opposite.
Hope you enjoy! What do you prefer to view or shoot on? Film or Digital? Let us know in the comments below
MUSIC by Artlist ♪ Get Artist 2 Months Free ♪
bit.ly/2OBSWwu
This video was EDITED with Adobe Premiere Pro:
bit.ly/3qkvqRX
Stock Footage from ArtGrid 🎬 Get 2 Months Free of Unlimited Cinematic Stock Footage:
bit.ly/3c4zT7f
TIMESTAMPS⏰
00:00 Intro
00:34 Quentin Tarantino on the magic of film
01:38 Roger Deakins on not focusing on the tools
02:15 Roger Deakins on why he prefers digital
03:54 Quentin Tarantino on death of cinema
05:00 Roger Deakins on advantages of digital
07:21 Quentin Tarantino on the good side of digital
08:46 Roger Deakins on his frustration with the discussion
SOURCES ✔
Quentin Tarantino Interview:
• Quentin Tarantino comm...
• The Hateful Eight Feat...
• Cannes 2014 - QUENTIN ...
• 'The Hateful Eight:' S...
Roger Deakins Interview:
• DP/30: Sicario, Roger ...
• DP/30: True Grit, cine...
• The Filmmaker's View: ...
• Into the Woods, Inters...
Alexa 65 Showreel
• 2020 ARRI Rental ALEXA...
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHANNEL ⚑
bit.ly/39a2GG9
Business Inquiries: altercineinc@gmail.com
Disclaimer: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, we’ll receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows us to continue to make videos like this. Thank you for the support! 
Кино
If you want to hear why Christopher Nolan and Hoyte van Hoytema shoots everything in camera and on film, check out our new video! ruclips.net/video/fAWBkhrerAU/видео.html
Why does Hoyte have basically the same first and last name? Weird.
i like digital films more than HD
@@ericjamesphotography hoytema
Tarantino: Digital is the death of cinema
Roger Deakins: Ok boomer
Karentino 🤣🤣
tarantino is a generation x not a boomer his parents like mine are boomers and hes not wrong
@@MegaKamandi first, it's just a meme, second he isn't right or wrong but the way he displays his "arguments" are just exaggerated and with no substance, hence why the meme of his reaction
Well well well, how the turntables
LMAO
“It’s about the eye behind the camera, not the bloody technology”
I am afraid the technology does matter.
@@bighands69 it matters depending on your talent, but somebody like Deakins could perfectly handle himself with any kind of camera.
@@bighands69 i think he means film vs digital. In terms of technology.
@@Solaire_of_Astora13
Deakins cannot make a digital camera look as good as film. Not one of his digital camera productions have looked anything good as his film productions.
@@bighands69 that’s purely subjective. He’s just more concerned with frame itself than the aesthetic of the frame
“Dollys are the death of cinema as I once knew it”- random guy in 1938
"Film is the death of film as I know it."
-Some guy in the 1890's.
@@somerandomname3124 wtf
@@jothishprabu8 it’s a joke
Shut up, no one said that. Film is physical, it has 3-dimensionality. Digital is a shitty cmos sensor with a bayer filter...and then a computer interpolates the data into an image, but those pixels are essentially binned. Film is literally truth, and digital is literally a lie (at least bayer is...monochrome cameras are accurate).
@@jon4715 sound like bullshit to me 🤷♂️
Bladerunner 2049 was one of the most beautiful movies I’ve ever had the pleasure to watch.
Let's face it, probably because you are 17?
@@DendelionBlu Lol, what a dumb response. If Blade Runner 2049 is what the next generation of filmmakers is being raised on, I'd say we're in pretty good shape.
@@shinohidanzetsu Well that's really dumb. You gotta look at all of it. You can love BR2049 as much as you want but if you don't also enjoy older movies then you are just missing out on a lot. It's that simple you know?
@@DendelionBlu Sorry, I'll have to find the part of the conversation where someone said that they don't watch older movies. Where was this civility when you were talking to them? This guy literally just said they thought a movie was beautiful and you're insulting them. It's not even a mid movie, lol. It's legitimately one of the most beautiful films of our lifetimes helmed by one of the great living cinematographers. Whatever issue you had with that comment I'll never understand.
Ravishing
The best thing about this is that it's not the typical "old generation vs new generation thing", where the old generation defends their methods against the more practical new ones, instead it's 71-year-old Roger Deakins going with the time and using logical arguments against the younger Tarantino. That is incredibly funny to me.
Good point haha!
It's definitely not! Watch that documentary Side By Side. George Lucas embraced digital, so did Francis Ford Coppola. Walter Murch was one of the first ones to dump the moviola.
The Coen Brothers have shifted to digital and so has Scorsese. And Fincher has always been a strong advocate of digital.
These "film" supporters don't actually have a leg to stand on.
@@AA-sn9lz Scorsese hasn't made a full switch to digital though. Starting with The Wolf of Wall Street he used both digital and film, depending on the scene.
@@jonaswieczorek3198 Yeah but the practical scenes were all shot on digital, also in Silence and in The Irishman (especially the due to the de-aging technique). Also just to add, David Lynch has also said he would never go back to film thanks to digital cameras. Twin Peaks the return was filmed entirely on digital.
@@martinbogadomartinesi5135 Werner Herzog shot My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done on Digital, and said he'd never do it again.
I love Tarantino, but the contrast between Deakin’s measured, considered opinion and Tarantino’s hyperbole is stark.
@@aberrator4951 You can always expect exaggeration and hyperbole from Quentin.
@@CO8848_2
He’s just too up his own ass to see from a different prospective
You've got a point, but there's no such thing as an "objective opinion".
Christopher Nolan echoes Tarantino almost exactly.
@@mrblonde432 Totally! I think it’s interesting that big name directors like Tarantino, Nolan and Spielberg are the biggest proponents of film, whilst cinematographers (i.e. the people who have to work with celluloid day in day out) are far less enamoured with it.
"It's what's in the frame" perfectly summarizes this whole argument
I feel like Tarantino is comfortable with that mind set because he doesn't have to deal with all the shit Deakins has to deal with.
What are you talking about? Deakins never dealt with any shit.
@@LanaaAmor He is the ditector of photography. If anyone deals with film it's him.
@@Ultraway13 that's an overstatement, don't you think? He shoots on digital. He said it himself, he doesn't deal with shit anymore.
@@LanaaAmor yeah it might be, you are right.
@@LanaaAmor It's because he shoots on digital that he doesn't have to deal with the pain in the ass that film is. These filmmakers who drone on about how terrible digital is are just dinosaurs, old men yelling at clouds and resisting change.
If roger deakins of all people says he can’t see the difference...it probably isn’t a big deal
If it's a 4K digital, and you slap a film grain effect on top, I can't imagine anyone could tell the difference.
Roger Deakins is the patron saint of bland film students
@@oscarsalesgirl296 please elaborate
@@oscarsalesgirl296 oh look, someone who’s into film because of the medium, not the movie itself.
That's because his eyes are old as shit
Deakin is a practical man. His justification for using digital just makes sense to his workflow. Tarantino just talks about film tradition. Deakins knows how to use film but still chooses to innovate on his craft.
Film will always have far superior texture. Deakinsnhas said he only went to digital because he believed he'd eventually not be able to shoot on film if kodak went bankrupt.
@@SixthDream No, he prefers digital because it’s easier to work with. Film is good, but it’s a massive pain in the ass and at the end of the day the general viewing audience won’t notice the difference. The process for getting a picture on film can be a grueling experience. Digital you can do a lot more without all of the baggage that comes with film, and nowadays the picture looks even better.
@@SixthDream That's the kind of pompous statement film purists love to make that ultimately means nothing. 20 years ago, film over digital absolutely. 10 years ago? A bit more of a toss up, but generally the very best image was achieved with film. Nowadays? It truly doesn't matter and those sticking to celluloid are really only doing it out of nostalgia and tradition.
All this stuff ends up being streamed at sub-par resolution, dealing with things like compression and bitrates anyway. Some 4K streams have worse bitrates than DVDs.
All qualities, categories, and parameters of digital photography and digital intermediates are reaching and will continue to reach a level where the difference between digital and film is, at WORST, completely negligible...and at best, favors digital.
Especially when you consider that most average joes probably never noticed the difference between film and digital even when the differences were much more overt than they are today.
Every year, the argument for celluloid is weaker and weaker.
@@creategreatness8823 Even Deakins admitted the texture was better on film. The Batman was shot on digital but all of the digital copies of the movie were from a 35mm print. Because the director wanted an improved texture. Most filmmakers aren't good at making digital look good.
@@SixthDream "texture" is essentially arbitrary and unnoticed to anyone not steeped in film knowledge.
Like I said, the average viewer couldn't tell you what was filmed digitally and what wasn't.
Filmmakers trying to blur the lines between film and digital is honestly out of a sense of built-in nostalgia and preference for that overall look.
But again, every year, that "signature film look" and texture matters less and less to more and more people. Film is going to go the way of the dinosaur. An entire generation of filmmakers who don't care about 'film texture' are going to make movies and nobody in the audience will ever care.
We are in a point of transition, but it is only going one way: The present and the future is digital.
Love what Deakins said. Though he shoots digitially and understands there's much latitude to it, he still gets everything right "in camera". This is where most people fail today. They want to get everything done "in post" instead of the other way around. Once I learned to get everything right in camera, filmmaking was much more enjoyable and satisfying and my work actually began to look more professional than what it looked like before. Really, cutting corners is amateur and lazy as hell man.
How do you do color grading “in-camera”?
@@arcticape445 lighting
He "gets "t done" "in camera" because he was weened on film-where you had no choice and you had to LEARN how to shoot (as I did).
I agree. Getting the camera settingd and lighting right in camera is part of thr fun for me. Saying "Ill fix it in post" is not obly lazy, but everytime you change something in post you lose a little bit of picture quality.
@@williamshakespeare9815 I was weened on film (before digital existed) where I learned how to calculate-in my head (and using the camera's built-in meter-if the camera in question had one) how to set the aperture and shutter speed. Additionally, w learned how to frame and compose shots. EVERYTHING was done in camera. (okay, we could mess with the contrasts bu that was about it-with B&W film/paper). And like you say, working "In camera" is not just challenging but fun . Relying on "post: is indeed lazy and a sign of not knowing your craft.
I have way too much respect for David Fincher and how he uses digital cinematography to dismiss it. Also digital camera tech has allowed normal people like me to produce great looking images on my own
Sometimes it sounds like a religion rather than a stylistic choice.
theres little to no logic in using film anymore, it is totally cultish behavior from tarantino
@@RhysClark97 Actually not really. I feel like film is truly advantageous when it comes to imax cameras, which is why it works so well with Christopher Nolan's work. From the digital projectors and their comparison to film projectors, imax 70mm projectors (the true ones, not limax, only some theatres have them like Sydney Imax and etc.) specifically have the ability to show almost 2 times as much image. In many ways I think it is to do with the sensors and how when it comes to the 2 times as much image, film has the ability to show it at a greater resolution. its also to do with the fact that film has the ability to show infiinte resolution. ITs only when u digitise that u lose detail.
@@abhigyanbhowmick9238 my point is taratino NEVER makes anything close to an argument like this, its never about the tools or the end result quality of the footage, he is speaking like a fanatic...he isnt making a logical argument.
@@RhysClark97 Yep, Torantino is quite the fanatic. At the same time, I do feel like its a marketing technique used by studios with him. As if as soon as you use film your work becomes prestigious. I guess Roger Deakins proves other wise.
Religion?
There is a difference and everybody knows there is a difference. There is no getting around that.
Deakins’ opinion holds more weight, I believe. Tarantino is being melodramatic.
Deakins is a dork.
Tarantino is being melodramatic but also silly because his central argument is 'the illusion of movement' created by stills. That is exactly what happens even in a digital cinema camera too. Tarantino is obviously primarily driven by nostalgia when it comes to movie making which is why he has so many countless nods to old genres and tropes from when he was young. I would imagine that scientifically you would be able to prove the image quality of a top digital camera to be equivalent or better that a film camera by any measurable/tangible metric. Even so I agree that there is a certain romance and nostalgia to analogue sources - just like putting a vinyl 12" on a quality turntable.
@@Breonnick yup just that I used 5000 words to say the same thing lol
@@francisjtuk in digital is the same of the illusion i guess he was referring to thw physical medium, in digital u just shoot and then see the video there's no physical media of having the roll in your hands and seeing it frame by frame and that stuff
@@NostalgiNorden *Tarantino
I feel like Tarantino doesn't give any actual disadvantages of digital in his argument. He just likes film and is too stubborn to see the advantage of digital. I don't think film will ever go away completely. There will always be films for those who like it. But the ease of shooting digitally will allow more people to make movies. It's better for filmmaking in the long run.
edit: Nevermind I just finished the video lol
Motion picture film I think actually will go away. It’s not like vinyl where a little mom and pop outfit can eek a little profit pressing records for local bands. The sheer expense and infrastructure (chemistry, manufacturing, laboratory) required to support motion picture film is simply unsustainable. That’s not to say that artists won’t continue use it in still photography. Running your own darkroom and even manufacturing your own film are pursuits that will always be around in some form. But motion picture film is an entirely different animal. It requires engineering and controls at every step of the lengthy process that put it far outside the grasp of hobbyists, and once the current slate of stubborn old Hollywood men cease making movies, motion picture film will cease to exist.
Because there is no disadvantage. You can mimic film and do whatever you would do with film, on digital if you want. Film can’t do that, and it costs a hell of a lot more.
The advantage of digital is it is cheap.
The advantage of film is that it looks better.
Deacon is only saying this as he works with different directors and does not want to damage his relationship with them.
@@bighands69 you can not tell the difference. if someone tries to hide the fact they shot on digital and has enough skill and tools they will fool you every time
@@cicolas_nage
Not at all. Beauty is not subjective. A Jaguar E type looks more beautiful than a Toyota Prius are you telling me you cannot tell the difference.
Incandescent bulb has a more beautiful light output than LED and that is not subjective either.
Grace Kelly
is more beautiful than Rosie O’Donnell and I could give you many examples so please do not use the term subjective as beauty is something that is in nature and we all understand that.
Interesting how the older man and actual cinematographer (Deakins) is forward looking, practical and gets that it's the storytelling/the artistry behind the camera that ultimately matters, while the younger man (Tarantino) is backward looking, lost in nostalgia, point-blank dismissive, and offers no practical reasons why digital is some hideous abomination. QT is also pretty condescending saying the current generation of established filmmakers is just plain wrong for shooting on digital more than film. You just cannot say Blade Runner 2049 is lessened and contributes to 'the death of cinema' just because it happened to be shot digitally. That's ridiculous Quentin (all respect to his own work). Film and digital are just different mediums contributing to the same cause: good storytelling. The original Blade Runner was shot on film, BR2049 on digital -- yet both are masterpieces that feel like the same amazing world. Yes, lousy films have been shot on digital, but lousy films have also been shot on film -- and that's nothing to do with the formats, but with bad storytelling, acting, writing etc. I don't (and really hope) film doesn't go away, but neither will digital and is here to stay. Neither format will save a lousy story at the end of the day.
Tarantino is definitely in the wrong here when talking about other filmmakers but I can understand why he would always choose film for the kind of movies he is making.
Tarantino is an inspiration to us all, especially as a writer and director, but let’s face it, as far as visual storytelling goes, Deakins is easily one of the top 5 in the business. So if I would think that if one wants advice on writing and directing, Tarantino is their man, he’s an expert there, but if they want advice on cinematography and visuals, Deakins’ word just matters more. It’s strange how he said that the Social Network is easily his favorite movie of the last decade, and it’s a movie shot on digital, by a big time director who really favors digital.
Deacon is only forward looking because he works with different directors and will offend if he says otherwise.
@@bighands69 Or it's his opinion, lol
@@bighands69 you think the most established DP on planet earth is worried about offending directors? He’s ASC and BSC certified.
Really cool video. I find it very funny that Tarantino hates digital but said the “hands down best movie” of the last decade was “the social network”. A film shot on digital. Directed by an established filmmaker that’s famous for shooting on digital.
i hated social network not because it was shot on digital hated the story and characters
@Kai McCook LOL
Did he say that?
@@robindro1961 yep
Tarantino is very over the top with his opinion on digital vs Film, but he is aware it's his own opinion and doesn't seem to even think he's right.
QT lives in the 70s. His entire aesthetic is a kind of recreation of the cinema he grew up with. Not that there's anything wrong with it. And it's not even the main reason cinema is dying.
The thing with the whole "illusion" argument, about film being distinctive in that it's creating the illusion of movement, is that it ignores that the same case is with digital. In digital, you have a collection of pixels that shoot light and create the illusion of an image, and there is a similar sequential construct of a sequence of images, built by these pixels, to create the illusion of movement.... and not to mention the sound. Sound recording is also an illusion. You're not actually hearing real humans speak. Recorded sound has its own magic. I notice Tarantino never says anything about sound in his discussions.
Therefore, to pretend that this illusion is exclusive to Film is quite disingenuous. Whether we're talking about film, digital or whichever new form of technology is created in the future, they're all different forms of man-man technology to simulate reality. They are all illusions. And thus, they are all magic. Tarantino has simply romanticized one particular form of technology. And this is not new: The same thing happened when the technology of sound first arrived to film and there were some people (such as Chaplin) who had a more conservative attitude, who believed that the magic of film had been killed.
I saw Sunset Boulevard just a week ago and didn't realize there were actors in real life who were pretty reluctant about sound on film. I mean in the film is fictional but then I learned it was a pretty big deal irl.
@@martinbogadomartinesi5135 You mean they were reluctant about whether or not there should be any sound at all on movies? That's wild.
@@martinbogadomartinesi5135 yup it's highlighted slightly in singin in the rain as well
Or when you shoot cinema dng it’s a series of digital still
I love how one of the most respected DPs of this century can be so nonchalant about equipment. He knows he can rely on any tool to say anything however he wants to.
Tarantino is a purist because he's a director. Deakins is practical because he's a DOP. The sensor makes all the difference. And digital wins and is easy on the production cost. Coming from a DOP's assistant it makes our work really really easy:) The argument is all about taste so we cannot deny both their opinions. I'd prefer digital any day on a film set. My personal humble opinion.
DP*
Digital is in no means actually cheaper than film it can cost just as much, if not more. Theirs back ups and masters and servers and keeping the servers cool. Disk space. Disks for production and post shipping them all. You could lose a drive. There is huge costs in digital. Though the benefit of just knowing what you have is good out way the fact you may need to add a whole shoot day for yesterday's gaff.
@Pete Melon unfortunately just saying that it is cheaper doesn't make it so. Also due to the advance and popularity of film manufacturers and labs can give good deals on shooting in that format.
Though I am talking at the high end of cinema. Like these where these people work. Though to the average Joe digital is obviously the easiest way in.
I also understand that these things do get cheaper over time but you can't just generalise to say that digital is cheaper. Yes at home with your camera. It is but shooting a movie in a raw codec isn't necessarily the same. Which is my point. If I could be bothered to trawl through the web to find more interesting articles on it I would. But I think it's obvious when you start adding the costs that shooting digitally doesn't always save you money.
@Pete Melon Did I say that? I believe what I stated is that "Digital is in no means actually cheaper than film it can cost just as much, if not more." I also go on to state that its benefit in ease of use and fast working out way the practicality of film.
@Pete Melon I never said it was the sole reason. But convenience goes a long way and server costs aren't make believe. So you can live in your imaginary world were digital capture and storage is free. Thanks. I am out.
Turns out the " death of cinema " wasn't the cameras.
You should ask Warner Herzog about what’s the death of cinema.
It's streaming service and covid
But some people stopped going to cinemas when 35mm projection was replaced by digital projection. Just look each time a new movie is presented in 35mm or 70mm (or even iMax film), the cinema is full for 3-4 weeks ! So some people think (like Tarantino), that digital projection killed the cinema which they define as "See a movie like you could never see it in your home".
Just seeing how relaxed Deakins is just feels like a massive sign he has something right about his way of thinking about this. Tarantino has a lot to say about it and not a lot of what he has to say is very convincing that we should do it his way.
I don’t understand how someone doesn’t think digital projection is also magic and an illusion. I was just starting high school when many places were switching to digital and I loved it. It’s a better picture. Film projectors can look like shiz often.
I mean I agree with Deakins but the way it’s presented comes down to their personality not their right or wrongness. Deakins is just a more relaxed person in general.
I love his feeling towards film. How he describes the magic of movies & they are just all still images is just fascinating because it feels that he is so fully immersed in the illusion hence so is his audiences.
@@ooiiooiiooii *Digital projection is as magical as television.* The colors are off and the motion is inaccurate.
@@NoName-jq7tj Wait till he hears how digital projection works (hint: in literally the exact same way as film and just as "magical")
Imagine Tarantino and Deakin collaborating on Tarantino's 10th and final film
Deakin never said that film was lessor he was being diplomatic.
50% filmed with film and 50% filmed digital.
Robert Richardson is Tarantino's dp so no changes i think
Deakins is the only one actually giving arguments, Tarantino is very melodramatic and sounds more desperate than convincing
@Jason Ryan Yeah same! Deakins’ movies are great but so ‘fake’ looking compared to the realism of Tarantino’s. If Tarantino wasn’t so emotional and conveyed a good argument people would be more convinced.
@Jason Ryan _True Grit_ was shot on film.
His arguments stink because at the end of the day , digital looks cheaper
Deakins is objectively right. At this point, in 2021, you can literally not see the difference between film and digital. Tarantino is trapped in the early days of digital when it looked like crap compared to the depth of 35mm, but those days are gone. Sure you can shoot something digitally and it can look horrible, but that has to do with talent and nothing else. Besides, Tarantino is not even talking about the visual difference, he talks about projecting 35mm in the cinema, which is certainly a ridiculous idea at this point. He seem to not understand that you also have to show one frame at a time on digital, 24 frames a second. Deakins is on the right side of history and the truth, Tarantino is hung up on nostalgia.
@@laurencewhite4809 your hung up following trends. It's cheaper, that's literally the only reason digital is taken over and yes you can tell the difference
Deakins is pragmatic whereas Tarantino is sentimental. There is no argument of who is right or wrong just which type of philosophy holds more weight with you.
It's not about philosophy. It's about the end product. If you get the same result or better result with shooting on digital, by all means, shoot digital. But with cinema you get the look right out of the box.
True
Based
No, if you know anything about art or philosophy, you’ll know that restriction breeds creativity.
@@Dirkschneider All you are doing is trying to make a pragmatic argument for film. Thus, exercising a philosophy. ;)
The “film look” is sacred for its nostalgia, but digital is closing (or has closed depending on the person) in on cellulose and is capable of more visual authorship with all the info a top-of-the-line sensor can capture. I’m echoing Yedlin’s view, since I agree with him. He makes a great case. It also puts to rest brand allegiance in cameras, assuming its capable enough.
Yedlin goes hard core, I love it
Steve Yedlin ended this debate in such a definite way. I love it.
@@botbot3698Lol
Cellulose? Bro u mean Celluloid?
Master of gripping dialogues vs master of eye-gasmic cinematography
That’s the funny thing though, some people are treating the dialogue guy like he’s some sort of authority on cinematography as well lol
I love the way film looks aswell but when I see what Lubezki, Deakins and other cinematographers/filmmakers are capable of with digital cameras it makes me happy that we can *have both* and enjoy them for the advantages and stylistic choises they bring.
Well said! Film is amazing, and it isn't going away. Both have pros and cons and they are just tools that should be used to fit a particular project. Many cinematographers work this way, Rodrigo Prieto for example mentioned that when filming Silence, he would use both film and digital at times when they were called for. He used film for scenes that he wanted to look a little rougher and grainier, and he used digital (Alexa) for candle lit scenes for the speed
Wait. 99% films are digital made. No one need to defend digital. Only the traditional Film is dying but you don't want to understand this because you watch only new digital film and you don't like it when someone has a different opinion about it.
Funny how people in the industry have all these debates about film vs digital, camera vs camera and what not , while the average viewer can’t tell the difference between an iPhone and Alexa.
While audiences may not objectively know the difference between iPhone and Alexa they probably feel it on some level, and that subliminal level matters
@@SuperiFox exactly, when I was a kid- I’d watch Star Wars and think to myself- why does episode 1 feel disconnected to episode 2 and 3?? Why does it feel different- all the years I told myself it was the time gap- but no. Likewise I always felt- why does the first pirates of the Caribbean feel different to the others? There was something different . It’s only now when I had a hunch and searched it up- that’s why it felt different; episode 1 and POTC 1 is shot on film, the rest of their franchise digital. Even if you don’t necessarily know, you can damn well tell something is different subconsciously
@@SuperiFox Good point. I have the sense of film and digital before I know how to tell other people the deference between them. Then one day, I was watching TREE OF LIFE. Then I realize, oh so this is why it feel so deferent!
Believe me, audience really can tell the difference. Audience wouldn't say "Is this shot with an Iphone, why not an Alexa?", but they would rather go like "The imagery is crap, it looks amateur" or perhaps not even that, they wouldn't be able to put their finger on the problem but simply would think the film is bad and put off by it. There is a reason there is such a huge camera industry.
Though I mostly agree with Deakens and think film has become simlpy a luxury these days and unnecessary for almost all the filmmakers out there but a very small group, we must acknowledge that celluloid film is still unmatched by digital yet: Just look at to the last PT Anderson films starting from TWBB; the image quality is on another level, I've never seen anything like that on digital.
steven soderbergh is out here shooting movies on iPhones, so maybe the audience has a bigger reaction to technique and knowledge more than gear.
The Hateful 8 is one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. And because it was shot on 70mm it has the capability to be fully Remastered in 8K or even 16K in the future.
Digital has a hard cap on resolution. If it was shot in 1080p that will forever be the highest resolution you'll get to experience that movie in.
@Christopher Castillo no professional film is filmed at 1080p these days
@Christopher Castillo this is also true, but my comment was in reference to Triscuit H claim about shooting in 1080p. But while we're on the topic, i think your claim of nobody cares about resolution a little unrealistic. People do care, and although im happy watching in 1080p, i can definitely see the difference and prefer watching in 4k. And there are cinemas capable of 4k. Particularly in imax, and i imagine will slowly become more common over time.
But I think he didn't use that much of the capabilities of 70mm or the anamorphic format with it in that movie though. I think 70mm is a very visual format and I feel like similar to IMAX or 65mm Photochemical Film, they would expect much more out of it, much more spectacle. But it doesn't feel like it's utilized enough since there is basically just one or two locations in the movie. The landscape and snow shots were beautiful, but I feel that- that is just where the format is utilized the most.
Also, professional films most of them are shot commonly with 4K to even 8K digital cameras. And I think there are restoration processes to further remaster the image.
Deakins just wants to sleep at night 😂
That’s what I got also. The idea of being able to mangle it a thousand ways without any worries
God bless QT but he's going WAY overboard with the hyperbole. "The death of film"? Come on. 90% (if that) of the audience can't even tell the difference. I'm not even sure I could pass the Pepsi challenge and I'm really into movies and cinematography. What would be cool is to get these guys in a room together and watch them debate, although Deakins seems like he's way over it.
When it comes to the “death of cinema” there are way bigger issues than digital vs film.
Think you could safely say 99% couldn't tell the difference
@@tommywiseau4709 Yeah, probably. I mean professional digital cameras combined with color correction is going to be almost identical to film. I think QT just likes the idea and nostalgia of it all, which is fine, but digital isn't "the death of film." It's made the art form accessible to so many amateurs and aspiring filmmakers.
I wouldn't know the difference. To me the story and acting far far far outweigh any camera tonal effects. That said I suspect both technologies can deliver some of that.
@@vladimirhorowitz
Nah its pretty easy to tell the difference
That being said: yhere are far more important aspects to a production
Just saying its easy to tell
I'm an artist that works digitally and traditionally, and I relate to Deakins in a weird way. For example in Photoshop when I do 2D stuff, I have to keep track of all these damn layers, and it feels like the more I have to keep track of the more stressed I'll be, so because of that, when I work digitally, I really prefer to do paintings, and take a more traditional one-layer approach to it. And when I work traditionally I do mostly inking and pencil work - things that I hate to do digitally - and no painting whatsoever, because it has those intricate variables and difficulties like real film does. So what I'm trying to say is that I agree with Deakins, because what matters the most is not the medium you're using, but the freedom you get and how comfortable you feel with it.
The magic of movies is not film, but rather the hearts in front of and behind the camera.
Bravo on putting the names of the camera's of each clip shown. Such a nice touch!
I do prefer film and I see why Quentin would be so attracted to it, but he's being a bit hyperbolic. High definition digital is great too, and so much cheaper. Shooting on film isn't always an option. It's not the death of cinema to have most films shot that way, but it would be a huge shame if no one carries on the tradition of analogue film.
Well if you got the pockets go for it..but you have to remember Justin Lin, he made his masterful film "A better luck tomorrow" he went through several credit cards just to film it on film..shit alot more expensive than I thought and much harder to work with..
35mm film starts at 8k resolution so no it does not look as good.
The death of crt’s and vinyl is also bad.
@@Make_Boxing_Great_Again Vinyl will always be around in a niche market even though that tape cassettes and CDs that came after it are out or on the way out.
@@bighands69 it most certainly does not. Its around uhd in terms of detail resolvable by the human eye. Some is more like 2k, depending on the stock used.
65mm is about 6 to 8 k depending on its use and the image captured. Obviously film hasn't got pixels, but the amount of detail we can see is defined by the silver crystals. So films "resolution" is far more finite then a lot of people imagine.
I'll take Deakins any day. Its about the image... the story.
It is just fact that film looks better than current digital technology. Maybe someday digital will surpass film but at present it is nowhere near as good looking.
Digital is great for TV shows and low budget films but not for major features.
@Corpsefoot Gaming
I have seen the cutting edge of digital optical equipment and sensors and they are still nowhere near the level of film.
The display medium of OLED has no bearing on this discussion because you can view movies shot on film or digital camera on OLED.
OLED is a fantastic modern home screen technology and is the cutting edge but it simply is nowhere near the capabilities of film reel projectors. And it is not about real world color replication either or resolution.
Film and digital have inherent image qualities that set them apart. A particular story could be better for either one.
anyone who is still having this discussion when the cinematographer for Knives Out fundamentally proved you can just recreate the look of film through digital algorithms on a digital camera is pretentious...Roger Deakins knows what's up, Tarantino is just full of himself
I feel like both are right in that there is a certain magic to film images over digital. The sheer entropy of film grains and their development simply can’t be replicated by any digital camera or software, on top of the interesting results when pushing or pulling an exposure in regards to contrast and color. Film is beautiful and painterly and nostalgic. Digital can get extremely close to replicating this (to the point where only camera nerds like us notice) AND it can capture much larger and more consistent images that can not only be crafted into something beautiful, but be kept clean and surgical for use with composite software. Daddy Deakins is absolutely right, they are tools and you should choose your camera based on the look you want or the demands of your shoot, not some purist sense of elitism because you can afford the film stock to shoot 35mm in 2021. Both are insanely influential creators that have certainly shaped many lives, including mine
Agreed, it shouldn't be about snobbery. They're two different ways of achieving whatever the director wants. There are times when film is better than digital and vice versa because wouldn't you know it, different directors want different things... shocker. People need to learn what perspective is.
The crystals of film and it’s color actually develop in a unique fractal pattern in each frame. Which is pretty cool.
I agree. There are also films shot on photochemical film that look like digital (I watched Wonder Woman 1984 and thought that was shot on an ARRI Alexa) , then digital that look like film (Like any of David Fincher's movies and that thought they shot with celluloid ). Like Deakins said: "It's about what's in the frame, not the technology"
I respect the hell out of Tarantino but I couldn't disagree with him more when it comes to this stuff. Deakins could not be more correct when he points out that the only thing that should matter is the eye behind the camera. Shrinking the mechanical BS between the photographer and the image on the other end of the camera is a net good for everyone involved.
John Lennon once said, "I'm an artist, if you give me a tuba I'll get you something out of it".
How can you respect the hell out of someone?
Tarantino's description of the illusion of movement when filming a movie is the exactly the same in digital. The digital camera is shooting a series of still digital images and playing it back at 24fps gives you the illusion of movement. Now that digital has caught up, and maybe surpassed film, I think the argument is moot. It used to be favorable to shoot film, because it gave you a superior look, but now that look can be achieved in digital. Roger Deakins' films will go down as great cinematography, whether they were on film or in digital. Ultimately, it's the story and acting that matters most, right?
Sorry but no
Digital has still yet to surpass film in terms of color contrast
It for sure will someday
But not quite there yet
@J B
They dont disagree with it all
They just dont necessarily think the differences are as important as other elements
@Alan Mauro
You are talking crap at best.
@J B
Really
They've literally stated theres no difference
Please link a citation
@J B Can you link me that please???
David lynch "I love digital because you can film whatever you want for dirt cheap and no one can say no"
Tarantino "pardon me while I pull this ladder up behind me"
You should watch the video and listen what he said
I would agree with Tarantino when digital *first* appeared. Film was just instantly visibly superior. But since then, digital technology improved so much that the difference is almost undetectable and more about choice rather than quality. The argument would have been more interesting if it were between two *cinematographers* as opposed between one and a pretentious director. :-)
That's true, but I think it'll still be below par until 4K mastering and effects are standardized
thats the strange thing - Tarantino dont care about quality difference - hes just like "the film". inredible childish
@@GalanDun I disagree, 4K is quite gorgeous and better looking than film to me. I’ve recently been watching films from my childhood and I find myself hoping they’ll turn them 4k soon, so, that I can see the colours in a richer and vibrant way.
@@JRCGuitarist For films older than around 2003 ofc the 4K will look better largely, most films before then were mastered to film. Modern ones are where the issues arise.
Digital movies look terrible: they look like Netflix series, with this lifeless and bland look.
I love how Roger Deakins is simply explaining why he prefers digital and Quentin is just shutting on digital. I love some of Quentins movies but none of them have as good of cinematography as a Deakins picture
I think OUATIH was gorgeous but Kill Bill was also great
I mean, i kinda agree but at the same time, cinematography is more than just wide angles shots or stills with breathtaking visuals. There are many more aspects to it, Kill Bill has amazing cinematography, same with Once upon a time
Deakin’s Bladerunner looks like a youtube rapper’s music video.
Inglourious Basterds looks like true cinema.
@@oscarsalesgirl296 uhhhhhhh alright then
@@the_crypter I’m not saying Quentins movies aren’t visually stimulating I just think his glorification of Film over digital is hyperbole and stupid
Guess it's safe to say Deakins won't be on a project with Nolan or Tarantino lol
Probably not lol, but more because of personality. Deakins doesn't mind shooting on film if he has to, he mentioned that the Coen brothers carefully approached him about the decision to shoot 'Hail, Caesar!' on film and said that he didn't care.
both Nolan and Tarantino use their own cinematographers anyway. Tarantino uses Robert Richardson and Nolan has used Wally Pfister and now Hoyte van Hoytema. I personally don't think Deakins would have an issue with working with either director, it's simply that he prefers digital for its ease of access and it's less of a hassle compared to shooting on film
Deakins has worked with film for decades, if they come to terms with him he'll agree to shoot on film again, just look at Deakins' masterpiece "No Country For Old Men"
tbh i see roger working with Nolan but definitely not Tarantino. Nolan and his DP use 70mm and light in a more mordern style (unlike Bob Richardson (more classic like)) and the modern 70mm film looks a lot like digital cameras (35mm not so much), especially during day shoots the 70mm looks arri alexa. also I swear to god that man can adapt to bloody anything from 1984 (film) to
Rango (animation) to Blade Runner (digital) so it is definitely possible with Nolan.
@@Chubs. you're right i just wish Nolan did complete films in imax, the change in sensor (film stock size) is pretty distracting & jarring, also Deakins is one of the purist immaculate cinematographers ever, from NCFOM to Rango to 1917 to Fargo, he's probably the greatest...
Tarantino is an incredible filmmaker but I definitely sit in Deakin's camp with this one. If you have two formats that can both produce the same outcome then why the hell wouldn't you use the one that reduces production costs, takes away the stress of not knowing what you're gonna get, and speeds up the process? It just makes sense.
I think the difference is you don’t think theirs a difference in the end and Tarantino does. I can see the difference in most films vs digital and the feel seems different but I’m not sure if it’s the actual film or is it the director/team producing it. Topically a director shooting on film is much more decisive and definitive in their artistic approach than most digital directors. There’s a laxness about it that can translate to every other Sociolinguistic involved with production. a studio typically won’t grant a new young director license to use film because of how expensive it is but the directors that tend to use film tend to be the cream of the crop. So I don’t know if film is better because of film or if it’s because the people using it gives it the feel I like.
Flawed thinking, completely ignored the benefits of film. Film just captures a level of detail you can't get with digital. Take Nolan
and his most recent film. Everyone who's worked on that set has talked about how organised and flowing everything is, on top of that he shoots practical effects. Someone who worked with him said where most people focus on post production Nolan focuses on pre production in order to make things run smoothly. In doing so he captures a level of detail that's just ridiculous, and does so in a timely and very calm manner. There is not better format, just depends on the director.
@@notaspeck6104 Nolan is my favourite director. But the fact is, there are so few directors who can demand the levels of budget that Nolan does. The vast majority of filmmakers don't have the luxury of that level of creative freedom in regard to expenditure. They need to seriously manage their budgets. Shooting on digital is one way they can do that.
They don't produce the same outcome. I'm not an expert in technical terms but there's something in digital I don't like.
I can see the romance in Tarantino's words but the pragmatic Deakins wins me over.
And then there's David Lynch, who made Inland Empire
Or Soderbergh who shoots on everything in one film
@@CRM-114 shot on an old (even at the time) shitty consumer quality digital camera because he liked the noisy digital look of it, basically perpendicular to this whole argument
@@annefrankenberry7914 that's cool, I didn't know that (the first part of the reply)
Season 3 on film would really be something. Maybe the reason he didn't do it is because of the amount of work there was, a movie's average final cut is 2 hours, The Return was, what, 17 hours? I know David said he likes digital because of the practicality of it, so maybe for a 17 hour project working on film would be too much of a pain. Also him saying the Twin Peaks 90's prints looked amazing doesn't necessarily mean he's completely changed his mind on film vs digital
To be fair, everything Lynch makes looks like shit no matter what equipment he is using.
@@annefrankenberry7914 That was then though. Digital has surpassed film resolution finally, so you won’t go back and say how much better this looks.. because it’ll look worse.
Deakins is the man. I love the way film looks to but i would argue visually, not a single one of Deakins movies looks worse than tarintinos films. In fact Deakins arguably looks better in almost all cases
@Pete Melon lower resolution? no i don't think so
@Pete Melon this is incorrect
@Pete Melon in the 2000s, motion picture 35mm film cameras certainly did
Deakins digital movies do not look as good as traditional film. It is what it is.
@@bighands69 “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” looks far better than all of Tarantino’s films combined.
I agree with QT on this. People nowadays want to shoot it as easy and fast as they can. You could say digital is the tiktok of movies. An old quote goes: «If something is easy to do, it probably isn’t worth doing and most likely won’t last»✌️
there is more challenge to film than how what type of camera you shoot it with, film and digital are nothing if you don't understand the external factors that go into film making.
How does digital make filmmaking easy? There are still all of the artistic challenges, business challenges, interpersonal challenges, ect.
@@wexwuthor1776 Roger Deakins said so himself😅
I could imagine how knowing that you’re actually “using up film” (watching it get used up and you only get to use it once) would put you in a different mindset about making sure what you’re shooting is valuable and a good use of the film. Different than just recording to a memory card
to my untrained eye, I have no idea when something is digital or shot on film. I've never thought Tarantino's films looked particularly great, but that's not what I watch them for, with him the focus for me is story and writing. I think his obsession with film is just his own old-school nerdiness. It's like people who insist that vinyl sounds better than CD, I just never noticed that one way or the other. Roger Deakins makes a strong case for digital as a tool for creative expansion that makes sense to me.
You can absolutely tell in a theater that is equipped with the film projectors. But yea, it's difficult now to find them.
@perrosalchicha yeah
@@pikaskew no you cant tell. for comparison you need same film that shot on film and on digital camera- which is impossible to do
@@alternatereality7301 You can. Even post processing to make movies look like they were shot on film doesn't quite match up to authentic film. It's not just the medium either, but the lenses being used on equipment that is no longer really being used. It's really hard to reproduce digitally.
@Sunny Sunny find my at least a minute scene of same place shot on digital and film then -ok
Tarantino's point was a lot stronger a few years ago but digital cameras have moved on an incredible amount
This is a wonderfully edited and informative video, like a video essay that speaks for itself! Although one thing I would ADD is a recommendation to listen to the Team Deakins podcast...
Because one thing Deakins brings up whenever the topic of digital vs film arises, and it's oddly opposing to Tarantino's compliments to younger filmmakers able to start on digital that's in the video, is a hesitancy for the future of filmMAKING when digital is the norm as having that digital practicality can remove the attention to detail, urgency, and effort that celluloid filmmaking creates when you have limited stock and limited chances to make magic on set.
Which considering Deakins isn't opposed to celluloid, kinda makes it sound like they'd be perfect to make a film together lol.
Thank you! We're big fans of #teamdeakins podcasts and definitely used a lot of that in our Deakins video and some on here as well. Definitely a valid point you brought up!
I prefer film for aesthetic reasons. Here’s an example. Same franchise, same cinematographer. Go look at Pirates of the Caribbean 1-3. Beautiful films. Just beautiful. Deep blacks, nice yellows. Looks like a Vermeer painting at some points. Ok. Now look at Pirates 4. Darius Wolski shot all 4 films. The difference is vast. Pirates 4 was shot digitally. You notice it especially when deep dark blacks are interrupted by a flame like a candle or fire. Another example. The game of thrones pilot. I can pinpoint each & every scene that was shot in film during dark low light conditions(that pilot was shot twice, once with film the other digitally, most of it is digital but they kept a few sequence of the original film version, like Ned & Robert in the crypts & parts of the big dinner).
Now I LOVE Roger Deakins. Love him. He’s one of the greats. But it worries me that he prefers the clean, sterile image of Blade Runner(which is admittedly gorgeous & works for that film) to the film grain & colour of Hail Caesar or No Country For Old Men or Assassination of Jesse James. Those are some of the most beautiful images ever captured on film. Except he’s altering them in post. If he’s just capturing the image on digital & not doing any DI on it(which I find hard to believe) then maybe that’s why I find his digital work lesser than his film work.
Film is much better than digital in my opinion. Digital is just too “clean”. Everything has a similar look to it now. Watching Home Alone over the holidays it struck me how beautiful the cinematography is. But if they had made that film today? It would look as bland as every other comedy.
That's a better argument than Tarantino's.
Lol
I get what you're saying. But that's kind of like saying the beauty of those pieces are a result of film, when in reality the beauty of all that is in the content rather than what captured it. The technology available today grants digital so much flexibility with greater dynamic ranges, greater color science, and of course the technology behind color correction which is just dumb how good it is by now. You can get a "film look" with digital. If someone showed you a piece and asked you if it was filmed on film or digitally I doubt you would get it right, and if you did I doubt it would be anything other than luck. You can get film-like results with digital if that's what you're looking for, with the advantage of lack of lab work and the fact you can see it and play it back directly. All of this "film is better" arguments I find to be more of an opinion rather than anything else. The moment you judge a movie based on what captured it, you forget what cinema is all about.
I think that has less to do with film vs digital and more to do with the directors. Gore Verbinski directed the first three Pirates films and is notable for being a very visual director with a darker, striking, more contrasty style that carried on into his other films that were digital. Even Rango which was animated. Rob Marshall, who did the fourth Pirates film, has a MUCH different style than Verbinski.
@@AyThroughZea The directors are different, no doubt. So that would account for shot compositions are certain aesthetic choices, true. But it’s still Wolski & his crew and it highlights the difference between film & digital well. Had Verbinski shot Pirates 4 with the same crew, no doubt it would be a different looking film, but the basics of the “digital has an obvious tell in dark low light situations” remains. It’s not a 1:1 but it’s close.
I just love the film look.
As do I and I do think looks are important when discussing a visual medium.
Me too, & this debate is irrelevant. The comparison of what is better? You can objectively discern an apple from an orange. They are very different, but are all fruit. The digital camp says, it's easier to eat an apple, because I don't have to peel it and oranges are fruit anyway, so lets only eat apples.
@@ArkOfMystery No, what they're saying is closer to "This is an apple, but it tastes identical to an orange, so what's the problem, orange lovers?" Pick a random person on the street and they will not be able to tell you which format a given film is shot in. I've shot on film and on digital, and film is a giant pain in the ass. When it was higher-res, there was a clear reason for putting up with it, but that reason is gone now.
@@jalenjohnson1662 Agree. This is the most important reason we love about film.
@@ArkOfMystery Yes! They’re two diferent thing. Not that we have to choose the only format to live and kill the other one. It’s nice to have two options. And you can totally use both film and digital in one film.
As a still photographer I totally agree with Roger Deakin, you can do more and sleep at night when you get to see your work!
Having used film for years I once said I would never go digital. Jump forward a decade and I shoot everything digitally. Personally, ease of use, you can do more with the video footage shot. Really like what Roger said, it's just a tool to create the end result. Totally agree with that.
So you gave up because film is too much work compared to digital. That's what you're saying.
@@rovhalt6650 Not what I said!
I gotta side with Deakins. Its what is in the frame. Its a tool to create an ambition. Tarantino's films are undeniable, but even he acknowledges the opportunities it provides to entry level people who share that same ambition. Every tool has a purpose. Some tools have more design than what is needed for a project, some tools are limited in their functionality and need greater ingenuity..but it is just a tool. When you require a specific tool, not because it is designed is needed for the end product, but simply because you want the tool, for the tool itself..then it becomes a crutch. Its no longer a tool, but a habit.
I love Tarantino, but he's so categorical on this matter... I mean cmon, we can always push it further back by that logic. Let's go all the way back and say movies are not art then. Only art is what you create yourself with a pencil or a brush. After all, what are you doing shooting a movie? Just pointing a lens towards something aesthetically pleasing but it's all fake, the scene, the actors, the story... everything is fake. I mean, you can always argue that way, be dismissive of things that are different or new. But it doesn't matter really. It doesn't matter wether you used a brush, a film camera or a digital one. It's about the ideas you are expressing and the emotions your are provoking in the viewers mind that is important. Everything else is about the tools you like, know and use to get there. But you can be open, fun and inclusive talking about these things or you can be an ass. He's just being an ass about it, mostly for no reason. Maybe for his ego, as he's putting himself on a higher pedestal than those shooting digital. By that measure, there is always a higher pedestal. But then we're not talking about the art itself anymore. Only some pointless technicalities and it's merits of one over the other.
Art was never a brush or a pencil over a canvas... ART is a lot more! Are is a discipine, talent, a vision, an idea... Creativity in genera!... So, you're idea of "what" is art its pretty imited and mediocre, ergo, so is your opinion which is very lame.
@@chev3893 I think you missed my point. Because I agree with you. Art is creative expression, not a specific medium or tool.
That’s not the point. Movies shot on film have a different look which is better to many people and not for others.
Pfft! Look at this hack Tarantino who calls himself a filmmaker using all the dialogues and music in his films! Whats next? A Colourful film and songs??! Where does this end!!?
@@TheHermit91 Yes, because I love watching movies with hair, dust, debris, and yellow spots and cigarette burns on them. There is nothing superior about the look of film. It gives you a certain aesthetic that some people may prefer, but it has nothing to do with being superior. In fact, digital is superior to film in so many ways it's not even funny.
Thanks for the entertaining juxtaposition of these two movie giants! From a photographer's point of view, I can understand both opinions, although I only shoot digitally professionally. The key is control when shooting, especially when time is limited. The path to the finished photo has remained the same, just more comfortable. But sometimes you still wallow in the old days - waiting for the Polaroid and the relieving moment when the correctly exposed and sharp slide is lying on the light table.
Why is Tarantino even selling DVD, blu-rays or streaming his movies then if he's so attached to the sanctity of film projection?
Deakins Rocks! Cinema is not only about camera.... its about talents behind the cameras too....
debatable but it like what the difference between a movie and a film?
@@MegaKamandi It's not debatable. Cinema is not only about the camera. If it was only about the camera you would be able to confidently argue that shooting 9 hours of a brick wall with the lens cap on the greatest camera ever made is a better film than anything released since the invention of cinema as a medium. Your argument doesn't hold up to even the most simple of examples.
On top of that, your pedantic question also holds no water because "movie" is a synonym for "film" in the context you're using them in.
@@TT-mx5ll You're fundamentally misunderstanding the point.
The best camera in the world will not make the best film in the world.
The first Star Wars film released will likely forever be hailed as an incredible piece of film but they used trash digital cameras for it.
What is in frame, the storytelling, as well as the audio are all the most important things to consider. What you choose to shoot with will enhance the quality of the work, but is comparatively far down the line for elements that decide whether something is great.
Yeah, people consider a film to be a work of art and a movie as pure entertainment, but that's not really what we're talking about here because it's pedantic and doesn't lead to anything meaningful because everyone already understands the differences. What the previous guy said was a question about film and movies while comparing it to something not at all equivalent. His question made no sense. Going off on a tangent about a point he brought up for a false-equivalency isn't really doing anything but derailing the point.
@@iTzKneecap ur points are so valid🔥🔥🔥....
@@TT-mx5ll Oh I didn't realize you were turning a conversation about the art of cinema into a pointless conversation about the literal tools necessary to make something. In that case, the most important part of cinema is oxygen and water, because without it, there would be nobody to use a camera.
Shooting movies on film is like building a house with a hammer. shooting movies digitally is like using a nail gun. Both work, one is just much more efficient and depending on who the person using the different tools are, the results can still be really bad or really quality.
I am not a cinematographer, but I was involved with recording studios in the 80s and 90s during the transition to digital. These conversations always remind me of the debates that raged almost until the last decade about tape vs digital. As someone who made tape edits with a razor blade I was of Deakins' mind when it came to digital (after the tech matured). The benefits of the analog became less and less while the hassle actually grew. Tape was more expensive and harder to find, and the machines became more and more difficult to service. And what we gained from digital was immense as far as editing and other tools. That being said I alway record through great mics and analog gear into a digital system. We use analog where it most shines still, and that seemed to be the approach of the recent Blade Runner for instance. They used miniatures for many shots, as well as other old school techniques. But they shot on digital.
I look at it like this: Tarantino comes across as an obtuse asshole in every interview, Deakins comes across as a conscientious, engaged, open-minded, *nice* man in his interviews. As such, I know whose side I'm on.
Why side with anyone and not see reason in both of their statements instead of jumping to conclusions based on their personalities.
@@jonasseorum5471 Why defend someone who dismisses an entire methodology out of hand and insults the people that use it?
I think they're both just stylistic choices and should be used in a way that reflects how you want your film to look. Acting like everything has to be film and film will die without it is a bit far fetched, especially assuming most people even know the difference
@@daniellaniganohara2456 Hear hear
Man, I grew up loving Tarantino films, but over the years, the guy sniffing his own farts and being an arrogant asshole have just soured me on him. I recently listened to the podcast he did with Edgar Wright, and he goes on this weird tangent about Joker where he is saying it's this mass scale subversion because everybody wants Joker to shoot De Niro's character and if they say they don't, they're lying... And it's like dude... You might be a master of cinema, but that is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Everybody wants him to shoot Deniro's character, not because it's a mass subversion, but because it's a movie about a psychotic villain, and that's the expectation. It's the complete opposite of a subversion. We want him to shoot Deniro's character because we want to see him be a scary psychopath, so we need to see shit go down. The same reason we go to see horror movies. Not because we just like watching people get fucked up in a fetishistic way, but because it's dramatic.... And what's funny is all those conversations around Tarantino's violence in movies and if it's right or wrong... I always found those stupid, it's like... violence exists in movies, why are people all butt-hurt about Tarantino's violence... But then after that Joker rant, I was like "damn... Maybe this dude really is a sick fuck who just likes to watch people get shot in the fucking head in a fetishistic way"
It's funny actually, because one of the criticisms of Joker is that it kinda feels like it's too sympathetic towards him, and that certain frightening individuals in today's society might actually root for the Joker... And this is evidence that the criticism is legit. A sick fuck like Tarantino flat out admitted that he was rooting for the Joker in anticipation for him shooting people in the head, while other, more normal people also want to see him do some sick shit, but not because we are rooting for him, but because that's what the story needs to convey what a lunatic this guy is and we want to be scared of him... not root for him.
both opinions are fine, deakins is practical while tarantinos is an expression of his poetic sensibilities, both are masters of their craft
Film requires everyone on set to give their all every single take. Digital is easier, but that doesn't mean better. It's easier to watch movies at home instead of the theater, doesn't mean it's better.
Hmmm
Interesting analogy
This is a create conversation and I’m glad I clicked on this video and subscribed
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it
Perfect example of how some use hyperbole to disguise nihilism as intelligence, while others back their opinion solely on personal knowledge and experience.
Roger deakins really be one of those grandpas who successfully accept the new generation's technologies without being cringe.
Maybe its time for the new generations to accept older technology for once, hm?
Quality over quantity.
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
It would honestly be fascinating to have Deakins as the DP on a Tarantino movie in the future, just to see how they'd work together and to see if Tarantino could be convinced of digital's merits, if he even let Deakins do what he wanted. Because it he did he'd instantly get the best looking movie from out of his whole catalogue, which is saying a lot.
Change can be hard...especially when it deals with something you love.
One is a director, other is a cinematographer. Of course, they'll have different opinions. Their conflict of thought is what gives rise to a film. It might seem like they are fighting but they actually are on the same side.
Storytelling has been conveyed from chiseled walls, to animal hide, to parchment, to paper, to projector, to television, to digital drive, to the internet. The evolution for telling a story is extraordinary. Tools to tell a story have constantly changed. The fundamental story itself is what has always been the most important thing. This has not changed for millennia. Tarantino's grip on traditional methods for comfort in nostalgia is detrimental in this day and age. By not embracing the the technological advances in storytelling tools, one is destined to the same fate as KODAK.
You are wrong. If your argument is correct we could stop watching movies and write the film-story only on paper. The medium itself is important and how the story is told.
@@GCKelloch and? So you say the look of a film has nothing to do with this "palette"? Sorry but it makes no sense
Digital is not an evolution or an advancement on film.
The passion for film stocks is clearly evident in Tarantino. He has a romantic, old-school view of what movies should be, and the experience of it. And we have to all be thankful that there are folks like him that passionately supports older media, otherwise they may go extinct quicker. However, as an art form cinema is about innovation and how to harness it. It’s an industry driven by the changes of times, and tech is a part of that. Deakins is just more pragmatic and open minded about the craft. He knows that digital offers things that film cannot, and that provides unique experiences for the audience and helps drive the industry forward w/o stagnation. People like Quentin, and PTA are rare - but they serve a very critical purpose in the industry. And people like Deakins are equally critical to the industry.
One’s a DP the other is a director. That should give a clear answer
I prefer the look of film for sure. I'm perfectly ok with digital projection, but the best looking movies and tv shows for me are shot on film. The first comparison that comes to my mind is the show Heroes. The original run was shot on film, the reboot was digital, and it shows. the reboot looks too clean and boring.
One thing that has suffered from shooting digitally is comedies. They all look cheap now.
wel they obviously talk about movies , not tv shows. no difference on today high-end digital . all that is pretentios bullcrap
Deakins has a point and I agree with these advantages of digital, but I don't believe that digital can reproduce the "cinematic feel" of film. Film photography on film simply looks better. I don't like the "compression" or very perfect look that many of the films shot in digital have.
It's a matter of personal taste.
I love how at 4:17 the audience is recording Tarantino digitally on phones while he talks about how he wishes digital filmmaking would end lmao
Recording something on a smart phone hardly means anything to the context of making movies using films.
It is like comparing recording on video tape.
I don't see the relevance of this observation. Videos are not the same as feature films. If you're going to play "gotcha" at least play it right.
@@Pantano63 Oh no, I wasn't being profound at all. I just thought the irony was funny. It was meant to be lighthearted.
@@clayrummer Hey, I totally get the irony. I was looking for this comment.
I never understood why people record concerts and stuff on their phone. Just enjoy the moment. There's probably a video out there recorded professionally with way better audio and video quality. And not filmed vertically with shaky hands.
@@danlightened Yeah exactly! Also goes for people who constantly feel the need to document everything with their phones instead of just enjoying life. You aren't really enjoying the moment if you're thinking about how to best capture it, and the photos/videos won't mean as much because they're not candid. Your memories will just be trying to capture the memories that you didn't even fully experience.
Roger Deakin’s Argument : It’s easier and regular people don’t give a fuck.
Tarantino’s Argument : I’m a nerd that loves old school film and everyone else should too.
Roger be like 'oh I just point the camera, look at the sun, put a lens on and then we have Blade Runner 2049' xD
keep up this valuable content
Thank you, will do!
Deakins is right on this.
You can make film look very, very digital too.
Most people have fallen in love more with how people designed their film from a certain time period more than the format it was shot on without them realizing it.
Yes, I suppose 65mm is somewhat of a different story. But if we are talking about vista vision or straight up s35. It really doesn't matter too much.
There have been plenty of films matching film and digital within the same scene without people being able to tell what is what.
I aint no big cinematographer. But I have shot plenty of film. I certainly don't miss it .
I totally understand both perspectives. Many have made similar arguments about digital versus analogue synthesizers.
It's the death of cinema “as he knows it“. Which is kind of true.
But technology evolves, and so does cinema, fortunately.
Well the cinema he knows is bullshit Mexican grindhouse nobody cares to remember so...
Ok bitch
I appreciate your empathy towards the other end of the conversation.
Digital is not an evolution or an advancement on 35mm film. It is not even comparable.
@@killboggins Racist.
As I've never made a film myself, the only point of comparison I have is with digital vs film is with photography, I can not disagree with Deakins, digital may indeed be a blessing for film makers. But as a viewer, the best looking films I've ever seen where shot on film; Barry Lyndon, Se7en, Apocalypse Now, The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, Heat and Saving Private Ryan to name a few. Where as the only digitally shot film that really impressed me visually was Mad Max Fury Road.
I don't know you, obviously... but I don't think the fact those films are shot on film is what makes them good.
They have the story, direction, acting, etc. That's needed to make a good film.
@@WhiteWolf496 and they have proper colorists + editors
@@WhiteWolf496 He said "the best looking films" not "the best films"
Love how Tarantino is anti-digital but is close friends with Rodriguez who pushed it during its early days. They must have had a few spirited discussions about this at some point when they meet. Does this mean that Tarantino had to shoot digital for his segment of Sin City then?
Both choices are great. The only thing that matters is what's in front of the camera, and if the scene looks great, the composition is great. Job's done.
Working with digital saves your time. Working with film is extremely difficult and expensive to shoot.
If Tarantino had a script that Deakins wanted to shoot he would have no problem shooting on film and at the same time the way that Deakins shoots and lights for digital he is probably the only person who could talk Tarantino into doing a digital film.
Yeah Deakins doesn't really care what he's shooting on, but just prefers digital for the workflow. That would definitely be interesting if Deakins can convince Tarantino to shoot digital haha
This is like comparing Pearl Jam to Nine Inch Nails.
Both are creating music, but with different tools.
Pearl Jam's bare guitar riffs and NIN's atmospheric synthesizer sounds usher in different reactions yet both have the ability to convey emotions in a human mind.
Both bands are of significant importance to me personally. The ways Trent Reznor and Eddie Vedder make music are totally different. But can I choose one over the other? No.
See, at the end of the day, it doesn't matter how art is created. It only matters how it affects you.
These are two different people with two very different careers. There is crossover sure but totally different goals. That being said an actual conversation between them would be fantastic.
When you have a master like Deakins behind the camera digital can look great. However, not every production can afford a dp on that level and those films usually end up looking like tv shows.
At this point I’m accustomed to digital projection, but I do prefer films being shot on celluloid.
I of course agree with Roger Deakins, but it's very interesting to note that Tarantino's favorite film of the decade was The Social Network, which was shot (beautifully) on the RED Epic. I don't think even he could argue that the cinematography would look any better on film. Beyond my frustration with his bombastic statements, I would actually love to hear him talk about this. That film is shot incredibly well.
It was projected on 35 mm film though. I think most cinemas didn't have digital projectors back then. It seems Tarantino is mainly opposed to digital projection, even though he also seems opposed to digital shooting, for less clear reasons.
Tarantino is a director, and he cares about cinema as an emotional and experiential artform-the magic he talks about is very real to him, and he focuses on using the language of filmmaking to craft the audience’s experience in an exciting way. Deakins is a cinematographer, and he cares about the technical art of filmmaking and the ability to create impactful aesthetic visuals with a tradesman’s excellence. Their image medium preferences are informed by two different perspectives and roles.
Deakins is also an artist. He has an artist's eye and it's a great one. He is technically superb, but that isn't what drives him. He is far beyond the concept of being a 'tradesman'. He has just as much passion about telling a cinematic story in the most visually and emotionally effective way as Tarantino.
This video is great!
Love how Deakins said he doesn’t use fill light, but the next shot is BTS of Blade Runner using fill light.