film is better than digital
this is a fact
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
film is better than digital. this is a fact
film is better than digital
this is a fact
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
chew you have a singlecious satisfact to snack that fact up
digital surpassed film a few years ago
Michael Bay hands type this
Michael Bay still uses film afaik.
no it still looks sterile and like a coloring book where they just slapped a cringe lut over the flat grey bullshit
>shot on film
auto-kino
The fricking pepe image. Over and over again. Frick you people
it's literally the same shit
>film is better
>watches it after it's been converted to digital
I watch all movies and tv shows in 360p to save internet.
Based. Thank you for making sure we don’t run out of internet, fren
Thank you for your service
Michael Mann kills it with digital though
I always found him to be someone who didn't understand digital. He pushed it too early, like Lucas.
because he doesn’t try to copy film
he knows digital is digital and makes digital movies
In certain respects, yes. In other respects, no. That is the fact of the digital vs. film argument that no one is willing to concede.
The other respects have destroyed the industry. Accessibility leads to commoditization. Commoditization leads to incompetent, “value” based management.
I have always found that most directors don't know how to utilize digital's strengths. For instance, if you want to make digital look exactly like any era of film, you can. They simply choose not to. They think because it's digital that they have to over light it and over-saturated the frick out of everything. Then they crush the blacks in post and add de-noising filters, and everything looks plasticy ... losing all organicness. Or in other instances, they don't know how to film and light things for the new HDR standard, and it ends up just looking like they lit it for Rec709 and then pumped the highlights.
But the high end digital cine cameras of the past 5 years or so are amazingly good, and they continue to get better. They can shoot in way lower light than film. The only thing they have yet to solve is that they need to go to a global shutter, instead of the rolling shutter of CMOS sensors. The motion characteristics will never be truly film-like until they go to a global shutter. Oddly, only a few of the lower end cameras in the industry have a global shutter.
What films are oversaturated? If anything, when I think digital I think desaturated.
Now we get to the heart of the issue. You think only the big studios should be able to make anything. How dare the dirty plebs think they can do anything with the big studios.
>There is no grain in digital
Yeah, that's an advantage it has over film.
>grain” is just noise, garbage.
Yes, which is a reason film is shit and no longer used
It also leads to opportunities for artists who wouldn't otherwise get them.
Yes, moron, that was the whole point of my post.
Film autists are so fricking annoying.
>I can SEE the difference bro
No, you fricking can't. Even if there IS a difference, it's too subtle for the human eye to notice. What you're noticing is grain, color, etc., all of which can be digitally altered in post to recreate the "film" look.
There is no grain in digital. Grain is the the silver halide crystals. Digital “grain” is just noise, garbage.
Grain can be added in post. And not cheap grain, but grain derived from actual 35mm film scans. And the digital noise of more contemporary cameras is much better. Digital noise of modern sensors capturing raw is much different from the compressed digital noise of 10 years ago. One is ugly, one is become almost film grain-like.
>Grain can be added in post.
No it can’t. Grain is not noise. Grain is the idiosyncrasies of the silver crystals. The same crystals that capture the light information. Noise in digital is literally nothing, either zero information, inserted White, or random particle strikes. Grain is unique to each shot as it is just the light being absorbed slightly off axis. Your magic bullet digital grain packages are just noise overlays, and that’s why only hacks use them, they look like shit.
I understand all that, sperg. But modern film grain plug-ins mimic film grain 99% as well as real film grain. The key was the 4K upgrade. 2K is not high enough resolution to display the fine film grain of 35mm or 65mm film. 4K is just good enough, so modern film grain filters actually look good. And you can adjust it to each shot, too.
And tons of high-end productions use them, not just hacks. It's also a form of dithering, which you probably don't understand.
>I understand all that
>goes on to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding
You missed the point, moron. It doesn’t matter what resolution you capture it at, film grain isn’t fricking noise. You can’t take the grain from one shot and apply it to another. Grain is the light information of the shot slightly distorted. It can’t be replicated.
>tons of high-end productions use them
Yes, and it’s the same as Marvel cgi, we look at it and say, oh wow, that’s obviously not film and looks like shit, but we get the point! It’s supposed to be old timey! Dumb fricking pleb.
>And you can adjust it to each shot, too.
This is the problem.
"When you can literally do anything, nothing means anything."
The limitations of celluloid are what make it precious and beautiful.
That’s why danced in the dark is maybe the only good digital movie because it was digital. It was right on the forefront, and based everything on the limitations of the format at the time.
*dancer in the dark
have a nice day ASAP IDIOT
he got mad at this and called you a sperg
he probably shoots porn of his fat gf getting blacked
Get glasses or or a 4K TV. Even without a 4K tv there's still 100% a noticeable difference, you’re eyes probably just suck.
But that's not true. Digital has always been better than film in every concievable way. Better picture quality, just better cameras all around, easier to submit dailies, smoother editing. How could film ever be better?
digital couldn't match films quality or resolution until like 2015
This isn't true. Early digital films all have the same problem which is scaling. Taking something shot in 720p, which was impressive once upon a time, up to 4k and beyond always marrs the final product. These days most professional cameras shoot in 8k, but how long until the next thing reveals a new scaling problem.
With film, no scaling problems. You just take the original 35mm and rescan it with the new tech. Ironically the old tech is future proof while the new tech is going to be the victim of it's own success for a long time to come. That's why a lot of 90s films actually look better than mid-2000s films.
as far as i remember 35mm can only effectively be scanned to 4k and 70mm can go to 8k
still impressive but it has limits
I don't believe that's true, though I can't say I've tested it. The more you blow a film up in size the blurrier the image gets but since digital can't understand blurry it just automatically gets sharpened.
I've seen super8 converted to 720p and looked like super8.
Technically there is no resolution limit to 35mm but the agreed upon standard is 6k.
NUMBER GO UP HOW GRUG THINK IT NOT BETTER? MAN ON TV SAY IT NEW AND GOOD
BASED BASED BASED
DIGITARDS GET THE ROPE
CINEMA IS FOREVER
b-b-b-b-based alert
Generally speaking I agree.
However it's a LOT more expensive (orders of magnitude) and there's things you can do with digital that you can't do with film.
As a result film kind of gets squeezed by digital from the top and the bottom. A marvel film for example requires digital cameras, while an indie film can only afford digital cameras. That's going to get worse, so if there's a future for film it's going to be pretty niche.
Name one way film is better than digital. So far all ive seen is everyone, even the film defenders, agreeing film is worse
Easy, Starship Troopers vs Starship Troopers 3.
Starship troopers is on film, it doesn't matter how many times it's remastered you get a very crisp image.
Starship Troopers 3 had a much lower budget but it looked okay in 720p, in 4k it looks like a videogame cutscene.
then to this they will say they could make a digital movie today that looks like og starship troopers
they can’t
Well they can't because they're not Paul Verhoeven. Paul Verhoeven's visual style has never been mimicked faithfully.
BUT, look at the virtual set things they've got at lucasfilms. You can't do that with film, that REQUIRES the camera so the computers controlling the set can understand what's happening. And even when you're doing just greenscreen stuff, correcting the green glow particularly in the scale of a modern sound stage with is two or three acres of green cloth under bright light, in theory you could do that with film by digitizing it later, but you get a much better quality product if you just take to software in the camera and tell it to ignore the green wash.
Now I hate nu-wars as much as anyone because it's unimaginative, poorly written and woke, but there's not doubt at all that the possibilities for virtual sets are... I don't have a word... I don't know what's going to come in ten or fifteen years, but there's going to be some amazing stuff and a lot of it.
nobody with vision or heart or intelligence will be given access to these tools bro
it’s gonna be nothing but what you see today essentially but made for cheaper as each year goes by
you realize the only reason any of this tech is still advancing at this point is simply for the sake of convenience
not for ambition or imagination or love
>nobody with vision or heart or intelligence will be given access to these tools bro
YET.
The original mobile phones were the size of small briefcases and cost tens of thousands of dollars.
These days every fricking c**t on the planet is walking around with a high resolution digital camera they got for free on a 24 month lock in contract. That was in the space of 20 years.
Really the story almost mimics the original foundation of Hollywood where UA moved to the west coast to get away from General Electrics control over the technology of film. This is why I'm just astonished at the backwards thinking of the legacy studios, particularly Disney. This shit is ready to fricking explode, we're talking twenty or thirty THOUSAND times more minutes of high end content being produced a year and these frickwits are still wondering how to get people back into cinemas post-covid.
I grew up in a very conservative part of the world where the idea you'd take a career in the arts was considered a symptom of mental illness. Now I look at it thinking if you're not training your kids to work in content generation in some capacity you need your fricking head examined.
i’ll believe it when i see it
i could make movies better than george lucas but i don’t have the time because this society requires me to work
Filmmaking is work.
It's HARD work.
It's blood and sweat AND brains.
It was. And still is, sort of. The problem is the industry has been taken over by the ones who don’t work hard. Gaffers and grips and most of the below the line crew still put in the work, but woman producers have taken over the industry. They sit at those long plastic tables on their laptops, laughing and talking, getting angry when people tell them to shut the frick up, camera is rolling. Nobody cared 15 years ago when they were just talkers sending emails, but now they’re allowed to make decisions, and everything suffers. All the work suddenly gets put on fewer and fewer backs, and they are paid less and less. This is why people get blown away by old school productions by people like Tom Cruise and James Cameron, because they don’t put up with that bullshit and make everyone actually work.
yup