What's the difference between a movie being digital or filmed on actual film?

>any REAL difference?
If you mean in terms of colour, then no.
People like to cite random digital films as being "flat" or soulless compared to film, but this is all done on purpose. Digital films that they want to look like film, look like film. It's impossible to tell the difference if the team involved know what they're doing

Read the OP again, dipshit.
>difference in filming process
>implying there is film grain in the process of actually filming digitally

Well, I was asking because I've heard film snobs say that CGI actually fits in better in analog films and the color contrasts are richer (e.g. deeper blacks).

Digital is an accurate representation of the world, ie it looks like real life looks which is mostly shit. Film produces an inaccurate image where certain colors are fucked up and certain textures are blended out - however with a proper lighting setup you won't be able to tell the difference between film and digital. If you ever wondered "why are girls from the 60s so beautiful when modern actresses aren't?" it's because nobody uses film today and as a result you can see all the makeup and acne when back then film hid it all.

Attached: Untitled (8).jpg (1000x1000, 1.3M)

The high cost of film stock can cause filmmakers to be more deliberate with what they do, so it can be a helpful restriction.

digital = high quality and detail
film = low quality and detail

Everything filmed on film looks comfy
Look at Bruce Almighty

Celluloid film can be converted up to 8k. So any 'films' shot digitally on anything less than 8k are already inherently inferior compared to simple picture quality. The real key difference is that celluloid creates an abstract colour palette of whatever is filmed, whereas digital is much more 'realistic', removing the veneer of fake-ness that celluloid gives.

I can point to many films that showcase this difference.

>Lord of the Rings vs The Hobbit Trilogy
The former feels old, when they're down in the Mines of Moria for instance it has an atmosphere of mystery and age.

Then you have An Unexpected Journey in the goblin tunnels and everything just looks new and wet. Crisp images don't tell good stories.

However fully animated films that aim for photorealism like Avatar are given a faux-cinematic feel that works pretty well, because everything on screen is a pixar movie on steroids. It's also why games like Alien Isolation, or the Star Wars Old Republic cinematics are kinos.

Unironically at university I wanted to do my desertation about the difference between film and digital storytelling, and my -- female -- lecturer couldn't comprehend the fuck I was trying to convey.

>kodachrome died
RIP

Attached: 1543332646645.jpg (654x672, 45K)

>why are girls from the 60s so beautiful when modern actresses aren't
No one is stupid enough to say this.

digital is cheaper
also has that disgusting whitewashed filter

>deeper blacks
OBSESSED

Attached: 3cce74ef-fab6-4ea3-8c88-cc64746a674a-ba.jpg (1020x574, 90K)

Based.

Attached: 1519494417005.gif (1100x450, 326K)

there's a lot of difference
even with all the color grading in the world digital looks flatter

there's a post on this thread literally every day about how woman from the 90s or 80s or 70s or 60s are superior to modern women and it's literally just that women look better on film than on digital, especially when caught on the street by paparazzi

Attached: 1548598775921.jpg (1000x1000, 164K)

>>Lord of the Rings vs The Hobbit Trilogy
This is a terrible example. The difference between the films was prep time. The same amount of care just wasn't put into The Hobbit. It has nothing to do with being shot on film

Obv what this guy said Other than that, it simply looks different. The image isn't the same if it's captured on film or on a digital sensor. Not better, not worse. Simply different.

I for one think film gives it a comfier, more cinematic look, since the slight imperfection of the grain acts like a veil over the image that makes you not notice that what you're looking at is fundamentally fake. Dumb simile, but like a pixelated shoop not being so obvious as a high-res shoop. Also see pic related. But that's just my opinion.

Attached: renoir.jpg (936x1436, 603K)

>shoot on digital
>spend gorillions of dollars adding fake grain to make it look like film
>instead of just shooting on film

Attached: y_tho.jpg (1813x2111, 957K)

>Crisp images don't tell good stories.
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS

Film catches, bends, reels / you can hold it in your hands / the image holds weight.

>spend gorillions of dollars adding fake grain to make it look like film
Or y'know... don't?
Also, it literally costs less than $500 to get filmconvert which does that in seconds. Stop shitposting Mark

>shoot on film
>the chemist fucks it up
>waste gorillions of dollars and time reshooting everything you shot
That's why. The infrastructure that used to process film has totally fallen apart and all that's left are small shops that cater to hipsters. You can't even get good film stock these days, let alone find a good processor and every day the people who mastered some aspect of film are retiring and not being replaced.

>implying some 500$ plugin will make it believably look like film
you must be blind

Wow, if only they'd done several blind tests or had leading cinematographers test it out and come to the conclusion that it worked perfectly...
Oh wait.
Fucking idiot

This is an unfair image comparison. But this is the difference between them.

Attached: 323423.png (1372x514, 1.01M)

>shoot on digital
>forget memory card / memory card breaks / HDD breaks / computer blows out / etc
digital has its own dangers. There's extremely few stories of the lab fucking up, if it's a pro film lab.
>The infrastructure that used to process film has totally fallen apart and all that's left are small shops that cater to hipsters.
Oh no it's retarded.
There's fewer film labs, the infrastructure as habeen centralized, but the ones left are absolutely top-tier labs that work mostly with high-budget productions, which are the ones that can afford to shoot on film.
>You can't even get good film stock these days
W E W L A D
Kodak still produces high quality negative stocks. Nu-wars was shot on film, terrible films but good cinematography all the same.

tl;dr you're a pseud and don't know jack shit

>spend gorillions of dollars adding fake grain to make it look like film
lmao it's literally just putting the right LUT filter and shooting on the right settings/lighting

As technology progresses it will literally become an Instagram filter, but with zero difference.

The warmth. The soul.

imagine actually believing this

>muh filters
I just want the turboplebs to leave :(

So why is a huge nostalgia-pandering blockbuster that only exists to make money off of millennials like Detective Pikachu being shot on 35mm film?

Attached: 1542073784683.png (187x313, 109K)

different filming process

why would you want more blacks though?

Attached: 1526046051413.jpg (249x249, 12K)

why do the pseuds and turboplebs get so triggered over film?
>b-but you c-can just use muh filters
>d-digital l-looks the s-same
what the fuck if film is so terrible why do you want digital to look like film then? It's almost as if these tards are aware that digital looks like crap so they have to use six gorillion filters to make it look like film.

>the virgin digital
>the chad film

>dude if the image isn't crafted by a thousand virgins spilling their blood on it it's not "real film" lmao
The only thing that matters is the final result.

>Detective Pikachu is being shot on film
holy shit I didn't even know
fucking NICE
pokekino confirmed

dumb quads, it is a common sentiment made by normies all the time

You type like you're 12.
No one claims film looks like shit, only that it requires far more risk and effort to shoot, especially in low light situations.

>implying shooting on film is somehow a big hassle over digital
I guess if you're a brainlet it is

This so much. What it's being filmed on can make a lot of difference tonally. Watch pic related and see how it can make scenes different.

Attached: 268x0w.jpg (268x402, 42K)

Price

yeah all the pokemons are real life non digital actors too

Imagine not having an argument. Oh wait...

>it requires far more risk and effort to shoot
if your IQ is room temperature tier I guess

>what the fuck if film is so terrible why do you want digital to look like film then?
based user DESTROYS digital fags with FACTS and LOGIC

>I read on the commercial website that they did a blind test with some literally who DP and he couldn't tell the difference
upvoted

It literally is, that's a fact.
Film cameras require far more light in the lens, are far more noisy, bigger, harder to immediately reproduce the material etc. And bigger formats like IMAX are an even bigger hassle, where you have to change the film stock every 2 minutes of filming

>Film cameras require far more light in the lens
>implying you ever need more than 500 ISO

>are far more noisy
Latest gen cameras are practically inaudible, but keep spouting your memes. They barely make more noise than the cooling fan on a digital cinema camera. It gets to the point where such slight noise doesn't even affect the sound because
>what is signal to noise ratio
If your scene is 100% silent just cut out the sound in post lad.

>bigger
Slightly, yes. Although there are compact models for handheld shooting, even with 400ft mags. Again, with all the equipment needed to shoot a proper film it's just overkill wanting a tiny camera. It's not a camcorder ffs.

>harder to immediately reproduce the material
aka chimping
only brainlets need this.
For continuity and framing issues you have the video tap. Digital cameras just give you the logarithmic image, which is also of little use for the specific elements for which you can't use the video tap image.

>And bigger formats like IMAX
Those are very special formats, with a resolution that goes far beyond any common digital camera. Even though you're right on those, the comparison is completely m00t. The standard for comparison is 35mm.

tl;dr it's only a slightly bigger hassle over digital.

However it also has its advantages:
Once you have the film, it's safer for preservation than digital files.
Can be re-scanned at any resolution for future re-releases.
Cameras are sturdier and less prone to breakdowns.

Thats when a studio/director(extreme case but does happen) chooses not to grade it for whatever reason;budget or choice specific
Source: i professionally work in this stupid industry

Half of MI6 was shot on film
Bizarrely the tunnel scene was shot on both digital amd film

the eternal cruise says he looks better on film, so he doesn't like his films to be shot on digital.

say what you want, but the man knows kino.

He certainly does,I worked on one of his film (with cameron diaz) and the man is gracefully intense.I cannot undermine his success and effort wouldnt live with but certainly would work with and for again for another 4 months.Im just a shitty nobody with a penchant for Yea Forums and disappointing myself by continuing vices

>Can be re-scanned at any resolution for future re-releases.
This will also be a non point in the near future where the digital medium will be able to shoot in far greater resolution than we'll ever realistically need for movies.
The difference between digital and film is shrinking day by day

anyone who thinks and appreciates film could immediately tell when a movie is film or digital. Both have merits, some stories suit either. It's really no that hard to tell. Doofus.

this is a severely under rated post. A Yea Forums thread where someone actually has some insight about kinography. Thankyou based user.

Soul.

They HAD to shoot it digital because of prep time. I honestly believe a full-strength Jackson would NOT have done this.

what the fuck does 'kino' even mean? because I know it can't mean 'good' or 'quality'

>anyone who thinks and appreciates film could immediately tell when a movie is film or digital.
For now. Digital still images can already be created where the difference between film is literally not detectable, only a matter of time when this becomes real for motion aswell

Digital already has "higher resolution" than film. Although the whole comparison makes little sense. You can't equate number of grains on one single frame to pixels, since the grain changes in each frame, so it creates a wholly different perception, and the "overlapping" grain information creates a better "resolution" than what you'd get from the number of grains alone.
And even so, the whole way the image and motion is generated is quite different.
Plus you don't really need anything beyond 35mm film quality. At least not for fiction. At some point it's just overkill, and like Renoir said "absolute perfection leads to absolute decadence".

I'm not trying to bad mouth digital with this. Like this user says they both have merits, it's down to choice. But it's important that film exists as a choice. I for example really like 16mm, precisely because it has a very noticeable grain, more so than 35mm yet less than Super8, where the image is really low-res.

The whole argument of
>the difference is shrinking
or
>digital can be made to look like film
seems absurd to me. Both have their advantages and their drawbacks.

All that said, my point still stands that film can be scanned at ever higher resolution, to preserve not just the image, but also the detail of the very grain that composes the image.

Use film when you want to impress a bunch of film nerds by doing absolutely nothing and use digital when your first priority is to make a movie and not to show off how cool you are

But what's the point of digital then if you just want to make it look like film?
It's like the most retarded thing ever. It's like vegan meat made out of tofu and sheit that's supposed to taste like real meat. If you're a vegan you're not supposed to want to eat meat ffs.

>use digital when your first priority is to make capeshit
ftfy

I take it to mean 'a really enjoyable movie experience'

>If you're a vegan you're not supposed to want to eat meat ffs
Lmao what? Most vegans are vegans because of moral reasons. Everyone likes the taste of bacon and steak. If I could actually get that taste without animals having to die for it I'd switch in a heartbeat.

>t. Easily impressed film nerd

It's not like digital is advancing by people thinking "hmmm how can we make this picture look more like film", the option of making it look more like film is only one of the options which become available as the technology progresses.

If digital was advancing like you imply it does, it would never be able to shoot at such extreme low light situations as you can do it today.

Explain this then

Can anyone remember the last time a digital movie impressed them visually? I literally can't. Any digital movie I've seen so far has just been "okay" in terms of visuals.

Attached: Barry Lyndon.jpg (2000x1575, 3.9M)

>caring only about taste
What about the nutrients you dummy

I'm already eating lots of garbage anyways.

Unironically BR2049. Absolutely beautifully captured depth, texture and light

Attached: broken K.webm (1920x800, 2.8M)

"Kino" is a meme word created after people unironically started trying to turn film vs. flick. Movie into classifications of quality. Kino is the best quality, and so people just use it for everything they like.

Attached: 3066178820818.jpg (1424x884, 276K)

Cold War

Attached: Zimna Wojna.mkv_snapshot_00.05.54_.jpg (1920x1080, 909K)

You are right, but you clearly are a brainlet that doesn't understand why he is right and how to explain it, don't blame your lecturer

>The Revenant
>Birdman
>BR 2049
>Apocalypto
>Upstream Color
>Dancer in the Dark
>Russian Ark
>Ex Machina
It's not that digital is a bad medium, it's that many digital productions are low-budget and/or low-effort, meaning the cinematographer is often an idiot.

There's also Inland Empire, but that one doesn't look "good" in the traditional sense. Still a visually stunning movie, though

Idk man maybe I am biased, maybe I have a very narrow view of beauty but somehow even though I can tell that the composition of these movies was good they don't move me the same way film does because they feel lacking in texture to me but I get this is a personal thing and I am sounding like a contrarian.

Attached: tree of life.jpg (1800x1293, 2.14M)

For some films it would make no sense for the image to be textured, warm and "beautiful" in the classical sense.

Attached: UNDER THE SKIN.jpg (3000x1622, 2.12M)

>one uses soul the other doesn't
which one is it Yea Forums?

I'm not against film, it has it's place. But digital has a very distinct feel to it; it feels cleaner, more sterile. I like that.
But in the end there are a thousand other things that should be absorbing your focus other than the medium. Storytelling will always trump something as trivial as medium.

>and my -- female -- lecturer couldn't comprehend the fuck I was trying to convey.
you surprised?

>Digital is an accurate representation of the world

More accurate sure, but it's not like those sensors don't have their own limitations in terms of what colors they pick up

but kino means cinema so it doesn't make sense

Film's development allows for fucking around with the picture too, and sometimes in a way which is not yet possible with digital.

>and sometimes in a way which is not yet possible with digital.
Examples?

It used to be dynamic range. Like the literal amount of colors film could capture compared to digital cameras. Now it's debeatable.

It really depends on a number of factor. Cinematography, camera movements, art direction.
Say what you want, I had no idea S1 of True Detective was shot on film, cause it wasn't that good. But the other day I was watching A Ghost Story and I had no idea it was shot digitally and grain was added in post

Attached: a-ghost-story-2017-4-1040x666.jpg (1040x666, 67K)

Dude, you literally can't see what you're shooting while you're shooting it on film.

film usually has more texture and naturally better colors. digital can capture more information and allows for more alteration but requires more editing and color grading as the raw footage looks like gray concrete. both have their uses but a lot of modern movies dont know how to color grade properly and the movies end up visually bland as fuck.

Attached: thinking.gif (500x395, 139K)

Literally everything Refn except his Danish period

That looks nice. Got any more?

Not that user, A Ghost Story does look digital to me. That doesn't mean it does not look good.
I was convinced Cold War was shot on film though

Attached: A Ghost Story.jpg (3240x2430, 3.74M)

>Shot digitally and grain added in post
Literally dishonest filmmaking. Still funny to see filmfags get BTFO'd

Filmmaking in and of itself is dishonest, the entire point of filmmaking is actors pretending in front of a distorted lens camera, with fake added in lighting, make up, costumes, foley, editing etc and it's praised when that pretend seems somewhat real at the end.

Fillmmaking will only be honest in the distant future where directors will literally sculpt entire films just by thinking alone and getting the result with absolutely no compromises or other factors than their imagination.

>directors will literally sculpt entire films just by thinking alone
If that ever actually happened it'd make some real bad movies

>digital has a very distinct feel to it; it feels cleaner, more sterile. I like that.
soulless

>what is video tap
dumbass

Looks different than the final product.

Perfect for some films.

Attached: Under The Skin_2.webm (1920x1038, 2.38M)

How does being a retard BTFO filmfags? It's just stupid to shoot digital and make it look like film, it shows a total lack of creativity. If you shoot digital you should find a proper digital aesthetic, not just imitate a different format which you could actually be using but are too dumb/lazy to do so.

>It's just stupid to shoot digital and make it look like film
What if you don't have the money to shoot on film?

Then you don't have the money to use a top-notch digital cinema camera either, and thus won't be able to make it truly look like film.
The whole cost issue of film is way overrated. Yeah it's a big issue if you have a shoestring budget and shooting with a DSLR. Renting an Alexa otoh is so expensive, that the difference in camera rental alone almost makes up for the cost of film, because film camera rental is way cheaper.
I shot a short film on a ~8k euro budget and was able to shoot on 16mm. Using a proper digital camera would have barely made a difference because camera rental is so expensive. It would only have been cheaper if I'd borrowed someone's DSLR, but that would have also made it look worse.

Cold War had a budget of nearly 5 million $ and they literally said they couldn't shoot on film because of budgetary reasons.
You say as if the expense just comes from the camera and film stock itself, not in the entire production process, which you should be aware of if you shot on film like you said.

Attached: ziman wojna.jpg (1437x1080, 466K)

Yeah I'm calling bullshit on that tho. On a 5 mil budget the difference wouldn't be too relevant. Sounds like an excuse for just not wanting to deal with the difficulties. The big expense is literally just film, developing and scanning, idk what you mean with "the whole production process". It's just not that big a difference. Renting digital cameras costs several times as much per day as film cameras.
Obv you gotta have some restraint, not play Willie Wyler and do a gorillion takes for each shot.

had no idea apocalypto was shot digitally, because it looks amazing. i guess at the end of the day it's all about competency of directors and cinematographers.

No, except that scanned film is going to look how it looks without any post processing. Also, I personally really appreciate when film makers shoot on film. I can usually tell the difference. I check on IMDB and i'm usually right.

>Sounds like an excuse for just not wanting to deal with the difficulties

They literally spent months in preproduction just perfecting for the digital to look like 35mm film, doing numerous tests and references.
>Of course, initially we wanted to shoot film, but one of the main reasons we start-ed looking at alternatives were obviously budget constraints. This choice could have ended up being a creative limitation, especially given the way we work. It became clear at one point we would have to do it on Alexa. We wanted to see how close we can get with it to the ideal that is the 35mm, so we decided to compare a 35mm film camera with our Alexa XT in a series of tests using the same lenses, on the same set and with the same lighting. Our production designer built a set based on the apart-ment in Paris and we carried our rehearsals with actors in different costumes and makeup. With different shades of black, white and grey in the production design.
>After development and scanning of the Kodak 5219 film, together with the colourist Michal Herman we performed the grading on 35mm and found a look that was satis-fying. Then we decided to find an equivalent on the Alexa and master it to the point it would be hard to distinguish, which is what.
>We then perfected a LUT allowing us to perfectly splice the digital images together with the 35mm reference images both in terms of contrast and body. Lastly, on set, two Luts were used, one for the days and one for the nights, which gave us dailies and a final cut that were very close to the image we’d wanted from the start. By re-opening the blacks with masks in function of our needs, or by playing on micro-contrast, the final round of colour-timing resulted in an image that I find very rich, that looks just like film, but which has stronger details in the blacks, especially.
afcinema.com/Cinematographer-Lukasz-Zal-PSC-discusses-his-work-on-Pawel-Pawlikowski-s-Cold-War.html?lang=fr

Attached: zimna wojna.m2ts_snapshot_00.01.05_.jpg (1920x1080, 823K)

And I am not going to pretend like I shot on film, but I imagine the difference being that you don't have the freedom to shoot as many takes as with digital, that you need far more lighting (especially in interior settings) and that absolutely everything has to perfect right in camera in every take while shooting, so things like that would make the production process far more costly in the long run.

>have no money to shoot film
>have money to spend months tweaking to make their digital look like film
this actually reinforces my suspicion that they just wanted to do six gorillion takes, have dailies every day, and have a real-time reference of how the lighting looks instead of properly measuring the light.

Sure, that could be a reason. The point is there are obvious budgetary reasons for not shooting on film, which now even you agree with.

I figure this.

You don't need significantly more lighting. Alexa has a native ISO of 800, while film gets you up to 500.
Other than that you're not entirely wrong, it all has to be right in camera of course. But film is very forgiving as well, usually more so than digital.
And about the takes, that comes down to preference. But in my experience, being limited in how many takes you can work in your favour, because people have more "respect" towards the actual takes, instead of just thinking "meh let's just do a few more". Which also helps keeping the schedule.

Maybe, but I don't see any advantage in doing shitloads of takes, or not needing to control lighting as carefully. Quite the opposite, I find that it has a negative effect on the production. People give less care to the production, and in the end that reflects on the end result. This is my subjective perception, but I've noticed this consistently on all productions I've been involved with.

For some reason with film they can make it "look differently".
Movies shot on digital all looks the same (even with filters and lighting changes).
IMO it's one of the reasons why people stopped going to movies. "Film" looks great on the big screen. Digital looks the same on any screen.

These film vs digital threads are so comfy

It certainly is notable that film quality has consistently gone down with the change from film to digital. Who knows if there's a correlation or not...

it really dosnt matter.
Blade Runner 2049 was shot on digital iirc and thats easily one of the best looking movies ever made.
making a movie with film instead of digital does not automatically mean it will look better

Attached: BR.jpg (3414x1430, 660K)

Pawlikowski is an autist on the level of Kubrick when it comes to precise movement, absolutely every single micro gesture of everyone, both the actors and the camera operator/focus puller/lighting operator etc must be entirely how he wants it to be so naturally that requires a lot of takes.
He does more rehearsals than some directors do takes in general, and then he makes +20 takes easy on set again for a scene.

>Then you don't have the money to use a top-notch digital cinema camera either, and thus won't be able to make it truly look like film.
Why you guys talk with such arrogance about things you have no idea? A RED One, a camera used 7 years ago to make actual television, is 3k on ebay. You can shoot an infinite amount of footage with it. Top notch quality.
A 1000 feet long 35mm roll of film (11min of footage), cost about 500$. And then you need to scan and develop the fucking thing.
Making movies on film costs about 10/20 times what it costs to make them digitally

A RED One looks like shit nowadays.
And film costs amount to about 5-10% of a budget, and I'm talking an indie budget. A digital camera will save you at the very most 10%, and that's shooting with an obsolete pos like a RED one which has a quality that's noticeably worse than film.
The Alexa was the first digital camera that was able to equal the image quality of film. Anything before that will look worse.

also
>studied film
>have made short films
>things I have no idea about
lel

Not that user, but if you think anyone will respect or automatically believe you more if you say "I studied film" you're terribly wrong.

Why do you talk like all film costs the same? Shooting on 35mm costs up to three times more than shooting on 16mm.

well yeah after a severe amount of CG and tweaking

why do fa/tv/irgins get so butthurt at people who have studied film?

Who said I was talking about 16mm? Because I wasn't. I'm well aware of the cost of shooting 35mm.

It's not the fact that you studied film, but that you think stating a thing like that eliminates any reason to present actual arguments.
It's like arguing about music and the other dude just saying "ummm I studied music you know, so I must be right"

But I gave an argument you dipshit. At no point did I imply that having studied film made me automatically right. Stop being so triggered.

>you know nothing about structural integrity of bridges
>but I studied engineering
>lol that means jack shit, I haven't studied anything but let me explain your field to you

matthewwagenknecht.com/the-actual-costs-of-film/

>deeper blacks
ah yes, gotta have those crushed blacks

see
>Typically on low budget productions (Under $250,000) film stock, processing and transfer cost is about 10-15% of a films budget. This is usually made up for in equipment savings, shorter days, less overtime and meal costs and post production savings. For bigger budgets film stock, processing and transfer is an even lower percentage of total costs. Film will look better than any other format too, even if you just complete you project on digital.

Thanks for posting the link famalamalam.

>Making movies on film costs about 10/20 times what it costs to make them digitally
soul has a price

Soul is in the execution, not in the medium of choice. You can shoot on film and for it still to be utterly soulless

But you can never have soul on digital.

You most certainly can.

Attached: apocalypto-movie-screencaps.com-1468.jpg (1920x1038, 212K)

>"No!"

Black and white looks awful in digital.
Inherent film effects like grain also add a particular aesthetic to the quality.

>Black and white looks awful in digital.
Not really.

Attached: zimna wojna_021.jpg (1437x1080, 622K)

ya rly

...

Just read the book lmao

So no one can agree on anything regarding film vs digital?

I'd say we can agree it's simply different, neither is better. But the digital turboautists insist on their meme of making digital look like film.

Film can be rescanned at a higher resolution in the future so 50 years for the ultra omega HD remaster in glorious 20,000p whereas a digital film can only be displayed in the resolution it was shot (assuming you aren't trying to upscale it with interpolation).

This will be a non issue in 50 years when digital resolution becomes far greater than we could realitically ever need.

Right, but films shot in 4k today will look like garbage then, whereas films shot on film today will still look good.

Objectively digital is better than film when judged across every metric. Film is arguably better for a particular film-like image.

>but films shot in 4k today will look like garbage then
This is so stupid I don't know where to even begin. No, they won't, in short.

The advance from 4K/8K onwards is so little for us to see that most people won't even see the difference, I mean some people can't even see the difference between 1080p and 4K, so I don't think any true 4K films will look like "garbage" in the future. Resolution is not the only thing that matters.
But even so, films of the near future won't have any of those problems you mentioned

I watched Mary Poppins Returns when it came out on torrent last week. The special effects, especially during the painting scene looked worse than the 1964 original because it was recorded with a digital camera rather than on film. The characters stood out much more in the new film and you the contrast between the actors and the animated background/characters really stood out.

Attached: b94623848d351cfc32fa62bb90ebb7b4.jpg (1576x438, 570K)

That's a difference in lighting mostly, not because of the digital medium.

The digital medium is too neat, too detailed. The slight imperfection of film makes it all blend together much better.
PERFECT REALISM = PERFECT DECADENCE

As imperfections are not possible with digital.

Attached: non neat.jpg (852x462, 126K)

*As if

Digital strives for perfection, as it's a binary format: zero and one. Correct and incorrect. Any imperfection is an error that needs to be corrected.
Film is an analogue format. It isn't limited to correct or incorrect.

Man you spout quotes and meme sentences like a twitter post generator.
Reality is that you can do anything you want no matter the medium today.

Attached: zimna wojna_194.jpg (1439x1078, 280K)

'low-level' film looks better than low-level digital by default. Analogue grain always looks much better than digital noise, you don't have to worry about resolution, getting the right exposure and focus aren't as big of a deal, and colors turn out nicer with less work. However, this becomes less true the more digital technology develops and the more effort/money you spend on digital cameras/post-processing. A digital film with a big budget and good cinematography and editing can look just as good as analogue film (BR 2049 is a good example). Still, a lot of 'good digital' is basically just emulating what real film looks like. They both have pros and cons. Essentially, with film you're gonna be spending more time dealing with the physical tapes themselves (moving, copying, splicing, etc), while with digital you're gonna be spending more time focused on getting it to look right. A lot of the guys raised on old-school cinema like Tarantino, PTA, and Nolan still use film, probably for these reasons.

>meme sentences
>"you can do anything you want no matter the medium"
any self-respecting cinematographer will strongly disagree with that. But stay triggered.

Attached: dumbass.png (600x608, 171K)

This user knows what he's talking about.
This one doesn't.

Attached: brainlet10.jpg (221x250, 9K)

>films switch to using digital en masse
>overall quality starts taking a huge dip
COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT.

yeah but "self-respecting" is meaningless. Lots of fucking retards 'self respect', that's not an indication of quality or anything other than being a narcissist.
art is art, it's all on the same level, since nobody has defined art, there is no reason to argue over it

you're all brainlets

Digital was already used in the 90s, and film as a medium wasn't shitty until 2008. So that's almost two decades that defeat your point.

>autists who probably don't even understand how the manual mode on their smartphone camera works arguing over film vs digital
lmao

Any well-respected cinematographer then. All of the great cinematographers of our time will at least agree that it's definitely not the same if you shoot on film or on digital.

>art is art, it's all on the same level
>lol doesn't matter if you use watercolor or oil painting, art is art
we're not even talking about art you tard, we're talking about different mediums for art. And any artist will agree the choice of medium is relevant and it's never exactly the same.

Digital didn't become industy standard until the mid to late 00's tho

So Deakins is not a well respected cinematographer?
Ofcourse it's not the same in the literal sense, but he works exactly the same with digital as he did with film, everything in-camera.

this except me

I'm sure Deakins would never say that it doesn't matter if you use film or digital.
I'm not saying a good cinematographer must always prefer film, I'm saying he'd never say it's the same thing.

No one said it doesn't matter which you use, I said Deakins shoots on digital just like he shot on film.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3Enu2l_bE at 4:09

That's pretty fucking bizarre. I guess they're going for a noir feel?

Anyone here seen this? It's pretty good but I can't remember much from it, it's been a while

Attached: side by side.jpg (1069x1500, 132K)