Why do boomers like Nolan prefer to shoot on film?

I'm just mad 4k isn't the standard yet

Film is good because it's lossless. How do you people not understand this? There necessarily must be a loss of product when you move from analog to digital. You're literally losing parts of the film when you switch to digital. It has nothing to do with film looking "artsy". It looks good because it doesn't have pieces missing from it

>photos are better than paintings

>a record is better than mp3

Wasn't The Revenant shot in digital? It looked great

this guy gets it

also bracing for comfy film vs digital bread

see

Painting isn't the same as photography. Paintings are not painted photos as much as you art plebs would like to believe they are

I understand that. But if your movie has tons of green screen and cgi you aren’t losing anything important in that transition, you want a few things in the frame to look defined and crisp, the “mood” of the scene isn’t important.

That's only because you see higher definition as inherently better when it's not

Attached: 1519719794210.png (485x443, 34K)

Where all my /film/bros at? Give me (You)s to BTFO the digicucks. The replies to this post shall tally the filmbros itt.

Attached: film_camera_65mm.jpg (740x457, 70K)

It's so predictable. Like when older people shit on today's popular music

>i don't like the music which is produced and marketed to teenagers today! I preferred the music which was made for me during my formative years! What a coincidence I grew up when music was at it's best!
>this new digital stuff is shit. I'll stick to trusty film, thanks

Dinosaurs will die off eventually.

>watch a movie shot on film on a computer screen
>hurr durr digital is so much better

Attached: 1548142028455.jpg (452x452, 62K)

Classical music is still huge even though it's been "dead" for over a century.

you're describing a movie that I would never watch
to each his own though

Classical music was never a product made for teens/young adults with cash to burn.

>movie with tons of green screen and cgi

Attached: puke_dog.jpg (1532x1080, 406K)

This nobody likes charcoal grilled food anymore now that we have based microwaves and air fryers

>tfw born in '89
>grew up with mostly video technology and incipient digital, Film was being phased out by the time I was a teen
>still prefer film

>cherry picking and missing the point

Wew. Yes, everybody in the west cooks their own meals. Fast food restaurants don't exist. You can't get twenty different types of fruit juice at the store. Potato chips - what are those? Ordering breakfast food to my office via a phone app - are you crazy?

I know a fat Japanese woman. So what?

>Wew. Yes, everybody in the west cooks their own meals. Fast food restaurants don't exist. You can't get twenty different types of fruit juice at the store. Potato chips - what are those? Ordering breakfast food to my office via a phone app - are you crazy?
But his point is that people still like to ALSO do things the old-fashioned way. Just like some people like to shoot film.
Why do you cucks always have to strawman about anyone saying that film is the only option? It's you fuckers getting triggered over some people preferring to do it the old fashion way. Do you also REEEEEEE when someone goes one day without eating fast food or microwave dinners?

Digital can look good but film looks better.

I never said people never do it the old fashioned way - who's strawmanning now? I was explaining why a particular group are over represented in doing it that way.

>You get crisp details and 4K res
Film res is far higher than 4k

>I was explaining why a particular group are over represented in doing it that way.
>"Dinosaurs will die off eventually."
You were clearly implying that only "dinosaurs" like to do it the old fashioned way, when many young people itt prefer film as well. Now you're just backtracking you cuck.

Bought meals have semen/shit inside. In porn you get at least payed for it.

Who cares about that much detail anyway. Too much detail makes the fakery inherent to fiction filmmaking too noticeable.

That's quite a backflip

They are faggots. Digital looks better and it's cheaper. Only nostalgiafags and hipsters like film. There are even filters on digital that makes it look just like film if you want that.

It's true tho.

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

>digital is better because it has more detail
>no wait, digital is better because it has less detail

Please tell me more about how you seeth when thinking people doing things you don't like

>digital looks better
Wrong.

I can't think of a single film shot on digital that looks good. I guess you win this time filmCHADS

Attached: 1511136819825.jpg (337x372, 23K)

Putting it simply: your eyes see in analogue, not in digital. So yes, it is.

Based.
Somewhere in this interview Nolan explains it in a bit more detail why he shoots on film:
youtube.com/watch?v=49Jt5k1W0bw

FLAC shits on everything mainstream
likewise digital has eclipsed film. That's why Nolan chimps out for film preservation and shit

Why do I get 1080p rips then? Sick of seeing blurry shit on my 27" monitor. I want badass ultra high resolution super crisply picture quality.

>young people ITT
contrarian shitposters don't count.

1080p is lower quality than 4k, mate.

Are you one of those people too who say there's no difference between 60hz and 120/144hz displays?

I mean very, very few movies get 4k releases even now. Where's my 4k capeshit?

>boomers
Christopher Nolan is Generation X, which answers your question. They prefer analog because the digital transition happened midway through their peak years so they could easily tell that digital was inferior to the analog they grew up with.

shoot in 8k and downscale to 4k
viola

cinemas have digital projectors/source anyway (if you want a cinema with decent size and sound)

Vidocq
Miami Vice
Zodiac
Prometheus
Fury Road
Rogue One
The VVitch
BR2049
Mandy

Digital looks like a fucking documentary. film has more blurring on background objects, which looks natural, but with digital they have to use shaky cam or terrible blurring so you don’t notice the $10 foam panel they spray painted in the background

>using video game cutscenes as an example of a 'movie'

I think reddit is more your speed pal

suspiria 2018

>viola
It's "violin", you fucking brainlet.

>Mandy
wasn't BTBR actually shot on the film though?

BtBR - 35mm film, Mandy - digital

>everyone who disagrees with me is a contrarian shitposter

>not shooting video game cutscenes on 65mm
D R O P P E D

guess his daddy's money ran out, oh well

All of those look meh at best though, at terrible at worst. Vidocq is infamous for its terrible video quality, although in all fairness it was shot using primitive equipment. Zodiac suffers greatly from using digital. Miami Vice has some pukeworthy noise in the night shots, looks like home video.

it's called depth of focus and is used on any equipment retard

Attached: 1556388397037.jpg (1200x800, 198K)

>The future is digital
>You get crisp details and 4K res
>With digital you don't get that.
...What?

It's called depth of field you brainlet pseud.

What about fury road?

lack of financing is seen everywhere in the movie

>have 60hz monitors for years
>finally try a 144hz
I immediately went out and bought a 240hz monitor just cause I could
I didn't realize it made that big of a difference

wrong

Nolan is Gen X, retard. By definition there's nothing "boom" about him or anyone in his age range. Millennials are more "boomer" then Gen X. Stop you're retarded fucking meme from a fucking retarded generation that never cracked open a fucking dictionary.

Attached: Image1.png (1000x1000, 13K)

>The phrase depth of focus is sometimes erroneously used to refer to the depth of field (DOF), which is the area in front of the lens in acceptable focus, whereas the true meaning of depth of focus refers to the zone behind the lens wherein the film plane or sensor is placed to produce an in-focus image.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_focus

Pseud status:
[ ] not told
[ ] told
[x] fucking TOLD

Film actually has more information in it than HD digital. That's how they can remaster movies shot on film for whatever ultra 4k they're trying to sell, because film captured it all.

Looked ok imo, but nothing to write home about. Then again they were going for an over the top aesthetic, so in that regard I respect their decision. Like, with Zodiac it was the exact other way around, it would have gained sooo fucking much from shooting on film.

Savage as fuck.

you, sir, are and idiot ;)

It is sort of interesting, though.

Porn is what I find the most bizarre, though. People will complain about film or digital, or shot composition, but then a unstable video shot on potato cam will still be captivating, watched by millions because it was a naked girl in it. Andy Warhol said that his idea of a great picture was one that was in focus and of a famous person. I take it to mean that what's being filmed is the only thing that really matters.

And sound is more important than picture, anyway.

This. It's amazing how many people don't realize this.
Depending on certain factors like stock and exposure, film can have a theoretical 'resolution' beyond even 8-16k.

This is one reason but it’s mainly because film has certain qualities that you can’t really recreate with digital that make it look better and they’re more comfy

That means you use a TN panel. Cringe. Enjoy the shit colors and angles. I'm gonna keep enjoying my 165hz perfect IPS panel for my gaymes and KINO

High quality post. You're largely right, 99% of people dgaf about film or digital, they just want to see famous people on screen. In fact, most of them don't even care if he's a good actor, if he's been hyped up, they'll eat it up. It's kinda depressing to think about it.

>And sound is more important than picture, anyway.
I see you know your shit. Image is good to captivate the first couple of minutes, but sound is what has the audience keep paying attention.

I still have a hardon for film tho. 16mm is best format. Fite me.

It’s amazing how many people don’t know the difference between IPS and TN. Went out of my way to buy a 3DS with IPS screens because it’s insane how much better they are.

Film is far worse to edit
imagine splicing and gluing reels like it's the 19th century

Digital is for porn and plebs.

based and filmpilled

Because people with passion for their films would go through the trouble of doing that. Now because of digital editing we have autistic retards able to make clip shows of anime set to Veggie Tales songs on YouTube.

Suspiria was shot on 35mm.
Some of those look good but all of them could be shot on film and it would look better. Mandy in particular especially because they tried to make it look like it was shot on film. Not very successfully.

what's it like to not only act and type like a faggot over text but also to be entirely and utterly wrong
amazon.com/gp/product/B06WRP3F5S/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s03?ie=UTF8&psc=1

I hate the dumb apes that give me (you)s why can't it be intelligent people

1. film preserves better and longer than digital. 100 years from now a lot of what was recorded in this era digitally will have simply disappeared.

2. film isn't limited in resolution. It can be near-infinitely upconverted in comparison to digital, which is forever stuck at the resolution it was recorded in.

Most of the time that's nostalgia goggles on but there are times when it's actually true.

amazon.com/gp/product/B0173PEX20/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

how's this badboy

>film preserves better and longer than digital.
Wait what? What the fuck is this?
Care to give a source to this claim, please?

Here's an article that gives both sides of the argument:

smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/film-vs-digital-archivists-speak-out-79846745/

I'm a brainlet and still don't understand how film can last "longer and better" than digital.
Film is physical, digital is just numbers. Numbers don't erode or change over time, you can simply copy the numbers to another carrier without any loss, because, again, it's just numbers.