When you spot a digital camera on set

You're wrong, dumbasses.

Film does not only have a richer and beautiful look than digital, it's much more malleable and future proof.

Film can be converted to i believe up to 24K while digital can only ever be as high as the original resolution. So a 1080p movie can ever only truly have a max resolution of 1080p, so in a few years when we have 16K tvs, those digital movies will look like complete shit while a movie shot on film like Lawrence of Arabia will look fucking glorious

>"second take? I wouldn't want to waste anymore film. Let's just stick with the first one" ~ Christopher "One-and-Done" Nolan

This is something only tryhards even care or think about. In the motion picture business people understand that film and digital have their own quirks and merits. Literally no one goes "durr I'm not touching that digital camera hurr", only retards like you that post from their mother's basement.

Meanwhile Chad David Fincher does 90 takes of everything and uses digital.

Attached: screen-shot-2018-03-09-at-11-59-02-am.png (780x534, 609K)

I disagree, Ciro Guerra did a great job with Embrace of the Serpent. Good Time, The Florida Project, Son of Saul, Sunset etc. Terrence Malick shot his films with mix of film and digital but still primarily on film and they look very good.

BRAVO NOLAN

>28 days later
>the celebration
>Michael Mann
>David Fincher
These are just a few examples of films and filmmakers. All of the above consciously employ digital as an aesthetic and none would work on film

What kino has Finchfag ever made other than Fight Club and Seven?

>aesthetic is only colors and resolution
Oook retard

I fucking love film for photography. A full frame sensor camera would set me back at least 2 grand, but I can get an old Canon AE-1 for $50 plus $10 for film and I get a full 35mm shot

All of his digital stuff is superior to these to piece of shit films. Zodiac is with out a doubt and objectively his masterpiece

Citizen Kane has a 4K scan but Guardians of the Galaxy and other capeshit is maxed out at 2K

Attached: lol.png (490x336, 182K)

typing this shit out didn't change the fact that it's still subjective

Didn't know Good Time was shot on film! Also agree about Ciro and Sean Baker. I remember the last scene of Florida Project looking noticeably bad because they had to use digital because the snuck in a camera and filmed without permission at that theme park.

I'm sure you believe that user.

Attached: ehhh.png (500x322, 44K)

The Social Network is 10/10 and his best film.
Seven, Zodiac and Gone Girl are great too.
Also Dragon Tattoo has great visuals and really well made from a technical standpoint, even though lot of people don't like it.

Yes and none of those look particulary great. It's a choice and it fits the mood of what they want to do, especially in the first 2 you mentioned. They wanted the film to look cheap and like home video, which they achieved. Fincher's cinematography is not that impressive, everything has the same colour palette in his films. Public Enemies looked atrocious. It should have been shot on film.

Thinking of buying a Contax T3 :)

There's nothing subjective about resolution, you absolute shit for brains moron

Gone Girl
Social Network
Zodiac
The girl with the dragon tattoo

were all very enjoyable

grug dislike his cave paintings but he right about sled. sled > wheel

Yup. Film is future-proof as another user said itt.

>aesthetics are subjective
Oook retard
Resoulution does in no way equal aesthetics though.

why are you so upset, your statement about film looking beautiful is completely subjective and you're incorrect about future proofing, nobody is to say which format will stand the test of time

Yes, it was shot on 35mm. Hopefully Uncut Gems is also shot on film.

Attached: 62633.jpg (675x1024, 253K)

Enjoyable, sure, but classics? No.

They're no No Country for Old Men or There Will be Blood

Sandler looks great in all the BTS pics. Hyped.

Alright digitalfags name 10 films shot on digital that look great. Not good but great.

>le resolution
a literal non issue in a year or two

I'm a filmfag but Sicario looks gorgeous, but only because of based Roger Deakins

Me too, seems like he is trying again. He was very good in Meyerowitz Stories, so hopefully he will give another great performance. Someone read the script and said that he has a great role. The whole film is centered around him and it's bleak and darkly hilarious. Even more than Good Time. If that's actually true than it will be great.

>muh ambiguity
There is a right and wrong

Ready for Sandler-ssance.

Attached: 207fff407a2.jpg (1024x1607, 246K)

Saw It Comes at Night recently, I imagine the shots in darkness wouldn't have looked as good on film

I don't think that discredits him as a director, his films are still recognized.

He looks like John Turturro now

Based.

Attached: 5297274-6304711-Giving_chase_Sandler_was_seen_wearing_a_fashionable_mustard_yell-a-91_1540246947427. (634x879, 113K)

Under the Skin
BR2049
Apocalypto
The Revenant
Cold War
Skyfall
Collateral
Roma
The Wailing
Russian Arc

Michael Mann's digital works.

Attached: miami_vice_grid.jpg (3640x5054, 3.96M)

ur mum sex tape

Finally someone with a basic knowledge of cinema

Wow, teal and orange and just one level of contrast

ITT: people arguing over acrylic vs watercolor

Attached: ice-wind-and-fire-acrylic-18-x-30-22-robert-noreika-www-robertnoreika-com.png (751x502, 770K)

>he thinks aesthetics = color
Oh user, I pity you. But maybe someday you'll understand

The enlightened centrist has logged in.

why don't you go watch some arthouse instead of pointlessly arguing over medium?

Why don't you come over to my house and sensually kiss me on the lips instead, bro?

>not painting in oils
jew

I prefer oils

Attached: image.jpg (1080x1331, 135K)

I said great. Roma is a meme, look at Hard to be a God, Embrace of the Serpent and The Turin Horse to see how to do black and white properly. I bet The Lighthouse will also look better than Roma. Cold War is just aping film, they even wanted to shoot on film.

This. In fact this has already been a problem, most notably with Star Trek TNG, DS9, and VOY. They shot it in film, then made all the special effects in the 480 render for television because it was cheaper and easier to animate at a smaller resolution so when the time came to make the bluray release of TNG they had to rerender all the special effects because they looked blurry and pixelated when blown up, even though the practical effects all looked great. Shooting with digital saves money, yes, and if you're just trying to churn out a cheap flick it's fine, but if you want your movie to have lasting appeal and the ability to be rereleased later you want film.

Highly future resistant. It has a theoretical resolution that come up against for a while, and possibly ever since at high enough resolutions pixels become indistinguishable and then there's really no reason to go smaller.

You can pretend that it looks bad, but it doesn't. Yes the other films you mentioned look great aswell.
And not an argument for Cold War either, it's a digital film and it looks great.

Attached: ccc.png (2714x1140, 1.91M)

A non issue in a year or two

I don't think Roma looks great, it's too clean and doesn't look as good as the ones i mentioned. Cold War is a digital aping film. If they actually shot it on film it would look better.

Name on digital movie that can compete with any of the visual masterpieces shot on film.

Attached: drake one.jpg (1024x683, 176K)

(((They))) can't.

Apocalypto

Blade Runner 2049 and Under the Skin

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

There is none.
No.

Attached: The-Leopard-Il-Gattopardo-1963-by-Luchino-Visconti.jpg (1500x1060, 428K)

I could name many but you would just say that they look shit,so what's the point?

No man, they don't come close Lawrence of Arabia etc.

Cool, then don't. Bye. :)

>so what's the point?

The point is that others could decide for themselves. If they really have amazing visuals I would look like a fool calling them shit.

Are there any digital movies that are able to create a cozy feeling?

Attached: paris,texas.jpg (3000x1688, 3.54M)

more like acrylic vs oils. both look the same, but one is outdated, toxic, and deteriorates over time

Russian Arc

Manchester by the Sea

Attached: Manchester.by.the.Sea.2016.1080p.BluRay.x264.DTS-HD.MA.5.1-FGT.mkv_snapshot_00.08.40_.jpg (1920x1040, 1.34M)

Attached: 1560456657695.jpg (1920x1080, 710K)

Got some images?

it doesn't matter if the film looks gorgeous or terrible,if a person is prejudiced against digital(like the cinema illiterate retards in this thread),they will automatically call the movie shit and "soulless".

Attached: blackhat_grid.jpg (5760x2400, 2.64M)

That looks pretty good. More examples?

>The Social Network is 10/10

Attached: gcwaw7izkzo11.png (584x475, 301K)

Reminder that most 4k blurays of movies shot on digital are shit

Attached: Screen Shot 2019-06-13 at 1.12.45 PM.png (868x261, 92K)

Nobody's saying every film shot on digital looks bad.
It's just that digital is better. :)

Attached: themaster1.jpg (592x333, 39K)

they added film grain in post, but it was shot on digital

Attached: 1560457027925.jpg (1920x1080, 711K)

not that guy, but it's not that far fetched.
and yes, it's prob the best thing fincher has done

Attached: tsn.png (522x370, 19K)

I don't get why people like to bring up Mann. I find his digital movies to be especially terrible because they look like behind the scenes footage.

I meant, *film is better. :)

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

Freudian slip ;)

Just “90” takes !? It’s “96” !!!

Attached: 1D40FEE2-F805-49A3-992F-5C449A367331.gif (340x193, 497K)

Attached: Kanye.jpg (962x660, 71K)

Nobody is calling film shot on digital shit just because it was shot on digital you moron. People are just saying that in general films shot on film look better and the best looking films ever were shot on film. And no Mann's films, Under the Skin and BR2049 are not one of the best looking films ever. Some of digital looks good but it's hardly ever great.

Looks nice.

Well one of the reasons is that digital is barely two decades old, while film has been used for more than hundred years where you can choose your "masterpieces" from.
Fact is that film is stagnant while digital is constantly evolving.

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

Mann's digital works(Miami vice,Collateral,Blackhat) are the greatest looking films of all time. Can you change my mind?
>Inb4 there's no fixing shit taste hur hur

Y’know which camera Mann used on those project !? Whether the way you copy it or not, it’s a it outdated. Meaning each gadget on its time has its limit so ... I wonder How Michel feels about cameras in the front line of work environment of nowadays?

Attached: 4D2AEE8B-3176-4E10-99B7-81FC631EF434.gif (540x250, 1.97M)

Film fan here. I admit The Revenant impressed me visually even though the color scheme (I guess understandably) is a bit monotone.

Attached: revenant005.jpg (1280x546, 297K)

>Film is stagnant
Watch Dunkirk.

He talks about why he champions film in this interview if anyone's interested
youtube.com/watch?v=49Jt5k1W0bw

Does it use any new developed film stock?

That's not relevant. There needs to be more stock, which is why they are trying to revive film. Digital is cheaper and faster to work with, so everyone's just taking the easy way out.

Yes constantly evolving and still haven't caught up with the film technology from 1960s.
Seems like you have already made up your mind. Here are some films shot on film that look better than those films.
The Leopard, Barry Lyndon, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover, Hard to be a God, Werckmeister Harmonies, Andrei Rublev, La Notte, La Belle Noiseuse, Three Colours Red, Double Life of Veronique, The Turin Horse, The Weeping Meadow, Landscape in the Mist, Stalker, L'Eclisse, La Dolce Vita, Apocalypse Now, Ugetsu, Ran, Dersu Uzala, Kagemusha, Throw Away Your Books, Rally in the Streets etc.

Attached: 2d2bd10a-4cb1-11e5-b558-8a9722977189.jpg (2048x1152, 279K)

>so everyone's just taking the easy way out.

Can you blame them? I am a hobby photographer and it's tolerable when you only take a few pictures once in a while for fun but I can't imagine how much of a pain in the ass film must be when you are making a movie and you are taking 24 pictures PER SECOND and there is tons of money on the line so any fuckups cost a lot of money and manhours and you also need to edit and retain consistency between shots. Then when you display the movie in cinemas the film gets wear and the mechanical projector needs constant maintenance. I can't really blame them at all and this just makes me appreciate Nolan even more especially for going medium format.

Can't blame them, but as a consumer I'm just concerned with the final product 2bh.

I meant, *digital is better. :)

OI

digital looks better

Why?

No.

it just looks nicer

>t. dumbass zoomer raised on youtube

Digital shouldn't try to imitate film like it often does, but it has its own value, as you can see in michael Mann work. He truly is a visual genius, whether you like it or not.

>visual genius
No.

Why?

As far as look goes, it has better colours and texture. Digital is too crisp, without added grain in post. Film has the texture which makes it feel very tangible. The colours are nice and they pop out of the screen in the way i have never seen in digital. The sets must light precisely so the visuals are good, not like when shooting on digital where you colour correct everything in post. Digital smells of artifice and the colours are usually not that vibrant as in film. Most of digitally shot films look like muddy concrete.

To get the full effect of film would it have to be projected with film? Almost all theaters now use digital projectors.

Film has a nice warm quality to it. I couldn't finish Jurassic World because of its disgusting videogame sheen it had.

Attached: Muldoon Jurassic Park-3.webm (1200x650, 2.91M)

Yes, it's definitely better when projected on film. I think it looks good on digital projections and blurays but film projection is the best way to view the films.

I think it's because

- organic grain. digital noise looks more uniform and harsh
- burnt out highlights look better on film. on digital you get these ugly super sharp edges

Attached: chungking.jpg (1600x900, 1.1M)

Are you an atheist with a wicked sense of humour? If anything, would it be you in the kitchen?

That's not digital's fault,Jurassic world was just awfully directed in general.

film is gay

Digital is garbage. Studios love it because it's cheaper. Look at Mel Gibson's Apocalypto, I don't think it's watchable now. It would have benefited from being shot on film

>use film
>still go into post production to make everything look colorless and drab
He's actually worse than a digital filmmaker. He shoots on film yet tries his fucking hardest to make it look digital.

Which movie is that? Need something to watch tonight.

Chungking Express. Super cozy movie.

Gotcha, will find and watch tonight and tell you how it is if the thread's still up.

Jurassic World was shot on film though. They even shot some of it in 65mm. I agree that it looks like shit, but it was definitely shot on film