What's with Hollywood autists like Nolan and Tarantino prefering film over digital?

>Just use filters or something lol
Digital filters usually just look like shit that smear the image.

>Wether or not it's better quality, I don't know.
Film always has better quality, as long as it's well preserved and using quality film stock.

wrong.

he claims to not even own a cellphone. this is bullshit though because you know he has at least one assistant with probably 3+ phones in his pockets

Digital can emulate film fine. It just needs a reference point to emulate. There are directors who use both film and digital and they blend the footage seamlessly because they use the film footage they have as a reference for the digital cameras in case problems arise when using actual film

How is it bullshit? His assistant owning a phone does not mean that he does.

Isn't low lighting STILL a problem for digital?

For Tarantino, I feel like when he came up film was the standard. When we first started getting digital we had things like the prequels which looked like dogshit and hold up horribly nowadays. Same as Nolan. So I’m guessing people just don’t know you can actually make good looking digital film nowadays. Fincher has proved this.

Yeah. Just look at Solo. For some reason it was shot mostly in low lighting using digital, and the end product looks like utter shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=XEr_8-X-eJ8

When an user claims to have definitive knowledge of something like film vs digital I immediately assume that they're 50+ years experience industry veterans who know exactly what they're talking about.

How come there's not a single good looking film shot in digital if it's so le superior?

Attached: 155374796263.png (434x521, 43K)

because there's not a single good looking film
photography is a failed art form

Watch more film zoomer

show me one good picture, moving or not

>you can actually make good looking digital film nowadays. Fincher has proved this.
There's literally not a single great looking frame in Gone Girl. It's all so flat-looking with poor color grading.

Attached: gone girl screenshot.jpg (978x434, 41K)

Watch more film zoomer

It's because of the directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller. They were aiming to shoot it like a low lit western but use no filters and didn't have the time to color grade. Shooting western like movies in digital can result in ineptitude unless you put a lot of effort into altering the digital image and have experience in that field. That's why people prefer to shoot westerns on film but it can done in digital. They need to just have a clue about what they are doing.

couldn't even show me a single one huh
figured

The best film still looks better than the best digital as far as im aware. Werent a ton of movies in the 2000s shot in 2k?

Like cant get better than that without fake upscaling, literally not possible to get a better transfer?

That's just poor cinematography (and a YouTube clip with terrible bit rate)
It Comes at Night looked amazing in its night shots

>Werent a ton of movies in the 2000s shot in 2k?
Yes, most digital movies were still being shot in 2K until a few years ago, and even then, most movies still have their visual effects rendered in 2K, ensuring that they can never have true 4K releases.
I think that the Disney Star Wars films actually had their effects rendered in 4K, as did Alita: Battle Angel.

>You can watch and listen every year, and it will sound and look different every year.
doesn't matter when most people watch yify rips or just once in the theaters.

I'm an utter pleb here but isn't digital merely economics over quality? Film looks kino while digital stuff looks like tacky daytime TV

>they literally use effects to add film grain to digital movies
This is why. Old movies are like the pre-digital Simpsons. And new movies are like new Simpsons. Digital is soulless, flat and ugly.

Legit, Scorsese did this in Wolf of Wall Street.

Which is going to look like shit when we switch to 8K TVs in five years.

>Film looks kino while digital stuff looks like tacky daytime TV
This. Nowadays a movie screen is just your tv only bigger, but if theaters were film, it would have a look that couldn't be duplicated on a home tv.

Yes

stupid question, but how high film scans can usually go? ones that i've seen around the web are usually scanned at 4k and then downscaled to 1080p or so.

>I'm an utter pleb here but isn't digital merely economics over quality?
Of course it all comes down to money. It's a business and it's 1000 times cheaper and more convenient to shoot on digital. Also 99,99% of the audience doesn't give a shit anyway and probably won't register a difference unless someone points it out to them with examples.

>I've seen a lot of digitally filmed movies and they looked just fine
If you've been raised on shit, you won't know the difference, naturally

>8K TVs in five years
Gonna take a lot longer than that, when most consumers still have 1080p televisions. And 4K will always look good, not as good as 8K obviously, but no one sane is going to start claiming that 4K looks like shit.

This is why:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=fpmTe3TDdVU

8k looks like shit and so does most 4k. 2k is peak resolution

So they made their films 'futureproof'? That's interesting. How about Transformers? Would be a shame if they didn't render it in 4k seeing as the SFX was the only thing it had going for it.

Scanning 35mm film at 8K can still give you additional detail that isn't in 4K scans.
70mm has insane detail, and can go up to 12K, probably even higher, but no one really scans film at higher resolutions than that yet.

Imax 70mm is around 18K.

What? Scorsese said digital is better for low lighting, much easier to work with

I'm a pleb and I can see the difference when it's filmed on digital and on film.

None of the Transformers films had their effects rendered in 4K.

This is a good website if you want to check out which releases have real 4K, instead of just upscales from 2K: 4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/

Peaky Blinders is was filmed on reel earlier and then filmed on digital cameras, there is zero difference. It looks beautiful, because it's done by good people, pros.

And Silence.

It's not superior, it's just cheaper.

Iirc Terminator 2 was the first movie ever to be shot in High Definition. In 1991. So, apart from all the other revolutionary stuff that was going on with that movie, it also did that.

Read some of the reviews back then and they were quite dissapointing. The sharpness and crispness of the picture did not match up to other HD movies coming out at that time. Still, it's another something Cameron did at that point in his career.

What the hell are you talking about?
The Terminator 2 was shot on 35mm film. The first major studio movie shot in high definition digital was Attack of the Clones in 2002.

>The sharpness and crispness of the picture did not match up to other HD movies coming out at that time
I meant to say: when it was released on Blu-ray.

Where the fuck do you retards get information like this?

Film looks much better. The editing is more time consuming, but it's a much nicer looking movie in the end.

>What's with Hollywood autists like Nolan and Tarantino prefering film over digital?

Because:

Film = Soul
Digital = Soulless

I'm sure I read this somewhere. I'm talking about 1080p though. I'll look around for it. Could be wrong.

Retard here. I saw Once upon a time in Hollywood again yesterday this time with digital projectors. Why the hell were so different? I couldn’t make out shit.

They’re used to film, and prefer it? Digital is another beast entirely, it can do things film can’t and can’t do things film can.

>just use filters lol
Lots of people do and it looks cheap. The possibilities with digital in Davinci are near limitless, though.

>Why the hell were so different?
What are you even trying to say?

>Could be

Why did they look so different?

You're a dumb cunt who posted obviously ridiculous bullshit but you didn't know it was obviously ridiculous bullshit (digital HD motion picture in 1990) because you are a ridiculously stupid faggot who should kill himself.

I think I remember reading a James Cameron interview where he was particulary proud of the format they shot the film in, because that would make it 'futureproof'. It's no coincidence T2 got released as one of the first Blu-ray movies. I might've gotten it wrong, but I'm still not convinced. Shit, I'm that wrong?

Low lighting is literally the main advantage of digital over film.
Pic related is basically impossible with film

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

ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Because film projectors and digital projectors are basically completely different technology from each other. If a movie is shot on film, you'll still need to see it on an actual film projector for the full film effect.

They might have shot it using some advanced film stock, but there's absolutely zero chance they used digital cameras in 1991 to shoot it. The technology just wasn't there yet.

I am talking facts here not opinions, digital is way more capable in extremely low lighting because film requires far more lights in the scene in order for the detail to be seen.
None of your buzzwords can change that.

Attached: Under The Skin.mkv_snapshot_00.34.19_.jpg (1920x1038, 735K)

There is plenty of light being used in that shot to lit the guy. That could still easily be shot on film.

looks like shit

That is pretty fucking far from "extremely low lighting". Having a black set doesn't mean it's dark you blind idiot.

The character yes, but the surroundings would turn from the current absolute true black to a grainy dark grey.
It's supposed to look like an endless void, all medium have it's own uses.

Low lighting is due to auteurs hating studio lighting. They absolutely despise it because it makes the movie look fake to them. It's possible but they don't want it looking like a Disney Channel with fake Disney Channel looking cinematography. Few people like Tarantino love studio lighting for the sake of capturing the old Hollywood days.

...

Trying to find the interview, but no luck. Sucks when you can't even trust your own memory. I probably took something from that interview and it got foggy through the years. I think I read it around the time of the blu-ray transfer. It happens. Shit. I genuinely thought this was the first movie to be shot in HD.

Dude, the surroundings weren't dark, they literally just shot it using black walls.

Attached: under the skin set.jpg (601x800, 28K)

florida project was filmed with iphones

The ridiculous six looked stunning and it was clear shot on digital

It's not supposed to look "le pretty". If you want a pretty digital film watch Russian Arc or Cold War

Attached: Zimna.wojna.2018.1080p.BluRay.Rus.Pol.TeamHD-Delia.mkv_snapshot_00.59.57_.jpg (1437x1080, 466K)

film looks better

it it supposed to look like vidya shit?

Only the final scene of Florida Project was shot using an iPhone.
Unsane, High Flying Bird and Tangerine are all movies that were actually fully shot with iPhones.

What? This is the opposite of true. Watch Collateral or Miami Vice, Mann used digital because low lighting makes digital pop.

bullshit. It was filmed on film

>the surroundings weren't dark
>they literally just shot it using black walls.
???

Are you fucking insane and blind?
It looked as shit as most other Netflix productions. youtube.com/watch?v=qUp7Qgimn38

>for whatever reason
Has no fucking clue what he's talking about

ahhh yes exactly like manchild videogames am i rite

Attached: zimna wojna_001.jpg (1437x1079, 407K)

Black =/= Dark
In this context black is the color and dark is the absence of light. There is clearly plenty of light being used in that pic.

the under the skin clip smartass
was the under the skin snippet supposed to look like vidya shit?

The surroundings are not dark, they are black.

People posting examples of digital looking bad because it's being used by hacks proves nothing.

During Breaking Bad Vince Gilligan did an experiment where he would shoot scenes the exact same way with the same cinematographers and crew with on film and in digital and he ended up admitting that he couldn't tell the difference.

nature documentaries and live performances btfo film any day

the whole industry is luddite as fuck. A tech youtuber has better gear than most filmmakers.

>bitrot
Is this even a real problem in this day and age?

yes my dear manchild friend, exactly like your favorite videogames

Attached: Under The Skin.webm (1200x648, 2.98M)

>about Once Upon a Time in America
>The skin tones are striking, almost painterly.
>Yes, but also the faces are modeled like they are in film. They aren’t flat, like you often see today. They are three-dimensional.
>The problem of digital today is that when there is no information, it gives you black-and-white, which is ugly. The advantage of film is that, when there is no information, it gives you color. It gives you something in the shadows — some blue, some cyan.

that says more about him than it does about film and the bountiful anonymous cinema geniuses that appreciate it

Meh matter of opinion

>Black =/= Dark
Are you baiting? The frame is as "dark" as it can be outside of the character, literally pure black with not a shade of white in it.
>There is clearly plenty of light being used in that pic.
Ofcourse, and it's just on the character with not a single reflection on anything but near proximity of the warping liquid.

Distance is important. Note that the black backgrounds are not close to or directly lit by the light source and additionally the light has a grid, limiting the spread of light.
It is true that if the light is too close to a black background it can pick up some light and not appear totally black.
But the subject in that scene is very brightly lit.

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)

adds a little bit of flavor and warmth. feels less sterilized than digital. that's all..

Who are you quoting?

Might've been advanced film stock. Iirc it was ready to be upgraded to another medium in term of picture quality. And like I said, it was one of the first pictures to be released on blu-ray. I made a mistake, but it has to be rooted somewhere. No one gives a shit, I know. But I do.

Attached: 2019-07-28 20_02_42-Terminator 2_ Judgment Day (1991) Technical Specifications » ShotOnWhat_.png (921x738, 56K)

It was filmed on 35mm.
Cold War would have looked better if it was shot on film.
Not really. The colours created in technicolor are impossible to recreate with digital. So better colours, bigger resolution, actual lighting instead of doing everything in post production with colour correction.

>The colours created in technicolor are impossible to recreate with digital
Why lie like that?

And the resolution part especially, once digital overshadows film completely in that department which is only a matter of time you will suddenly pretend like resolution actually doesn't matter.

The biggest brainlets are the ones who only think of "which looks prettier" in these film vs digital mental midget """discussions"""

Protip: not all films are meant to look pretty

But can film do HDR?

So show me a digitally shot film that looks like technicolor film.
We are talking present not what might or might not be.

/p/ here.
>The colours created in technicolor are impossible to recreate with digital
He's right.
You're wrong.

youtu.be/qrRRhoS3KFk

A simple google search can give you hundreds of examples of side by side photographs with virtually no differences at all.

If it's shot on film, and actually projected on film projector instead of a digital projector, the color range will be even larger than HDR.
And plenty of old movies shot on film have had great 4K HDR releases.

All of this is worthless since 99.9% of you watch films on digital screens

Nolan and Tarantino are autistic about it not just because of the camera, but because of the projecting. They don't watch their films in OLED screens, they watch it reeled in analog projectors and jerk off to that specifically.

You are retarded and blind.

The point is that if he wasn't capable of having an assistant, then his pretentious ass would have to join the rest of us and own a cellphone.

His assistant is his smartphone

True. But he doesn't have to.

T. The guy who walked Bob Dylan on stage

Thanks sorry for the rerated question.

You lose a shit ton of image quality when converting your 70 mm film to digital. Their movies are getting an inferior version by design.

I have no problem with anyone using film.
It's the """color correction""" I have a fucking problem with!
Why even use film if you're gonna vomit your digital color all over it??

Do you like LOTR films?

I've been working with Nolan for the past 2 months and this guy is so fucking oldschool he even opens doors for women!

I liked the first one.

70mm contains much more information than the best digital cameras

Just so you know they all have extreme amounts of digital correction, even the theatrical versions.
And Jackson is very proud of it.

but not when you convert from 70mm to 35mm
or from 35mm to 35mm

For now.

not still cameras
16k stop motion kino when

Digital is for cucked progressives to wank over in their sheds.
True men use proper film.

>waste your time chopping reels with a scissor and pasting them together instead of editing them in a PC like a true 21st century filmmaker
I'm pretty sure even most celluloid-snob filmmakers send their prints into a lab to be digitized so their editor can work on a nonlinear editor.

digital is shit and looks flat as fuck

Why not go all the way and use technicolor then

You're a zoomer so you wouldn't understand

digital is not your gf

>looks flat as fuck
This is just retarded. Depth is not changed by using film or digital but by choice of lens and the foreground background difference.

Attached: Skyfall.2012.BluRay.1080p.DTS.x264-DrSi.mkv_snapshot_00.04.52_.jpg (1920x800, 663K)

Imax 70mm is around 16k

It looks flat because that is how directors like it. They want to have every color balanced without one more saturated than the other.

Side by Side is a good documentary that talks about film vs digital.

26k stop motion kino when

Attached: dims.jpg (1600x950, 92K)

Eh, it's good, but not great anymore.
Digital has come a long way since the documentary was made, so it's not entirely accurate in today's landscape.

>he would have to
I don't have an assistant and I don't have a smortphone. Only a simple burner phone that can only do old school SMS. Incidentally it's a pay as you go card (no subscription) and I don't even have to pay to call or message people any more because of some fuckup at the telecom, or maybe that kind of thing is free nowadays.

Very few films use only natural light. Auteurism has fuck all to do with it. Comparing a multican tv show to a film doesn’t make any sense either.