why not shot on film?
shiny digital look does not work for a period filmshare
People are used to digital's realism. Why would you cater to Hipsters with their record collections?
You need 65mm film to get 4K, and that's expensive.
35mm film is good enough for native 4k, but may be too grainy for iphone generationshare
"good enough" says nothing. There are hundreds of youtube trailers from restored films shot on 35mm. None have the detail and color accuracy of 2K=1080p TV productions.share
The level of detail in film is way beyond 1080p. Decent quality film will resolve 150 pixels per millimeter. Given a 35mm film is on say Vista Vision format then you're looking at a filmed area of about 35mm by 27mm or 5250 by 4050 pixels vs 4k resolution of 4096 by 2160... Moreover your digital uses a bayer pattern so the actual detail on 4k is not even really up to the 4096 by 2160 since the actual pixel are extrapolated from the bayer pattern. Clearly the level of detail afforded film is still ahead of 4k video, if the restored trailers you are looking at look like crap it is more likely a result of either a poor quality film or low end film scanner used to capture the film.. In some case probably a combination of both.share
So you saw some restored 35mm film on youtube and thought it didn't look that great. You're watching an analog medium on a digital medium. That's akin to me saying I watched an 8K Rec 2020 video on an iPhone 5 and it didn't look all that great. Well of course it wouldn't. The technology couldn't handle the full spectrum of the medium.
A good film print projected through a good film projector will spectacular. No matter how far you zoom into film, there's always information but you also introduce grain. If you zoom in far enough to 16K or 32K or whatever, there's going to be space, a lack of information, between pixels.
They both have their limitations. To a certain extent, it comes down to personal preference. I personally prefer film and I'm anything but a hipster. I've been conditioned, like many people from the 20th Century, to see film as a luxury because it was expensive to shoot on and thus the look of film was thought of as more professional. Movies like The Force Awakens looks like video to me instead of an expensive, Hollywood film. It gives me the feel of a local news channel affiliate on video which, in the past, was always viewed as cheap or having a cheap look as opposed to a filmed Hollywood production.
Film isn't just some hipster trend, it simply looks and feels better. Digital looks plasticy and generic in comparison, just look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe, who wants their film looking like an amateur YouTube video. Bless Christopher Nolan and Q. Tarantino for keeping it alive.share
Vague and meaningless pretentious hipster art talk. These are the same idiots that say vinyl sounds better than 24-bit audio.share
i'm hip. guys I seriously do need my hip replacedshare
I'm not a tattooed skinny jean wearing Starbucks hipster but when it comes to cinema, I can't help it. A 4K film scan of 35mm is a feast for the eyes. Digital just can't capture the fine subtleties of film, like grain and texture. Nothing inherently wrong about digital, it just doesn't look all that impressive to me on the big screen.
I'm curious, do you have a 4K setup at home?
A 4K film scan of 35mm is a feast for the eyes. Digital just can't capture the fine subtleties of film, like grain and texture.
It just doesn't look authentic, you can't fake the film feel. Film grain is fluid and natural looking, digital grain is noisy. As for editing it in in post over digital film? Just watching it in motion will give the game away. It's hard for me to put it into words. The look of film isn't everyone's cup of tea and I get why some filmmakers prefer to use digital, it's cheaper and all, but it certainly shows.share
No no no, not digital grain. I mean adding actual film grain scanned frame-by-frame from an actual (exposed & processed) strip of celluloid.share
I can't imagine how that would look or whether it's possible to capture the look, so I can't really comment on that. However I assume it will still look like digital underneath, plus the highlights on film are stronger.
Then again digital cameras are better when it comes to fine shadow detail. The film vs. digital debate goes on, but I say regardless of personal preference, both have pros and cons.
No one could tell the difference between vinyl and 24-bit audio, once you go beyond beyond 16 bit audio the difference you hear aren't from the format they are from the electronics between the material and the speakers.share
Hipster chiming in here to say I cannot fucking stand looking at hi def digital cinematography and it's one of the major reasons I can't seem to get into anything that's come out in the last 20 years. What is the obsession we're having with "realism"? As soon as you photograph something you're adding a layer of interpretation, no matter what. You will always be a shade off from realism. Let the medium speak. It seems like the goal we're moving toward is to attempt to erase the layer of materiality and surface content inherent in photography. But as is the downfall of hyperrealist painting, you can never erase the medium, and when its denial is apparent, so will be a quality of the ingenuine, of transparent deception, overreaching and inhumanity. The mindset that more clarity and more detail = more gooder is soo pEdEsTriAn.
99% of digital / hi def contemporary film and tv looks like soulless shit, has no vibe and no human feeling, and is more a product of late stage capitalism than it is an artistic/filmmaking decision. Fite moi.
There's a place for both. That's why The Neon Demon and Blade Runner both look stunning in 4k.share
Yup yup I agree!
These two and a handful more account for the remaining 1% imho, while the above rant is my broad stroke sentiment about a trend / the current state of affairs. On BR it perfectly put across a quality of virtual plasticine artifice that speaks directly to the film's core concepts.
It's great that digital exists for a lot of reasons and there are times when it suits the material. That's really the heart of the matter for me, that the choice of medium should as often as possible be an artistic decision and have been well considered on the axis of form/content/meaning and gestalt. Digital has become the unquestioned default choice for non-artistic reasons today and it ends up undermining the material very often, and leaving us with a sweepingly heartless vista on contemporary cinematography. There's a sort of athleticism around the trajectory we're on with hi-def that has more to do with consumerism and technological chest beating than it does art. It's a feels bad man for me dawg.
That's well put. And I agree for the most part. But can you give any examples of films that have been shot digitally that look pretty bad in 4k? i.e. - you think would have looked better if they were made 20 or 30 years ago and reproduced? As Blade Runner was.
I watched 'The House of Sand and Fog' last week made in 2003 - a 1080p copy, and it looked really poor. I'm no expert on filming techniques but I found myself thinking I wish it had been made a decade later. Perhaps that era was when the industry was in that crucial state of flux with regards technology.
Digital has become the unquestioned default choice for non-artistic reasons today and it ends up undermining the material very often
If you got it, and it's the best, use it!!!share