You make some good points jim, and here are my responses to a few of your thoughts:
1. About the actual quality of 35mm film, I don't think anyone knows how many "pixels" it actually contains, and I don't think it actually matters or can be accurately determined anyway. The quality of 35mm seems to basically translate to: It's as good as it needs to be, for the human eye. A lot of old movies look like crap not because of the 35mm, but because they were transferred poorly, were projected poorly, and were shown on low resolution screens.
The fact that old (and also recent) movies that were shot on film can be upscaled to 1080p Blu Ray which looks as HD as any digitally filmed movie, is proof that whether something is shot on film or a digital camera really has nothing to do with how sharp and HD the picture is. There are aesthetic differences, but not HD differences. I've seen TV shows originally shot on 35mm that were upscaled to Blu Ray, that look just as good, and just as high definition, as anything shot on recent HD digital cameras. And the real truth of the matter is that at this point, 35mm film may in fact be the TRUE "high definition" format when it comes to pixels and how clear the original image actually is. This seems to be a big mystery though, to everyone.
2. I support 35mm film, but I agree with you on some of the silly arguments used to defend filming in 35mm over digital. Most of Nolan's points were arbitrary at best, and nonsensical at worst. I think Nolan knows what he's talking about and he deserves the benefit of the doubt, but Nolan can shut off his digital camera every 10 minutes if he wants, he can close his eyes and not look at the real time monitor on his digital camera if he wants, and he can still put together dailies with his digital footage, if he wants. And in digital post-production (which he extensively does anyway, including liberal amounts of CGI in his last 4 or 5 movies), he can achieve all of the color ranges that his heart desires. And it's not like Nolan's films are the best shot films ever made, so I would say his devotion to film is pointless, to say the least. He's not Kubrick, and he's not Scorsese either, so he should probably stop talking about how he's unable to shoot movies unless they're on film.
3. You seem to have watched this movie, and therefore you presumably caught Martin Scorsese's comments. He's pretty much the voice of reason that you're looking for, I would say. Scorsese never really favors either format, and we know very well where Scorsese comes from and with what format he earned his bread. He acknowledges that digital is simply another tool for film making, no better or worse than the old way of doing it. He clearly loves 35mm film, but he doesn't seem to give a crap whether or not he has to film the rest of his movies in digital or not, and any true film maker understands this, that digital isn't going to change much. It will make filmmaking easier and more accessible, but it's not going to change the actual quality of the movies. The talent, the script, and the acting needs to be in place, and if they're not, neither digital nor 35mm is going to save you. Scorsese knows this and his comments reflect this.
David Lynch also basically says the same thing. Lynch currently favors digital over film, but he said that ultimately it doesn't matter, it's all about storytelling, and that the audience will ultimately not care, because they're just looking for stories, and digital has already proven that it can deliver stories. Lynch seems to be a bit of a nut job, but he also has a fairly balanced view without any blind devotion to any format, just like Scorsese.
reply
share
littlejimmy835
11 years ago
The whole debate just annoys me because of the lack of objectivity.
I'm still a proponent for film. Because digital may have advantages in terms of cost and ease of use, film still offers the one thing that matters most; image quality.
I'm actually the biggest fan of large format films: formats like VistaVision, 70mm, and IMAX. This year I've gone and seen The Master in 70mm, and Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol and The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX. And let me tell you, no other format comes even close to matching the the amount of color, contrast, sharpness and clearness of those formats. You're not going to see a digital format of this quality for another 10 or more years.
It's such a shame the large formats are so rarely used today. In fact there's only one 70mm theatre and one IMAX theatre in my state, and I had to travel 3 hours each way to go to both.
But even when it comes to 35mm film, I'd still argue that it offeres the highest image quality. Better resolution, better color, better at ramping between speeds, and especially better latitude. I can't tell you how many digital movies I see that get that "washout" during highlights and lowlights.
But that said, I'll be the first to admit that 35mm's days are numbered. I saw the digital Skyfall recently, and there were only a handful of scenes where I noticed a "video look". Most of the movie looked good.
The Giant Paw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUB6PgwVoCA
reply
share
Dispositioner
11 years ago
The whole debate just annoys me because of the lack of objectivity.
Yeah, you said that already, and I already responded to it. Did you read number 3? Scorsese was pretty objective, as objective as you can hope from a guy who's been shooting on film for 40 years. Lynch was also fairly objective, to a lesser extent. Even Keanu Reeves was objective. In fact, they were all pretty much objective, except for Lucas, the die hard digital believer who gets erections to CGI, and his foil, Nolan, Mr. "I can't shut a digital camera off every 10 minutes or look at digital dailies". Both Lucas and Nolan are hacks in their own way, so it's not surprising that they hide behind their formats of choice, with such unquestioning loyalty.
I'm actually the biggest fan of large format films: formats like VistaVision, 70mm, and IMAX. This year I've gone and seen The Master in 70mm, and Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol and The Dark Knight Rises in IMAX. And let me tell you, no other format comes even close to matching the the amount of color, contrast, sharpness and clearness of those formats. You're not going to see a digital format of this quality for another 10 or more years.
I thought Ghost Protocol looked like crap, except for the sandstorm sequence. I thought the movie was overall crap as well. JJ Abrams' MI3 was 100 times better than that movie. Photochemical did not save Ghost Protocol. Skyfall looked way better than Ghost Protocol also, so when it comes down to it, it's all about talent and good cinematography, not the tools you happen to be using. The digital proponents are 110 percent correct in that regard. Some of the best looking movies of recent years were shot digitally, like The Social Network and Slumdog Millionaire (which earned them the academy awards for their trouble).
I'm not even being a digital fanboy here, I'm just stating that at this point, whether movies are shot on film or digital is irrelevant to the quality of their look. Some of the crappiest looking movies ever filmed were done on 35mm, and some of the best cinematography in recent years was 100 percent digital. The opposite is also true. The fact is, the actual look of 35mm is nearly irrelevant at this point. If you're shooting 35mm, you need better reasons at this point other than "it looks better", because it doesn't necessarily look better. It doesn't look worse either. It doesn't really look "better" though. Would Hugo or Slumdog Millionaire have looked better if they were shot film? Did anyone see Hugo or Skyfall and go "yeah, they were pretty good, except for that camcorder look". No.
reply
share
littlejimmy835
11 years ago
I did read your points, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I agree 110% that the actual format you use doesn't matter, it's how you use it. I've seen movies shot on 16mm, or even HD camcorders, that have looked better that large format productions because the person behind the camera knows what they're doing.
When I'm talking about objectivity, I'm wasn't really talking about this film though. I'm more referring to the digital vs film debate in in general. I'm talking about when I go on movie message boards, or to film festivals and I talk to other filmmakers, everyone I talk to has the same attitude as what you say Lucas and Nolan have. The whole, "My format is superior, not because it's better, but because it's my format".
In fact, I've talked to filmmakers who've raged on and on about their favourite format and how much the other sucks. But then when I'll ask them, "Dude, have you ever actually used the other format?" they'll say no.
But I do have to disagree with you on Ghost Protocol. I thought that was shot rather well. It was a movie that you had to see in an IMAX theatre though. The entire Burj Khalifa was pretty much structured around using the IMAX format for what it does best. When the cameras lurched down the side of the building, and those 15/70mm cameras fill the entire screen with the sharpest of details, down to being able to see individual cars down on the streets below, all of a sudden you feel as if you really are up there 160 stories in the air.
That to me is someone knowing what the strengths of the camera system are and exploiting them. Though I admit the impact would probably have been lost if you didn't see it in an IMAX theatre.
The Giant Paw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUB6PgwVoCA
reply
share