Digital v Film 2022 edition

[ska invita]

Ten years ago was this thread

Digital cinema - I don't like it

Went to see Skyfall at HackneyPicture House. Enjoyed the film. Didn't like the projection. I can see pixels (especially jaggies on curved surfaces). I like to gaze around the scene from time to time - especially big landsapes. This is not so fun on digi. Ok, the experience is a lot more...

www.urban75.net

People said they could see a difference, pixelation etc . Seems to me that difference isnt there anymore with new digital cameras/tech,- I dont think I can tell the difference though I haven't done a side by side test.
And then there's shot on film and projected digitally or on film etc.
Anyone have an opinion?

I think the key difference comes on the set: the pressure to get the take right with film, the extra planning, lighting, rehearsal etc, as film stock is expensive...digital doesn't have those confines so movies shot on film have a different feel through process. Even then I doubt I would be able to tell in a test

 

[Reno]

I don't think there even is much of a discussion around it anymore, 95% of films and pretty much all tv shows are shot digitally now and it's hard to tell the difference. Even 10 years ago, if there was anything like pixilation it was probably more to down to poor projection than with the cinematography. Even the OP of the thread you linked to, concedes that digital can look great (Skyfall) after a few posts. If it's good enough for Roger Deakins, then it's good enough for me.

 

[ska invita]

2020 Movies Shot on Film Include Tenet, No Time to Die

Check out a list of some of the major 2020 movies that were shot on traditional film, including Christopher Nolan's Tenet and Spielberg's West Side Story.

collider.com

"Check out the (admittedly incomplete) list of 2020 movies shot on film below,...."


A Quiet Place Part II

No Time to Die

Artemis Fowl

F9 (digital/film hybrid)

Wonder Woman 1984

The King of Staten Island

Tenet

The French Dispatch

Last Night in Soho

Death on the Nile

West Side Story

The Banker

Never Rarely Sometimes Always

The 40-Year-Old Version

On the Rocks

The Devil All the Time

Flag Day

Wendy

 

[Reno]

As much of a mixed bag as films shot digitally. Why even bother to shoot a film like Death on the Nile on 65mm, when its Egypt has been rendered via eye-searingly ugly CGI in post production (unlike the 70s version, the remake was shot on sound stages in the UK).



Christopher Nolan is one of the big holdouts when it comes to digital and he shoots everything on film, but what's the point when all he ever shows us are the many shades of beige ?



Maybe the most beautiful looking film I've seen in the last few years is Waves by Trey Shults and that was shot on digital.

Waves — frankie marin

Finally got a chance to see Waves (2019) directed by Trey Edward Shults and it was absolutely stunning. The cinematography was lush and rich, the story was heart rending, and the acting was phenomenal.

www.frankiemarin.com

 

[ska invita]

As much of a mixed bag as films shot digitally. Why even bother to shoot a film like Death on the Nile on 65mm, when its Egypt has been rendered via eye-searingly ugly CGI in post production (unlike the 70s version, the remake was shot on sound stages in the UK).

WOW amazing how shit that looks

 

[ska invita]

The complaint from people like Tarantino about digital projection is another weird one that doesnt really hold up...fun though it may be to stick a reel on I doubt he could tell the difference in a test.... Though i appreciate that there's something to be said for process, though in this case it is one being done literally behind closed doors and out of sight

 

[stdP]

I do have to wonder if it really matters any more, since all editing and colour-grading etc. is done via a digital interpositive these days anyway. There used to be an argument that digital sensors weren't able to capture the full dynamic range of cinema negative but as far as I can tell sensor technology has surpassed film in that regard for quite some time now.

Whilst there's a certain amount of ineffable "feel" from various films, I'd be very surprised if they can't all be emulated digitally to the extent that 99% of people can't tell the difference. For instance, my digital camera does a very passable imitation of the bleach bypass technique Deakins famously used in Nineteen Eighty-Four and it's quite capable of doing that in real time; a professional effects/grading lab probably has ninety hojillion "make it look like this" knobs that it can tweak.

The amount of quality you can get out of even a cheap movie-capable mirrorless camera these days is light years ahead over what you could get out of amateur 16 or even 35mm cine film back in the day when they were the only "budget" option so I think that the quality argument is essentially moot. But of course the technical side of movie-making is one of the least important IMHO. How good a film "looks" is still largely down to the cinematographer, lighting, production design, directorial choices, etc etc; as Reno has aptly demonstrated, it's possible to make a film look as bad as you want if you try hard enough. Film just has such a high barrier to entry these days (back-of-a-fag-packet educated-guess is that a 4min reel of 35mm must cost at least £500 to buy and process these days) that it's usually only ever used where quality/ineffableness is going to be paramount and only put in to the hands of only the most capable crews. As much as I loved the look and feel of the 65/70mm epics, I think digital is good-enough-or-better whilst allowing for much smaller budgets and cameras.