>>216947341
film, its hilarious to see a pubic hair in the corner of the screen for 5 minutes before some editor realizes and then its gone for the next scene haha

>>216947341
Doesn't matter. No matter if physical film or digital, it all gets ruined in post.

>>216947341
Why is it hard for people to comprehend that it depends on what kind of movie you're making? For example Collateral wouldn't really work if shot in film stock, it has a very specific aesthetic. Same with Lynch's late works. But most blockbusters look like shit on digital because they don't use the format to create an aesthetic but just out of convenience and to be lazy. The people who do colour grading nowadays are also retarded.

>>216947341
Film

>>216947649
Based.
>>216947341
Better for what? I mean even tv looks amazing shot on film. Even amateur photography, you cant beat film when you dont do shit with digital either tho meaning not knowing how to conpose frame or lighting works

Also most photography nowadays feels inauthentic due to how this division has hindered actual effort. I was watching city of God the other day and i was astounded by how gorgeous it looks in several scenes. But then stuff like pina 2011 mogs whatever a24 shit puts out