Why do people believe film is better than digital?
it is
>>217264832same reason sex is better than masturbation
>>217264832Because Tarantino said so
>>217264832Because digital makes copies of flat static images with no sense of depth whereas film actually indexes the environment and gives a better sense of what a place actually looks like to the human eye all while forcing the crew to actually care about good lighting on scene rather than just """"""""(((((fixing)))))""""""" it in post with a bland grey filter and also this>>217265176 is basically right
>>217265251Pseudoscience woo nonsense
>>217265270Digital can almost replicate the look of film with some effort(including on scense lighting and not fucking with it in post), the problem is people by and large do not know how to do it or the studios just cheap out
>>217265270Ask me how i know you're indian
>>217264832Think of Film as a painting that is actually made of paint while Digital is just a digital copy that's printed.
Ultimately i think>>217265176 is the best way to get the point across; it's crass, provocative, and fundamentally true
>>217265325He probably also assumes shooting at f/8.0 magically improves quality
>>217265541>Whaddaya mean having everything in perfect focus is uncanny looking ? More clarity = more betterer
>>217264832Because the photos I take with my shitty lomo film camera have more soul than the photos I take with my DSLR.Digital on the flipside can take photos in low light situations that film could never do.
>>217264832better than digital WHAT?
>>217265315You've never seen a photo taken on one of the larger format films that's for sure.
>>217265176This is not exactly true, masturbation provides endless possibilities at your own pace, actual sex have a lot of limitations, this leads to conclude the masturbation vs sex debate is much more nuanced than it seems
>Why do people believe film is better than digital?
>>217267097Holy cope.
>>217264832Because they're retards. Digital is 100% capable of recreating the look of film. The perceived difference between film and digital is generally down to different use of lighting and the general shitification of how films are shot in the modern age.
>>217264832Because it's a dumb meme. People love dumb memes because they themselves are dumb.>>217267186Bottom looks like an Eggers or Nolan flick (shot on film). You dumb pleb.
>>217265200Tarantino's shit doesn't look good. Neither does Nolan's. Almost as though muh shot on film was a meme.
If you have bad lighting it will look bad whether you shoot on film or digital
>>217264832>Why do people believe film is better than digital?Because it is the traditional look everybody knows and loves, film it's the definition of "cinematic".
>>217264832as I see it, film has a lot of limits and a director/ director of photography has to overcome them in order to make it look great. It forces them to to be more creative in a restrictive enviroment.. digital doesn't have those limitations but it overwhelms with all the possibilities. Coupled together with lazy filmmakers you get the shit we have today.
>>217267949>film has a lot of limits and a director/ director of photography has to overcome them in order to make it look greatThis is absolute nonsense. You don't have to overcome any kind of limitations to make film look "great". If anything it's the opposite. Good film stock has a nice quality to it right out of the box and requires far less "massaging" in post-production (color correction, etc.) to make it look good. The real reason film isn't being used anymore is purely for monetary and logistical reasons. Why wait 24 hours before you can see the previous day's daily, when you can have the camera hooked up to a monitor for immediate feedback? These days, many productions even have an editor on set who immediately gets to work and by the end of the day can show the director several edits, different styles of color correction, etc. which highly expediates shooting (and a shorter shoot cost less money, which is all the big wigs care about in the end).
>>217264832digital is more flexible, therefore is more prone to mediocrity
>>217268756Film is harder too shoot with than digital, you need powerful lights and a light meter at a minimum. Also you have to have the right temperature and iso film because you can't just change those on the camera like you can do with digital. Film needs a shit ton of light to expose properly.
>>217267186>warm Color-graded vs cold color-graded./tv/ truly shouldn't have any business discussing cinematography.
>>217268756Retard that doesn't know anything about film-reel processing.
>>217267186Someone call a gaffer, they've forgotten 3/4 point lighting setups
>>217264832Because film automatically produces great colors if you have proper lighting, which most professional productions do. With digital you however need painstaking post-prosuction colograding to make it look good and this costs money. Studios believe audiences are too stupid to tell the difference, so they just skip this step and now everything looks like grey sludge. This is a main reason why every Netflix show is aesthetically identical.
>>217268861what film if you please
because i have functioning eyes
>>217269507Muhammad.The.Messenger.of.God.2015DP: Vittorio Storaro
>>217269596https://www.indiewire.com/features/craft/film-digital-debate-cinematography-vittorio-storaro-ed-lachman-new-york-film-festival-1201886690/>Storaro did say that biggest fallback of digital cinematography is that cameras have become so light sensitive it’s becoming possible to shoot anywhere and everywhere. He worries that people too often settle for exposure, rather than light.>“That kind of available light, is [it] correct for that sequence, for that story, for that emotion? Sometimes it can be, sometimes not,” said Storaro. “The most important thing is that concept.”
There's no middle ground to the texture of the image on digital, I mean there is but people aren't using them. Digital is either too clean, too sharp or it overdoes the depth of field rendering backgrounds basically null, giving no scenes a sense of space. with film they don't abuse depth of field, and things tend to be clear and in focus BUT they're not hyperfocused and hyperclear, there's a bit of a softness to even the things in focus. This general softness is what gives films a cinematic look. Everything in this image is in focus, it is clear and concise, you can easily read everything on screen and there's a good sense of space to it all, but it's also soft, it's not super sharp and ultra clean HD, it doesn't look like a commercial for toothpaste.
>film on film>scan film into computer>add cgi and color adjustments>print it on film>TRUST ME BRO, IT'S BETTER
>>217264832It might be true but nolan movies look like shit and he shoots on film
>>217269150All these things are completely immaterial on a professional production. You think they don't use powerful lights and light metering isn't a thing on digitally shot productions? lmao.Film is just more inconvenient and slower to work with (e.g. waiting around for daily's) and time = money to the hollyjew. It's that simple.
