what films were shot on 35mm film instead of digital?as little digital grading as possible. no visual effects. careful lighting, crisp shots. what do you think, which movies have that?
matrix
literally 99.999% of movies ever made before the '90s fit all of your criteria
shot on celluloid is a prerequisite to it actually being a movie at all."digital video" is all indistinguishable from youtube slop. film has been functionally dead as a medium ever since the public got conned into accepting this trash substitue for feature film.
>>223478916Tarantino, Andersons, Nolan, Allen, Linklater, that's about it.
>>223478916bump
Some modern shit is still shot on film.Succession was shot on film for eg.But they ruined it with the awful The Office/Parks and Rec/Scrubs style snap zooms and shaky cam.
>>223478916Film vs digital isn’t even the main problem most of the time anymore, most movies shot on film nowadays are made to look like any other digital streaming slop with terrible lighting and color grading. overuse of shallow focus lenses too. One battle after another, oppenheimer and the irishman, all shot on film and they all look awful.
some stuff is still shot on film but looks like shit:>>223481437>>223481701they fuck with it so much in post it would've been cheaper to just shoot on digital. breaking bad was shot on film but there's nothing to indicate it even was. it's sad too, because it's going to make the retarded suits just discard film as an option altogether.
>>223481701This is the actual issue, but digital played a fundimental role. The superfluity of digital post-processing and color grading made cinematography and gaffing unnecusairy and thus basic skills passed down from masters to newbies were lost since "we can do it in post for cheap". Now everything looks like shit because you can't actually fix a badly composed and shittily lit shot in post.
