- Joined
- Aug 24, 2019
- Messages
- 2,675
- Reaction score
- 756
This is a old argument, same in music: digital vs analog tape.
I doubt anybody argues digital vs tape in music. It's vinyl bro. Vinyl sounds better than digital.
This is a old argument, same in music: digital vs analog tape.
I doubt anybody argues digital vs tape in music. It's vinyl bro. Vinyl sounds better than digital.
Those huge lighting rigs Deakins uses are for using multiple cameras on a single scene something that happens more with digital now.
It's very difficult to make digital look good, imo, especially for certain types of films (like horror, or anything meant to be gritty by nature, sci-fi can get away with it more easily; though one of my favorite horror films in Session 9 was all digital, but it had a look almost of a documentary which made the format work perfectly for the film). Heck even watching the Dumb and Dumber sequel it looked like crap compared to the original due to going digital, giving it this weird fake candy colored look. As I mentioned before, comparing Twin Peaks Season 3 on blu-ray to the older seasons on the format make the new season look bad in comparison just due to the change in shooting format, and that's with Peter Deming at the helm (who also did Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive for Lynch, both outstanding looking shot on film). The original Blade Runner looks much better than 2049, Halloween H:40 looks worse than its' film shot predecessors (especially 1-6 and the Rob Zombie entries), despite a higher budget and someone at the helm that was an indie film darling before he decided to make stoner comedies.
It's not that digital can't fit or look good, it's just too difficult to get it to look good and then when it does it still doesn't compare well enough. It's like the lcd vs. crt tv debate where old tech that hasn't even had any advancements in years is still superior in image quality to modern tech that's being updated all the time.
I'd love to see analog film technology advance, they've been using the same cellulose (with some advances in smaller tighter packed silver grains) for a long time. If anyone has seen some of the silent era classics on blu-ray (the well preserved classics so they weren't too damaged) some of them look super lifelike (like eerily so) due to the super high contrast high silver content nitrate film they used, I'd love to look back at the type of film they used and combine it with modern tech to get that super lifelike look but even better.
There's room enough for both formats, but the abandonment of film for digital by so many is a big mistake in my opinion.
You just did.
I'm a nerd too and I think 1917 is a much better looking movie than Dunkirk.
1917 is the better film, not by a lot, mind you, but Dunkirk definitely was the better looking film. The Imax aerial shots were glorious. Nothing in 1917 matched Dunkirk's visual highs.
I don't even know what you're saying bro.
Do you think vinyl and tape are the same things? Is that what you're saying?
Had a feeling that would go over your head.
Looks like we found our film snob heh
The problem with digital in both film and photography is that is produces a lazy "fix it in post" mentality that erodes the film makers/ photographers work ethic.
Yeah that's not how I see things.
What made Dunkirk look great was the technical specifications of the cameras they used. Using IMAX cameras gives you a brilliant image that can't be matched by 35mm or current digital cameras. There was nothing that impressive about the compositions, or what Nolan actually did with the cameras.
1917 is full of very impressive camera work and long takes are a lot more impressive than what Nolan does with his IMAX cameras IMO.
That’s a good point, it’s easy to forget about the logistical nightmares of filmmaking. And really easy to concentrate only on the end product.
You couldn't shoot 1917 on IMAX. Impossible to weld an IMAX rig around like they did for 1917(I've watch behind the scenes on 1917) and also you'll run into issues with film in long enough takes. Saying your more impressed they were able to be far more mobile
Exactly....it's crazy to compare 1917 and Dunkirk. There's a reason why almost no directors use much IMAX because it's almost impossible to film a movie with for many reasons. It's like comparing a 8x10 large format camera to a Sony mirrorless and saying the Sony can get better composition shots.....its like...yeah sure but it's a mirrorless camera vs large format film.
With that said i'm 100% for movies using digital.
It's not just the mobility. It's the choreography and how many different things happen within each take that is massively impressive. Nolan doesn't ever do that kind of thing, which is why I'm not impressed by his movies that much yet. His movies use lots of cuts and have a fast rhythm to the editing. It's a lot closer to Michael Bay/Roland Emmerich style tbh just more skillfully done.
I know that IMAX cameras are huge and extremely loud. IMO it's not worth it. You get a brilliant image, but you can't direct much with them. Just static shots and things like that. It's no excuse for Nolan not going for more skillful shots though as he also uses traditional 35mm cameras.
Did you ever see Atonement? There's an incredible long take scene that takes place at Dunkirk and it is extremely impressive:
Exactly. And the large format camera capturing more brilliant images than the mirrorless has nothing to do with the skill of the operator and everything to do with the camera itself. Which was my original point:
- Dunkirk's image quality looks better than 1917 because of the technical specs of the camera.
- 1917 is a more visually impressive film than Dunkirk because Mendes and Deakins choreographed incredible scenes built around long takes.
Nolan is like that kid who shows up to the talent show with a $3000 guitar and huge amplifier, and plays 3 chords that sound amazing and wins. Versus a kid who shows up with a beat up guitar, tiny peavey practice amp, and is a virtuoso on the instrument, but it doesnt sound as good because he doesnt have Nolan's gear.