Movies Tarantino throws Roger Deakins under the bus (Film vs Digital)

I doubt anybody argues digital vs tape in music. It's vinyl bro. Vinyl sounds better than digital.

You just did.

tenor.gif
 
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.

I do think a lot of the more extreme differences people claim tend to be more about modern cinematography and post processing, often those who use film also look for a more traditional look in those fashions. Something like Once Upon A Time In Hollywood being an obvious example that looks far more "film like" that say Chris Nolan's work for me.

As far as film tech goes I remember there being a process of making prints that retained a higher amount of silver nitrate a few years ago, I believe Jonathan Glazer's Birth had a few copies made along those lines. Would like to see that scanned for an UHD release.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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. This is coming from someone who has taught photography for the last 30 years, through both the film and digital age. Film doesn't offer anywhere to hide any mistakes while less dedicated users can just fix the lighting in post or chuck on a filter. However, both mediums have there own look and great work can be made with either, it comes down to the attention to little details. But those are just technical things, as others have mentioned the most glaring recent weakness in both film and photography is in the storytelling. I think folks these days rely on surface shit instead of content.
 
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.

Totally agree. Everyone can produce perfect shots when you have infinite exposures and a touchscreen interface showing you exactly how it's going to look. RAW files that let you tweak the entire exposure after the fact or something like that. I think some cameras have modes that, when you take a picture, it literally takes a picture with every possible shutter speed and aperture combination. Then you just pick the one you like the look of the best lol... "Look mom I'm a photographer!"
 
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.


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 with a 20lb camera setup vs a 200lb one with extremely limited filming times on the largest format possible?

Problem is most people don't actually understand how difficult shooting in IMAX is. Some of the camera rigs are 200-300lbs. There's a reason why Dunkirk wasn't shot entirely on IMAX and why lots of the Dark Knight didn't use IMAX. It's a technical feat just to work with it.

I'd also would say 95%+ of people didn't watch Dunkirk in 15/70 in the theaters considering there are only a handful of theaters in the world that have the equipment to show it. I've seen 1917 and Dunkirk on the exact same IMAX screen and Dunkirk blew it away visually. You cannot fuck with a proper 15/70 projection.
 
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.
 
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.


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.
 
Last edited:
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

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....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.

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.
 
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.

You would have to be more specific on choreography and I'm not here to defend everything Nolan does or that he's the greatest. There is plenty of issues and plenty have debated his techniques like parallel editing to the cows come home. 1917 and Dunkirk are polar opposites of movies. And yes IMAX cameras are largely not worth it in most cases as they are too difficult to use. But I will say some of the scenes are breath taking if you're lucky enough to see them in the proper projection.

Did you ever see Atonement? There's an incredible long take scene that takes place at Dunkirk and it is extremely impressive:



It is a great scene but a long tracking shot on a beach like that is peanuts to compare to trying and film an entire movie like 1917 in IMAX. They were very mobile in 1917.
 
Last edited:
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:


It takes far more skill to operate the large format camera vs a smaller mirrorless.


- 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.

First is true because IMAX has a factual higher Image quality over a ARRI LF(though there was some 70mm in Dunkirk)
Second part - I saw both movies on the exact same screen with 1917 in open gate and Dunkirk had visually more impressive scenes on an IMAX screen. This may not be the same experience on other screens or watching a Netflix stream.


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.

That's not an accurate analogy at all. Nolan shooting IMAX is much more limiting and more difficult to use but results will be amazing if you can utilize it correctly and project it to audiences correctly. IMAX isn't cheating, it's really difficult to use and limiting. Even basic things like trying to pull focus on a format that large is much more difficult over smaller formats which is why there are more focus issues.
 
Last edited:
I caught Deakins speech on Youtube and then realized Tarantino is in the audience and his own movie was nominated and lost.

Deakins up there like "bow down to your digital overlords Quentin"
giphy-downsized-large.gif


 
Back
Top