why do these nerds INSIST film is better?
>costs more money most of the time
>reliant on old cameras that constantly need repairing
>time consuming to develop
>harder to edit
>only very few cinemas actually use film projectors now, so very few audiences actually see its full potential
>after all that, only MINOR picture quality that most people wouldn't even notice
flim is cooler, digital is more convenient
>why do these nerds INSIST film is better?
because it is
Cinema died with film. Now, it's all glorified Youtube videos they tell you is film. It's not.
Movies that used film benefited greatly from it. When you shoot on film most of the work is done for you already by Kodak and other companies, it just comes out looking great even if you’re incompetent. With digital cameras it gives RAW video footage that you need to colour grade yourself, needless to say that movie people are fucking up big time and even when they know what they are doing it’s never quite the same as film.
The best way to describe digital is that it looks like it was shot in a studio with studio lighting even when it wasn’t.
Boomers gonna boom boom
so digital needs more technical work? lazy boomers...
Film needs more manual analog knowledge. You need to be more careful with how you light your scenes since otherwise it may look too dark. Digital does not have this but since filmmakers don't need to care about sets or lightning or deliberate positioning, they also stopped caring about the post work too, which is indeed more intensive with digital.
Digital means we have scenes that are sloppier than ever. We've lost an art form.
Because you can scan 70mm into 16K resolution and beyond.
He's thinking about the future. Movies from the late 1930's look better than Attack of the Clones
Digital filmmaking is trash TV trying and failing to be cinema.
>Oh but very few peop-
The overwhelming majority of people are fucking retarded. Next argument.
>Harder and more expensive
Not my problem
>Takes more time
I got nothing but time, bucko
>MINOR picture quality
Digital films look like dogshit. Nothing compares to properly lighted celluloid. It is the gold standard and will not be abandoned for any video game cut-scene tier faggotry.
Gone with the Wind (1939) still looks better than pretty much all movies made today. This was made some 80 years ago. Hollywood relies now on technology to replace talent and manual labor. This is why movies feel shorter, smaller and more forgettable than ever before.
Better retention in the highlights. Digital performs better with shadows.
All you need to do is look at the hot highlights on people's faces, or detail in fire.
>reliant on old cameras that constantly need repairing
435s are consistently maintained and can basically be considered new.
"Can" be considerably cheaper than a good digital cine too if you're not a moron with your stock.
>time consuming to develop
Roll goes in a can once it's full, and off to the lab at the end of the day, so it can be reviewed the next. It's called dailies.
>harder to edit
The lab scans in the negatives and it's edited digitally. No-body besides film students actually sits at a Steinbeck anymore.
>only very few cinemas actually use film projectors now, so very few audiences actually see its full potential
See above. And any roll dispatched to a theatre these days will be a printed digital version.
The lighting when done probably actually looks like a movie is supposed to look like in film. All digital footage now looks like it was shot on the newest iphone.
This movie was on the television the other day. I was amazed by just how FILMIC it was. Every scene has this sort of deliberate direction that is missing in modern films. Even the "boring" 1-on-1 dialogue scenes always have some sort of flair to it to spice it up. You can't make it like this on digital. It's simply too hard.
die you piece of shit i hope someone murders you irl
youre whats wrong with this shitty world of ours
you MUST DIE
It's like electronic music (digital) people like electronic music nothing wrong with that, but people still love non-electronic music (film).
>MINOR picture quality
All that effort and in the end the picture is still ruined by digital coloring.
Cause they are not the ones paying for it.
He didn't miss his chance to grope him lol
what are you talking about idiot, digital is extremely easy to notice, even when you are watching on your 15" laptop
no that is not a great comparison at all. the genesis of electronic music was all made using analog technology anyways. a better comparison using audio is digital vs analog
It's soulful, you wouldn't understand.
>all these incredibly based posts itt btfoing op
Maybe there's still hope for this place after all
There's always hope for this place. Everywhere else?
Because it is? You don't need to be film savvy to see this. Just compare digital with reel, it's very obvious.