So is this the film that destroyed cinematography forever??
Making everything look digital and with unreal color??
shareMaking everything look digital and with unreal color??
shareWhy do you care??
Joel
because I love films and they now look like shít?
shareSo you consider yourself one of those "film nerds" who like the "look" of film and can't ever enjoy something shot digitally? Have you seen the 2012 documentary "Side By Side" which discusses the issue and explains why use of real film is rapidly going away while digital techniques prevail? If not then you should look it up. There are too many advantages of digital, movies shot on real film are becoming fewer and fewer in time.
If a story is good, well-written, and well-acted then it shouldn't matter whether the images are captured digitally or on film. In fact if the "look" is important the newest digital techniques can be made to look just like real film! It is a filmmaker's choice.
Besides, virtually all real film nowadays is converted to digital for editing so you rarely have a movie that truly remains on film from shooting to projection in the theater.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
I am a photographer and have worked with both and film is 100% better and there is such a thing as a digital look and it is shít. The people who dismiss film do so because they love digital or sell digital and they usually lie.
shareYou are so biased. And wrong!! But you are not alone, there are a few of you left. It will be solved in a few years when the next generation is grown and will have known nothing but digital. Which is just as glorious as real film, just different.
I know some people who refuse to quit watching VHS because it is analog, they hate that digital Blu Ray, even though it is many times better. Are you one of those?
..*.. TxMike ..*..
There is nothing glorious about digital and it is certainly not better than film. No, I never liked VHS because video tape never had the quality and definition that film has, which not even digital has either. I love blu rays because they are the closest thing to the MASSIVE QUALITY of watching an actual film on a film projector. I'm not that old, I'm 33 and I feel sorry for all the morons who will know nothing but digital.
shareOhhhhhhh, you're one of THOSE. The type of person who complains about how the world moved away from records/vinyl, ruining music. YOU are a hipster. The kind that goes into the world, saying anything the masses do is WRONG, it was better before, and anyone with REAL taste keeps doing it that way... As a fellow millennial, can I just say, grow up. Only fellow hipsters enjoy talking to you, though you never ADMIT that you're a hipster.
Chase: Wow. Yeah, I get it. House is adorable. I just want to hold him and never let go.
What about Black and White movies? We could bundle them in this too as ruining color movies.
shareExaggerate much?
shareOh Brother, Where Art Thou was shot on film. It exhibits all the qualities of film. Only the color grading had been done digitally, but if you wouldn't have read it somewhere, you wouldn't have known. It's a plain beautiful film.
What makes everything look digital, is the circumstance that most filmmakers don't use film anymore. But that has nothing to do with Oh Brother, Where Art Thou.
Yes it does, Batman Vs. Superman was shot on film and it still looks like shít because all the grading was done digitally, just like Oh Brother, which also looks like shít and 100% digital.
shareWell, I disagree.
sharewell, it's a shame because as I said, cinematography has been destroyed forever. A well crafted film like Batman Returns for instance looks as alien today as technicolor looked in 1992.
shareHere's the thing: There aren't a whole lot of films being shot on film and then color graded digitally. So, even if it would be such a terrible thing, your statement "cinematography destroyed forever" just seems silly. So silly in fact, that I wonder if you're really just trolling.
shareYes, I figured that out a while back, he is just trolling. But it is a particular type of trolling, stating a nonsensical, unsubstantiated conclusion about film and digital techniques.
It would be like an audiophile saying "multitrack recording tape destroyed live cut records forever." You still have both options but one happens to be much more versatile than the other. Same with film vs digital.
We continue to have film and we continue to have digital capture. Each can make a wonderful looking movie or a sick looking movie, it all depends on the capture and editing process.
..*.. TxMike ..*..
have you been seeing films for the last 10 years?? There is no color anymore. It's all either a blue filter, an orange filter, or a combination of the two. That's it. There is no real color anymore, and forget about real skin tones or detail because that doesn't exist anymore. A masterpiece like Vertigo would be IMPOSSIBLE to shoot today. And it all comes back to this garbage film, this and Traffic began it all.
shareSo how does Paul Thomas Anderson do it then?
sharewhat are you talking about?? his films all have the bullshít digital aesthetic. The Master was green from start to finish.
share1. The Master is an exception, obviously. Look at his other films.
2. The Master was shot on film, and the color grading wasn't done digitally but with a photochemical timer. Nothing digital about it.
3. I don't care if you like it or you don't. Bottom line is: There are still films around that don't use digital color grading.
Oh really?? Were is the proof of that? Because all color grading is done digitally now. His other films that don't look like that like Magnolia is because they were done analogous.
shareWait a minute, did you just admit that there are movies without digital color grading? So you admit that you were wrong and I was right? I find that very noble of you. It was pleasant talking to you. Good night and good luck.
share