Have people forgotten what film looks like?

Very interesting thread. I was just reading the Django thread and took a look at the trailer. It looks plastic...the scene where the hitman draws a gun and shoots at the horse riding guy looks like some indie YouTube strobist demonstration...but hey, that's the way it is.

I hope we get more and more and more lukewarm entertainment from Hollywood, and I hope they cut down on every single aspect of production. I can't wait to see the day when DPs, gaffers, soundguys, everyone looses jobs because they found out a way to make a movie about duckface selfshots entirely shot on iPhone.

The technoapologists will boldly celebrate the "new era of cinema, where everyone can be a director with their own iPhone" and we will reach Hollywood's eternal, sincere goal: make every single person a famous producer/filmmaker.
 
-Tom- said:
I was just reading the Django thread and took a look at the trailer. It looks plastic...the scene where the hitman draws a gun and shoots at the horse riding guy looks like some indie YouTube strobist demonstration...but hey, that's the way it is.
Click to expand...

Django was shot on film: IMDB Technical Specifications for Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan are a few of the hold-outs still shooting on film.
 
Matthew W Phillips said:
I respect this viewpoint but woldnt it respect tradition more to use the true medium you claim to revere which is still widely available with tons of transfer methods and working individuals who are more than happy to help you manage it? Im not saying you SHOULD shoot film but if you revere the look and want the look than get the look. Im not sure sure that film is dying a natural death but is more being murdered by the "its good enough" generation.



Sorry, been gone awhile. Answer is that I'm 6o miles from major city. I can turn around digital same day. No chance with film. Not sure there's even processing in Seattle anymore. So I'll do my best to get "the look". I think that while the technique is important (the film look), story trumps it, and i can do just fine on high end digital, getting close enough. Perhaps the better way to say it is that digital gets less in my way to the story. If that makes sense.
Click to expand...
 
TheDingo said:
Django was shot on film: IMDB Technical Specifications for Django Unchained

Quentin Tarantino, Steven Spielberg, Christopher Nolan are a few of the hold-outs still shooting on film.
Click to expand...

Ok then, that's fine, but it still looks too perfect, maybe it's the processing that bothers me...it could be my upbringing on grainy, old films...these new pixel perfect knife sharp looks don't do it for me

I know I'll come off ignorant, who am I to critique the great QT, but that's just how I feel....this scene particularly looks as cheap as it gets...I may be wrong, and I'm not saying I could do it better. I'm just saying - it looks silly.

TzXFL.jpg


spL66.jpg


0eIGr.jpg


They certainly didn't make no "illusion" or "magic" here...or, to be more precise, they didn't do it any better than your average staff pick Vimeo movie...but one can take that as a compliment to indie directors who reached the production quality of pros...I look at it from another angle...I think it's silly that Quentins movie looks like vimeo feature.

On the other hand, the "look" of RD or FDTD is lightyears from this, or from any Vimeo example. That's all I'm saying.
 
jambredz said:
I have never shot film nor do I think either format should die :) . I'm a simple fellow that just likes good looking movies :). ...but I have to say that these film stocks Look DAMN good and skin tones look amazing (even with youtube nasty compression). I've never seen digital look like this....nor am I claiming it should look like this. I like both as long as they are pretty and make a good story :D :) (7d shooter here).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5CkXgcafB0

Click to expand...
Funny you should post that demo, I made the Super16mm version for Kodak that complimented this film when the new stock was released. We made three versions of each, one in HD, one as a 35mm release print (made via a blow-up for the super16 film) and another made via a 2K DI. The Super16 looked great in HD but struggled on the big screen. Daryn Okada's film looked stunning projected in 2k but was even better projected as a 35mm release print. I made a lot of films for Kodak and that was the last one. It was four years ago and I can't imagine I'll be shooting it again anytime soon. It's a shame in many ways but digital is the way forward. No doubt.
 
I wish someone would come up with some sort of chart, spectrum analyzer or anything that would point to that "something" factor that these stocks have versus the digital...could it be just my subjective point of view? I hate to be a "fanboy" of anything, but it's hard to dislike the stock and like the digital

Even though I shoot exclusively on digital and had no interactions with film stock in my life (apart from movie theaters)
 
maranfilms said:
Why Tom, you don't think that lighting looks motivated. Haven't you ever seen a glowing tree?:)
Click to expand...


Ha, Ha, Ha!!!! I have heard a story supposedly related by DP Ronald Víctor García about when he shooting a night exterior in the woods for David Lynch on "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me". The DP had put up some back light to give detail to some trees in a back ground when David Lynch asked him, "But where does the light come from?...". Garcia said, "...The same place the music does". Reportedly, David Lynch was not amused!
 
-Tom- said:
I wish someone would come up with some sort of chart, spectrum analyzer or anything that would point to that "something" factor that these stocks have versus the digital...could it be just my subjective point of view? I hate to be a "fanboy" of anything, but it's hard to dislike the stock and like the digital

Even though I shoot exclusively on digital and had no interactions with film stock in my life (apart from movie theaters)
Click to expand...

The differences are subtle. I'm not sure it's measurable. Its kind of like a Nexus 6 versus a human. Someone will no doubt answer that by saying it's chemistry versus maths or art versus science. Though to be fair, the chemistry and art need an awful lot of science and maths to make them work properly.

I can tell you what I wrote on the last Kodak demo film I made and prattle on about exposure latitude, dynamic range, highlight roll-off, natural colour palate and all the other usual stuff, but the truth is film as a post process is dead, film as an acquisition medium is hanging on by it's fingertips and as the pixel count on modern displays continues to increase film will be finished.

Digital has surpassed film in dynamic range and colour gamut and whilst film may still have chemistry and art on its side, anyone who has seen Life of Pi will agree that, in the right hands, digital is capable of creating jaw-dropping spectacular imagery.
 
Last edited:
Matthew W Phillips said:
I respect this viewpoint but woldnt it respect tradition more to use the true medium you claim to revere which is still widely available with tons of transfer methods and working individuals who are more than happy to help you manage it? Im not saying you SHOULD shoot film but if you revere the look and want the look than get the look. Im not sure sure that film is dying a natural death but is more being murdered by the "its good enough" generation.



I disagree with this. Shoot digital if you want but dont state falsehoods. I have shot short films (on film) with less than 10 person crews. It depends on how grand you want to go. 500t stock allows relatively low light as well and film cameras (16mm especially) have never been cheaper. Sync sound cameras can be picked up on eBay in recently serviced condition for 600-800 (there is two on ebay right now, for instance)

The GH2, I know nothing about this camera.
Click to expand...

Take a look then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gc6d6PEd9g&feature=player_embedded
 
TheDingo said:
Just look at all these talentless hacks using digital cameras...

Judd Apatow
James Cameron
David Cronenberg
David Fincher
Peter Jackson
Ang Lee
Baz Luhrmann
David Lynch
Sam Mendes
Martin Scorsese
Ridley Scott
Lars von Trier
Joss Whedon
Robert Zemeckis

...If only they could afford to shoot on the real thing, film.
Click to expand...

In the case of "Avatar" it looks like a really ,expensive...video.....
 
Jamaine said:
Looks it's simple make the film cameras equipment etc etc cheaper and well shoot on it, but Canon, Nikon etc have made opportunities for us indies that have visions and dreams possible, that film wasn't . I think some of you film guys are feeling threatened by the quality of work the Indies a're putting out,the ppl watching the content,doesn't care whether u shot on a red or 35mm,well at the least the majority doesn't.
Click to expand...

I don't think that anyone should feel "threatened" by the quality of someone elses work- I think that they should be *inspired* by it.....
 
skyy38 said:
In the case of "Avatar" it looks like a really ,expensive...video.....
Click to expand...

Because cgi cat-smurfs would look better on film... :)

skyy38 said:
I don't think that anyone should feel "threatened" by the quality of someone elses work- I think that they should be *inspired* by it.....
Click to expand...

Agree. But it's not human nature. We feel the need to form tribes to justify our decisions. Those who get inspired by the art of others probably spend less time in forums haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top