Awful why try and create that horrible old film look,there is only 1 programn here in which film is used to record it [Doc martin]and everyone looks like roasted turkeys in it,so digital looks awful how eyes must differ.
Have people forgotten what film looks like?
- Thread starter Matthew W Phillips
- Start date
Awful why try and create that horrible old film look,there is only 1 programn here in which film is used to record it [Doc martin]and everyone looks like roasted turkeys in it,so digital looks awful how eyes must differ.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
"In a box" to me implies that it's a button push to achieve that look, whereas this was a carefully crafted grade created by a skilled colorist, who I'm sure could recreate the look of virtually all vintages of film that would convince 99% of the audience. That's the same 99% that probably can't tell the difference between a vintage photo and an Instagram filter--that's truly "in a box" technology.
A lot of things in 60s & 70s were good,some of the 35mm cinema films yes,not 16mm television,if you think thats awesome so be it .
Some people still have their wedding filmed in super 8 https://vimeo.com/groups/super8hd/videos/75163471 but the majority prefer the quality of modern Digital.To be fair it is one of the better super 8s if only it had some resolution and less noise ,but thats what film buffs cling to.
Surf it Mike
Well-known member
In answer to the Op's question.
YES they sure have ............................and you know what it doesn't matter, so many viewing platforms , so many options it breaks my heart but the modern audience doesn't give a dam.
Apart from die hard affection-ardo's who burry their heads in the sand and pretend nothing has changed including Kodak.
YES they sure have ............................and you know what it doesn't matter, so many viewing platforms , so many options it breaks my heart but the modern audience doesn't give a dam.
Apart from die hard affection-ardo's who burry their heads in the sand and pretend nothing has changed including Kodak.
Film is still a great acquisition medium. But the rest of the chain is all digital anyways these days. So even film doesn't look like film anymore by the time you get to a finished product. If your productions have potentially high long term value, film is still the best archival medium too.
farawaybeaches
Member
I think sometimes it comes down to a personal preference kind of thing. Personally, I love the almost sort of grainy quality (or if you're looking at some old films, they're actually quite grainy) that film exhibits, and the color schemes of a lot of older films. HD leaves me with a rather unsatisfied feeling, but all my film friends are very much into that sort of thing.
farawaybeaches
Member
Interesting fact: "Lost in Translation" was reportedly supposed to be shot in digital (apparently Francis Ford Coppola recommended it), but Sofia Coppola decided against it.
I'm pretty convinced that you can get almost any look out of HD provided you're willing to do enough work in post to get the look you are after. ( lots of productions won't bother and you get that cheap HD look instead )
David W. Jones
Veteran
A lot has happened in the world of digital acquisition in the 10 years since Lost In Translation was shot.
paulears
Veteran
Awful seems a very good word for what I'm seeing. If this is the 'film' look, I'd rather see HD video. Washed out, vintage historical looking, lacking in clarity and quality. What is the point of producing new higher definition cameras and then treating them to make the look artistically worse!
Rather like the audio people recording at 96K, 32 bit, then processing with a tape saturation plug in to dirty it all up. Classic case of craziness. I'd rather see pictures from a decent SD camera with a decent lens than what I've just watched! I do appreciate that it's for artistic effect, but it's an effect I detest!
Rather like the audio people recording at 96K, 32 bit, then processing with a tape saturation plug in to dirty it all up. Classic case of craziness. I'd rather see pictures from a decent SD camera with a decent lens than what I've just watched! I do appreciate that it's for artistic effect, but it's an effect I detest!
Andrius Simutis
Veteran
You don't have an instagram account, do you? All kidding aside, there is an aesthetic here that is quite popular at the moment. Obviously it's not suited to everything, but it actually works for some shots where you want to imply more mood than is really there. I'm sure that in capable hands you'd be able to get more looks out of this camera than just retro film stock. It may lend itself well to that retro look, and great for those who live in that world, but I wouldn't dismiss the camera over a color grade.
I'm neither a hater nor a fanboy, but I do find this camera interesting, though not interesting enough to plunk down a few thousand dollars.
Go to WallMart you could get a copy of Happy Gilmore film on DVD for 5$
watch the DVD this film was shot on film...
Now rent a Blue-ray at your favorite video club like RED 1 or 2 or any film how are not a multi million dollar film
done recently you will find out the image on the regular DVD it's better vs a recent Blue-ray
sometime they shot in film but transfer only at 2k and edit and try to bust from the 2 k image.
watch the DVD this film was shot on film...
Now rent a Blue-ray at your favorite video club like RED 1 or 2 or any film how are not a multi million dollar film
done recently you will find out the image on the regular DVD it's better vs a recent Blue-ray
sometime they shot in film but transfer only at 2k and edit and try to bust from the 2 k image.
Go see The Secret Life of Walter Mitty in a good 4k theater. Outstanding example of modern Kodak film with a natural full color palette grade. Really stunning and instantly recognizable as film original. The new 4k restoration of Lawrence of Arabia on Blu-ray is really gorgeous too.
Well i have seen plenty of modern films on Bllu Ray filmed digitaly,such as Red Dog.Old fims on DVD better,guess i need the opticions.
Hunter Hampton
Carbonite Member
(s16mm films you may have on your shelf)
Have you ever used any of the ccd HD cameras? I have been a die hard 16mm shooter until I purchased a sony f35 last year. CCD are analog and come with global shutter. I think you'd be surprised how filmic a ccd can be. I think your options are genesis, F35, ikonoskop, digital bolex, penelope and a few others.
Low light capability and resolution drives the market on digital cameras today. We have a lot of miseducation to thank for that.
Great looking project Postmaster, but that's not fooling anyone into thinking it was film, movement gives digital shutter away.
Low light capability and resolution drives the market on digital cameras today. We have a lot of miseducation to thank for that.
Great looking project Postmaster, but that's not fooling anyone into thinking it was film, movement gives digital shutter away.
Last edited:
Hunter Hampton
Carbonite Member
HA!
Edit: It was the "Seems in the right hands film can approach the quality of video" part- your internet sarcasm is up there with the best!
Last edited:
Adam J McKay
Veteran
Video is dead. Film is taking over.