Digital cinematography has replaced film as the defacto standard in moving images. But there are still some issues with the technology that I'd like to address....
Fascinating, even on a phone you can see a difference in quality in newer and older films, like somehow the older films seem real world and new ones are somehow flat.
I have never heard a director or cinematographer say they choose digital because of the look. It always seems to be a technical or financial decision when digital is being used, never an artistic one.
I find it interesting that no matter what digital always looks like digital. Like just its foundation is so sharp on every shape that you just know even if they fake it with grain filters and such. But film at it very foundations isn’t sharp and such which feels completely different. Film is just so interesting that I swear it has a sort of psychological effect on our minds into a “suggestive” almost “hallucinatory/dream” state which makes it so connective and emotionally reactive than digital
Well said, I feel that I'm having a harder time connecting with movies visually these days and I think a lot of it has to do with the move to digital. The convenience of it has become a detriment to the artistry of the craft. I have similar feelings to CGI which has almost completely supplanted some of the older methods of practical effects. It all creates an inferior product. I have to agree with you that it most likely has to do with the craft of lighting a set. The chiaroscuro I think has a lot to do with capturing the dream like quality of films. I wish filmmakers had a little bit more versatility in how they choose to film something. The crystal clear quality should not apply to every story that is told.
The real star of any movie is the photochemical process. Film has a way of "glorifying" its subject matter in a way that digital cannot. Digital is so sterile, clinical and drab.
I do have a number of comments. First off, go find Steve Yeldin's two parter on the myths of resolution. Eye opening. Second, digital has opened the doors to literally billions of 'filmmakers', if only on a cell phone. Thos has given us many more voices to consider, not restricted to rich movie studios. Third, I agree there is at a noticable difference in digital color science between cameras and their manufacturers. The king right now remains Arri. Their Alexa line is used on the vast majority of big budget films, and the colors are...beautiful, for lack of a better word. Red cameras can be good as well, but Arri still holds the top spot. I think what you may be experiencing are expectations. For people of a certain age, every single film we saw was made on film, so subconsciously, that image is what we associate with movie making. I agree, there is something about film, and the goal has been, and probably will be, to get as good as film.
I think it comes down to expectations. I'm old and grew up with most films being shot on 35mm and I will stand by the 1990s being the greatest decade in cinema. Still, for me even some of the great cinema of past tends to look dull and dated. You can say film has more natural and deeper colors but those colors don't pop. 65mm does look more sharp than 35mm. To tell the truth where film fits as the medium I prefer either 70mm for that kind of Cinemascope feeling or super 16 for the grainy feeling. Digital has come a long way and I do not think we are far from added effects being difficult to tell if something is film or digital with graining effects. Just like it is becoming almost impossible to see when Fisher is using digital backgrounds and when it is an actual shot. I also think cinematographers were far more conservative, far more risk adverse. There is both an up side and a down side to that. There is creativity that comes with working around limitations but you are also working with those limitations. You just have so much more freedom with digital. From image manipulation in camera to freedom in post to being able add FX and CGI that you cannot do practically. I kind of agree with Roger Deakins, who has said he prefers to shoot digital, you should chose based on the story you are telling, choosing cameras in the same way you choose lenses.
Digital certainly is easier. With some cameras you can shoot continuously for more than an hour. Long form interviews would be impossible to seamlessly shoot on film, with a 10 minute limit.
While digital cinematography can absolutely create beautiful imagery, for the most part I very much agree with you. Particularly the idea that the ease of shooting digitally has given rise to some complacency on the part of cinematographers because they no longer need to be quite as exacting. That’s obviously a huge generalization, but I think there’s something to it.
Possible, but really not the case with professional cinematographer. Pick up any copy of the magazine American Cinematographer to see the care that goes into setting up lights. Visit a film set, and so much time is taken by the camera crew to light a scene.
I just discovered your channel about an hour ago and since then I am in a little binge. I LOVE good RU-vid channels (I know, the term ‚good’ is quite subjective) and I am really looking forward to see your channel (hopefully) grow in the future, which I am quite certain about because you really are doing a great job. I also respect a lot that you take the ‚long route‘ and that you don’t rely on clickbait. Greetings from Germany, you definetly gained a new subscriber
Very interesting analysis. I wonder if a good home digital projector would make any difference regarding your "theater v. home" observations...perhaps it's something to do with the light in a theatre being "thrown" onto a screen, versus a TV which is shooting light directly at our eyes.
I also never liked the look of most digitally shot films and same as you, my knowledge about cinematography is at amateur level at best. I always found it very hard to put into words what it is that makes the majority of digitally shot films (especially the big superhero movies from Marvel, or the big action blockbusters) look so cheap(?) and lifeless. And also I never wanted to hate on digital films in general because it would be very dumb to generalize that. There definitely are good, or great examples of digital filmmaking, such as Michael Mann‘s Collateral, which is one of my favorite movies of this century, even though it was shot digitally and even though it’s an crime/action movie, which usually is my least favorite genre. Thanks for making this video, it was very interesting to hear your thoughts
I must say I never had been that conscious of the differences between the two processes. I was then given a mini-tutorial by my other son looking at both types, then I got it. Now I can see your review as a nice look at the visual details of movie making and even the translation of actors reactions to real versus digital environments. A roar from a visually stunning animated replica of a creature must be scarier than a roar from a green screen.
My first thought is that it's like vintage audio vs digital audio. People still collect and play LPs even though its technically inferior. I think a big part of the difference is in the process, which you touched upon with the comments about more careful lighting. But there is more that goes into it. You only have so many rolls of film. With digital you can do takes over and over again, possibly even decide to overwrite a previous take. Moreover, when cutting/editing a digital film, you have infinite choices whereas if you had to physically cut the tape, you have to be real sure about the decisions your making. Lastly, a digital camera can do shots that would be impractical or impossible to do with a huge film camera.
True, but some directors such as Stanley Kubrick famously shot scores of scenes, over and over again, to get exactly what he was looking for. I am much less obsessive when I've shot a film. Clint Eastwood and Woodly Allen are the same way.
I do agree with you - shooting on film is the best....The (best) alternative is: shooting on film and transferring it to video (digital). You get the best of both worlds. Lighting & Negative fill (taking light away) is underestimated and everything is lit...:-( "It's not what you light, it's what you don't light" - John Alton, ASC....Thank you very much! Love your video's!
One advantage for digital is the ability to shoot in low-light situations. Barry Lyndon has scenes lit only by candlelight, and Kubrick purchased 0.95 lenses developed by NASA, yet the scenes had scores of candles. Using digital, I can shoot a film using a single candle.
@@TeddyRumble no, we move on because things are moving forward, too much talking about formats, too little substance, just get over it, use whatever makes you feel better, just let people be and use what they want, its really that simple.
