Відео

When I was young I remember seeing an 8mm movie projector for the first time the light hitting the screen and the sound that compelled me to know more about its contradictions and effects on my future life the thing just never went away , to me digital gear is boring wasteful and uneventful over complicated

Hollywood is so stupid for making all modern movies filmed with digital cameras

digital can be made to do anything film can do. make a filter.

Your point about the results from the chemical process being impossible to replicate is odd, given that film is converted to digital at some point between filming and reaching the audience in 99,99% of cases. If the "specialness" of film can be recorded after the fact, in digital form, i.e. the 1s and 0s can store and present the result of the chemical process, then there's no inherent absolute limitation in digital formats. Anything that can be converted to digital form (for editing or viewing), can theoretically be recorded, or even replicated from scratch in digital form. If you're talking about film, that stays film, and is presented as film you might have a point. If the image is ever digital at any point in the process from filming to presentation, I don't understand how you arrived at your "never" assertion. Current Cmos sensors, chips, and algorithms are a very possibly poor predictors of "ever" and "never", in my humble opinion.

Well stated, and well done.

Great video, and great perspective! But it's not like analog formats would be limitless. I'm not an expert on film but with records for example, the highest resolution that you can press on the record is limited by the size of the vinyl particles. In digital yeah you have a 0 and 1, but you can go always higher in resolution by using more 0s and 1s per number. I don't like the fact that everyone says it is 0s and 1s because it makes it hard to imagine. In the end it's just a number like 0.24573839. And you can make this number as fine grained as you want, in the case of audio, you can make the resolution way higher than a record and thus you can replicate a record theoretically with digital media, but you can not replicate the digital media with a record. Sure there are additional effects and other differences, but I would not say that the numbers you can store in the computer are limiting you (at least not anymore)

I love how you asks these questions at the end. For me I can even go further, go b/w, and use a bigger grain. What does that do? For me it deletes all unnecessary details. Less is more, is this always the case? No, absolutely not. It all depends on the story we tell. If I see a portrait photo and that's about the personality I don't want to count hairs on their head. But if it is a commercial for a shampoo I do want to "count" the hairs. Choosing digital or film is just a part of the composition. I dislike my digital cam (Nikon Z8) for portraits because it's too sharp and detailed. But I love it for landscapes. And I like my RZ67 with a 400iso film more for portraits, because I don't want all details. And this can also be thought about color rendering. The two are not the same and maybe you can mimic film with digital for online use or even small prints. But with bigger screens and prints there is a big difference for sure.

who’s here after Gladiator II? and, oh boy, they don’t shoot sunlight as they used to…

Very good video but had to watch it on 1,5. And I watch 99,99% of videos on 1.

Why should digital replicate the look of film? That’s right, it shouldn’t. Digital is digital, film is film, both can be really beautiful.

Film > Digital by a mile Only film could've produced realism like 2001 space odyssey and its yet to be surpassed,period.

"Digital will never fully replicate film." Yeah, sorry pal. That statement is factually incorrect. Digital can easily (if not already) surpass the best film in resolution and dynamic range. Once you've captured a technically perfect image, there is nothing stopping you from passing that image through a film simulation. No, I don't mean giving it to some dude with After Effect or whatever who will tweak the curves and add a grain filter. I mean a proper, physical simulation. To my knowledge, nobody has taken the time to research and construct such a thing with high accuracy, but it is certainly not impossible or even improbable. There is no magic contained within a physical object like a strip of film that cannot be duplicated by numbers in a spreadsheet. You can thank the fact that you live in a universe defined by mathematics. Care to retract your statement?

I would like to point out the suggestion that digital is finite and analogue is not is incorrect. In fact, our eyes and ears have a finite range and digital surpasses that boundary. An example is that you can claim that digital audio has "steps" rather than being smooth, however when you play it through a speaker that speaker is not moving in steps, it is moving in an analogue way and it has been tested and proven that digital audio captured by the listener doesn't just match analogue it actually surpasses it due to the lossy nature of analogue audio formats. Film really only has 1 advantage at this point and it is the actual resolution that can be captured from it which seems to sit around the 17-18k mark. Whether or not that is important is up for debate but digital is not far from surpassing that as well.

the irony of this is the suggestion that film looks better and majority of the time it is judged on a digital screen. Digital is better than analogue in every way, but for some people they prefer imperfections. Probably for the same reason most movies are filmed at 24FPS instead of 60 or more when it is obvious that higher refresh is better.

It's not "unanswearable"; they're different. These discussions are a decade old now; they're played out.

The truth is that the number of beautiful movies shot digitally is very limited, while the number of beautiful movies shot on film extremely vast. Digital cameras only recently have caught up with film in terms of quality (but granted, they have). Apart from quality, there is also the whole technical process which is incentivized by the digital cameras that results in them looking awful (such as incentives to extensively use CGI or have very unrealistic sharpness). I am not wholy against digital cameras but I do believe that they are drastically shifting the process of making movies to post-production. 35mm cameras require the film to look good on set, as post-production is more limited and in general more expensive. This results in more practical effects, better scenic design etc. Directors of 35mm films need to have more control on set, and there are less things happening in the post-production. Fast forward to digital cameras and films are in many cases created in post-production. They don't _have_ to be, but this is what the cameras incentivize. I think the same applies to film/digital photography. When I shoot film, I am very deliberate as shots are expensive and less susceptible to manipulations afterwards. When I shoot digital, I take hundreds of clumsy shots and then face hell in post-production (choosing shots, editing etc) as digital shots cost nothing and can be altered virtually without a limit. The film makes me a better photographer, even when I have to deal with non-ideal shots. The digital makes me do things I hate (post-production, selection), even when end result might be better. It's not the ultimate effect that is important but the general process these different tools incentivize.

You can have a digital signal on an analogue media. There was 50Gb HD VHS before we switched to DVD.

I love streaming music but I have a record collection. I use digital to capture quick moments, lowlight moments, or hard to get moments. I use film for just the right moment.

24 FPS was chosen, I understand, because it was the first reliable frame rate where the eye couldn't perceive the noticeable flicker of cinema (hence the term "flick".)

I grew up on 24fps movies and 50fps pal tv. The latter always looked sh!t. The main problem with hobbit (although it does look plastic compared to the originals) is the hideous hfr. Instant soap opera effect. Digital can look nice. I agree but in that netflix, glossy kinda way. Blade runner still look much better to my eyes than 2049. It screams movie to me. I miss how films used to look. Ive been watching old films that i missed first time round. Orson Welles at the monent. I enjoy them more than a lot of modern stuff. Thry just look beautiful.

Just by these examples, i dont wanna see digital again, film is cream of the crop

The patina of film is just better. It's natural, organic and lively. Digital is cold, calculated and maneuvered clinically. Digital cameras allow for better access but if you light poorly on film it will show.

This is the equivalent of a flat earther "science" video

DIgital gave what film didn't - the clarity, amazing shadow details. Oblivion (2013 shot on red), The Best Offer (2013 shot on Alexa), Skyfall (2012 shot on Alexa) - were strikingly different from what anyone had seen at that time. It was very obvious even on IPS monitors, I can imagine those with plasma TV's and other I always prefer details, but I'm a detail guy, so to each its own. Can't recall when I said "oh, this was shot on film and thus looks outstanding" I guess any movie has amazing shots, and mediocre ones, which could prove any point

I hate how digital prioritizes seeing the details in shadows and so kills the true black shades and makes everything flat. We do not need to see every detail hidden in shadow.

I wonder if Digital films had a DFD (digital film digital) conversion on them like how MaXXXine was shot, if it would bring that special feeling to films like true anologue film does. I remember MaXXXine looking amazing in cinemas and I feel it was for this very reason, although I could be wrong

if digital came first i wonder if they would stick to 24FPS or it would be closer to 60 or somthing completly different. on that note many digital films try to replicate film by capturing at 24FPS as it was originally belived to be the most organic image.

And because chemestry is not reliable to reproduce the EXACT same result filmprints tend to look different with every new copy worsening over time. THE major factor about film vs digital is mostly not talked about. Redundency! Film with all it's defects has way more redundency then digital. Digital is like glas. Hard as faak, beautiful but fragile. If digital is broken it's broken but when it's not broken it's not broken. If film is broken you can recover it to a great deal, we've see this with all the films that have been restored from totally messed up film prints. THE most extrodinary case I have seen is the restauration of Louis Feullidas series Judex, Fantomas and ect from filmprints of 1919, 1920. BUT .... SUPERBIG BUT .... these restaurations are ONLY possible because of DIGITAL technology. Without digital tech these film would be lost for all time as you CAN NOT restore a film by simply making a new copy. Comparing film vs digital is like comparing sportscar vs truck. As Roger Deakons said: "I'm fed up with this conversation. The importent thing is what's in the frame."

How is CGI done in movies shot in film?

Film all the way. Fuck digital.

Sorry but you sound like some vinyl guy that have no idea how digital works and then talks about it like it's magic :) Because n the technical sense a modern digital camera is better than film in every single way, it covers what film can do and even more and can therefor be degraded to look like film, while it's not possible to do it the other way around. Just put an old imperfect lens on a digital camera, light the scene with hard spotlight like they did in the past, shoot it, roll of the highlights softly, blur the footage slightly, add som halation, grain, crush the black, add some gate weave and dust and you'll have an extremely hard time distinguish it from analog film. Just look at The Holdovers, the only thing really hinting at it's being shot on digital is that they choose to keep the sharpness, which to me just made the film look superb! Digital <3

Film just looks better. It has the fuzziness and warmth that digital doesn’t have. I suspect digital has also led to a lot of these new movies that feel totally sterile or fake. Film is better.

Some of the shots you used from interstellar when talking about film were actually shot digitally. The stuff on earth was shot on film. The stuff in space was shot on digital.

What was that movie with the bear

There is nothing inherently "warm" about film. There is also nothing inherently "digital-looking" about digital cameras. There are only people who know what they are doing and those who don't. If any of those great movies were shot digitally, they would still look exactly like they do on film, because medium and format does not dictate image quality or feel, the skilled people behind the projects do.

I'm not an expert on how digital sensors work, but I'm going to tell you anyway." Yeah, digital imaging and storage is based on an either/or architecture, but those distinctions can be so miniscule it's functionally impossible to notice. OTOH, we can't pretend that film grain isn't a thing. It also has a certain "resolution", and pretending it doesn't is disingenuous.

"ultimately you are dealing with a zero and a one" this actually hasn't been true for a while. Sure, it is encoded in Binary, but the range of light levels on a digital sensor are now very close to that of Film. Encoding standards like ACES allow for light values that far exceed a maximum of 1, allowing for much more detail preserved in highlights and roll off. If digital is good enough for Deakins it is good enough for anyone. I get what you are saying and I loved shooting super 16mm when I had the opportunity. I hope we still get movies shot on film for years to come alongside the digital ones. However, I think it is entirely possible now to replicate the film aesthetic on digital. If you don't believe me go try Filmbox and report back. Emulation has gotten exceptionally good and affordable. Cheap cameras like the A7S have gotten the ability to output uncompressed imagery that is easy to manipulate in post. Studios absolutely should still try shooting on film when they can, but for indie filmmakers it is absurd to shell out for celluloid when the tools are so good. On a low budget there are so many other things that money could serve which would improve the movie 10 fold.

I take this as a very informative and easy to follow Video. I've asked all of the same questions myself. I've reached a conclusion about the two. First, I believe these are things that always seem to make it's way to the passionate. I believe it belongs to you to capture what you see and use it in some Special way. This is just one of those ways. I had to stop and think is it more of the subject that kept my interest, or how well this Video is introduced. Thanks!!!

Regarding 24 FPS convention: I'm pretty sure that higher frame rates are objectively better. It just looks more realistic. So any advantage of 24 FPS must be due to nostalgia.

I love movies, and am finally coming into the world of photography and filmmaking. I appreciate this video and your channel so much, thank you for making it.

I honestly like both formats for different reasons. But I still lean towards film 'cause while digital has its advantages, I feel like a ton of filmmakers and producers abuse the latter as a "cheaper" alternative. Marvel is notorious for this because ever since The Avengers, they've gone full digital and it's been for the worse. I watched the Phase One films a while ago and they looked better because they were shot on 35mm (Cap 1 was technically the first digital venture for the MCU, but some scenes were filmed on 35mm). The only times I can remember a digitally shot MCU movie looking great were the first Ant-Man movie, GOTG 2 & 3 Multiverse of Madness and to some extent, the Russo Brothers MCU movies.

Personal preference for me. The Hobbit felt a little too "clean". Not that its photography wasn't incredible. It just seemed that LotR felt a bit more like I imagined the scenes when reading the books.

Generation Z loves movies shot on film and loves Practical Effects over CGI.

I do believe film is a superior medium for telling stories. As it captures reality much closer to how we humans perceive it. A big reason for this is that every frame is slightly different. There is no digital pixel grid... photosensitive crystals in a film are slightly different in each frame, they are not exactly the same size, not exactly in same spots and they come in different amounts. This gives film this imperfect look we humans see with our eyes. This is nearly impossible to replicate with digital cameras.

Silly

its weird and I think is because I was first introduce to film than digital, but film feel more real and digital feel more enhanced reality, which is probably the other way around, bit for me film grounds a movie which is great.

here’s the simple answer: we, as human beings, are driven towards is more natural for us. In this case photochemical reactions in the development of film is possible through solutions and elements (which can be found in nature). We must understand that we will always look forward something similar to us (nature) since we belongs to it. Technology can help us with its fantastic tools, but marketing takes us to chase always the last brand new technologies, instead we should focus more on the craft and arts itself sometimes. Great video, this topic is based on an anthropological behavior by ourselves

This video essay would be so much better if it were shot on film, practice what you preach!

If digital existed first, no one would invent film. People just think film “looks better” because of nostalgia and the appeal to nature logical fallacy

I enjoyed this video, but I didn't enjoy 06:06 where you forgot the name of the cinematographer of The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey. I assume you scripted this before you shot it, but even if the whole thing was on-the-fly, you could look it up on your phone and just cut that part out. And yes, I know you put it on screen after, but that doesn't change my criticism. It feels lazy.