most likely because film is extremely expensive, really inconvenient and just unbelievably hard to shoot a film with considering you’re in film school. For a young filmmaker, digital is your best friend, it’s much easier, more accessible, cheaper, easier to edit, plus no one watching your short film will even care that it’s shot on film or digital. Your biggest problem as a student filmmaker shouldn’t be celluloid film when there’s a perfectly fine alternative to it, maybe in the future when you actually have money and time etc. Shooting on film as a student filmmaker who’s just starting out is just a huge waste of money and time, focus on story, characters, what’s in the frame, creating emotion etc before you start worrying about film or digital
I went to film school, too, and I wish the digital cameras of today had been available back then. Trying to figure out lighting and exposure without seeing the results immediately was super difficult and incredibly expensive. How many students have tons of cash to blow on film stock, processing, and printing?
I think that the whole debate is silly. There's room for film AND digital because they each play their own role. Moving from film to digital isn't a step backwards, it's a step sideways to an alternative way of doing things with its own risks and rewards. Digital is what got me into moviemaking. It's the best gateway into moviemaking that has ever existed. Right now, anyone can pick up a digital camera, or even a smartphone, and start themselves down the long path towards their first feature film. I'm not there yet, but I wouldn't have even STARTED if not for digital. It's crucial for independent films. There are so many artists out there who have a chance to share their vision because of digital. Of course film is lovely too. I prefer to watch films that are shot and projected on film as opposed to digital, and I hope to one day shoot on film myself, but I understand that the format just isn't feasible for most anymore. I want digital to keep improving and inspiring other young people out there to do the impossible but I also want film to stick around forever, for those special projects that deserve a magical touch.
+Sean Gentry I couldn't agree with you more...right on. As I keep saying and repeating myself I like both and I think both have an interesting quality. I don't think digital is a step backwards either. I think both get the job done. I am just not real fast to say film is necessarily the "better picture"..lastly as I said before. You can be creative with either and neither will be a hindrance as long as you have a talent to create
+Sean Gentry Of course there is room for film *and* digital. This is obvious to any remotely rational person and basically goes without saying. The problem comes in where you have these sad people (99.5% of whom are lonely white or Asian males) who have invested three to four months worth of mortgage payments (which they can barely afford on their middle management and cubicle job salaries) in the latest technology and, being hounded by either a searing conscience or an aggrieved spouse (or both) are gripped by an overwhelming compulsion to go on the internet and rationalize their exaggerated expenditures in a most extreme and comical fashion. And it is those who have stuck by film who are often the objects of their most intense exasperated diatribes. The reason for this is not too hard to discern. One can always look down one's nose the digital user with old technology and pity them as poor fellows lacking the resources necessary to rise to the occasion of the finest and the best. In 2015, staunch film advocates are not so easily dismissed, however, as the cost such entails in the wake of the collapse of the consumer film market bespeaks a commitment having little to do with mere thrift. This is particularly vexing for those enslaved by the digital corporate business model of planned obsolescence: after all, they are spending thousands upon thousands of dollars every few years in order to gain entrance into a medium that a very many discerning persons would in fact reject, at ANY cost, in preference to the high quality mechanical and electronic 35mm cameras which have long been discarded by the majority as "obsolete". The tendency to attack film as "hopelessly outdated" and "inferior" is simply a defense mechanism of conformists and consumerist dupes who have internalized the interests and imperatives of a particular kind of business enterprise.
+desertdispatch I agree, it's like saying watercolors are the death of oil painting or pastels. False premises. The media increases, the artist just has more choice now.
Wait until you're 80, and your grand son explains to you about some kind of new game, and you're listening with your mouth open. :'-) And you're like "Son, in my days we had ultra-wide 4k monitors" and he's laughing at you, and your stories about silly old tech.
I admire Tarantino even more now. I'm always underwhelmed with the look and performance of digital media. Film has much more depth, vision, scope, and character. It seems to "understand" light and shadow and it portrays them beautifully. I'd always go with film. It's truly cinematic.
Probably the only thing I would agree with him, but despite making pathetic boring movies, on that part he's 100% right. Movies = dreams, and in order to produce the magical dreamy quality, they must be on celluloid, and in black and white/silver screen (with only few exceptions)
I prefer film over digital, but I don't agree with QT. Digital also takes 24 pictures a second as does film. There is no difference. I agree more with Nolan in that it really is a matter of preference but it is a fact that film can be archived and remastered much better than digital ever could.
+Tony “The BoneShackles” Dupre Agreed, QT is just being a snob. David Lynch and Terrence Malick, two of the greatest living filmmakers use digital, so if it good enough for them, its good enough for me.
In fact, most of the first ever digital cinema cameras were only 23.978. "30p" didn't come around until DSLRs. 30p in my opinion is completely useless.
Something else I think worth noting is that isn't the whole story. Tarantino's best friend, Robert Rodriguez, has shot exclusively on digital since 2003 and is one of the most vocal supporters of it. Tarantino has said that he thinks Rodriguez's digital work is fantastic because he feels that the man is uniquely suited to the format in a way not all directors are, and Tarantino actually guest-directed a scene shot digitally for Sin City without objection. In other words, he's just putting on his usual aggressive persona for this interview. When it comes down to it, he'll watch digital and even shoot digital when asked to- he just doesn't think it's right for every movie, and that I think everyone can agree with.
James Gunn, the director of both Guardians of the Galaxy, had this to say about choosing to shoot Guardians 2 on the digital Red Weapon 8K camera. "When you're shooting a film at the level of Guardians of the Galaxy, the cost of film vs. digital is negligible - for me it's an aesthetic and creative choice. Firstly, I believe when shooting on a format like the Red Weapon 8K or the Alexa 65, the amount of data is so massive - certainly more so than on a strip of film - that it gives you more freedom in production and post production to create exactly the film you want to create than actual film does. As anyone who has ever worked with me knows, I am a control freak. Such high resolution gives me the ability to control ever single bit of data (to do so would take a long time, but at least the knowledge comforts me). Many filmmakers look to essentially replicate the look of film, but I don't share that interest. I believe that innovations in camera and shooting technologies as well as visual and practical effects gives us the ability to create a new aesthetic of film, one different from what the past has offered but equally beautiful - perhaps even more so. I respect many of the filmmakers who continue to shoot on film - and some of the most gorgeous movies of 2015 have been in that format. But I think sometimes that the love of actual film is based in nostalgia more than it is in objective beauty. Many filmmakers remember the films of their youth and want to replicate that magic. For me, I'm interested in being one of the many who help to create a new kind of magic that will usher the cinematic experience into the future. What will the children of today think of fondly with nostalgia?"
@@subnormal2953 Doesn't matter if you didn't like the aesthetic of the movie, what mattered was that digital was the only way he felt he could bring his vision to life. Grainy 35mm film stock would have not only been poorly suited for the massive VFX heavy production, but also would have not looked the way it did. I've shot on film and digital, and I like both for different reasons. Also, whether the movie was "mediocre" or not is irrelevant from my point. Plenty of bad movies were shot on film, plenty of great ones shot digitally, and vice versa, that wasn't the point.
@@OakViewFilms I completely agree with the point you are trying to make, actually, the thing I really don’t agree with is the part where James Gun said that he is interested in helping to create something new... which he didn’t do at all. There is nothing new about the way he shot guardians 2. Of course a movie like guardians couldn’t be shot on anything but digital, but the point here is that shooting on film can’t be replicated on digital, one is not better or worst than the other one, they are different and both are impossible to truly replicate, no matter how much mister gun says you couldn’t tell a difference... you can, it’s not just “nostalgia”, people like Quentin or Nolan or PTA don’t shoot on film just because it’s nostalgic.
+soulbrothanumbuh3 Seriously, he sounds insane. Does he not understand that film shown on a digital projection is the exact same illusion? Digital has refresh rates like film, and both mediums are still recorded at the same 24 fps, it's just a different means of recording/projection. And despite him saying all this, he still distributes his films for digital projection too.
+soulbrothanumbuh3 It is, but that's besides the point. The point is the film itself. Film aesthetically looks and behaves differently than digital frames (color, motion, light -- you are capturing virgin images, whereas with digital it's only an "interpretation" of what the sensor sees.) This is why film will always surpass digital in many ways. It's like arguing that a robot is more human than, a human.
+Brett Plank how so? Is it not true that digital films run at 24 fps like real film? I realize you can tell the difference, their are obvious differences from film and digital artifacts, but the point remains the illusion is more or less the same.
Im 27 and started in film amidst both formats, I've done every job on set that can be done, and any single person who has either had 35mm the length of their career, or someone who has learned on both film and digital, has a distinctly different view on filmvsdigital than these slr kids of late, we need to stick with celluoid stock. It REALLY is the magic of film.
I believe that Filmmakers should have a choice in what format they’d like to use to make movies. I’ve seen plenty of great movies shot on both formats.
Digital is easier to use and makes movie productions quicker. Movies should be a slow process and not an easy one. What is produced should be of the highest quality and should be art but that is not the case today.
I'm so tired of this directors being so apocalyptic about digital. There's a documentary, "Side by Side", about this subject and everytime a director is so negative about digital shooting (whether is Aronofsky, Nolan or Tarantino) I remember a quote of Soderbergh that I completely agree with. "It seems hypocritical if you're a creative person to be saying no to anything, specially anything new. It's the definition of your job to be exploring, to be evolving, to create new knowledge" I understand that some of them prefer to wok with film, and the option should exist in the future to anyone who wants to use it, but being so negative about this technology, talking that nothing ever will be as good as film, is stupid. Cinema evolves, get over it. They announced the death of cinema when sound came in, when color came in, when special effects came in, etc... and guest what? Cinema still very much alive, just in a different way.
englandsensation I think he was defending the supposed death of film rather than being negative about today's technology. Which by the way, most people choose a format solely on supposed cost savings and NOT necessarily if it's correct for story. Sodebergh is an anomaly as he is his own DP. Control freaks embrace digital technology like you wouldn't believe. Film is still a collaborative art. Maybe the discussion should be more about personalities rather than format?
englandsensation The reason you're hearing people bemoan the advent of digital filmmaking is because it standardizes the process, and therefore neuters it. Let's say you're a painter, but you're unique in that you assemble your own materials for paint from a specific corner of the world. No one else has paints like yours, and therefore no one makes art like yours. Now imagine your entire artistic realm is overtaken by standardized brushes, paints, and canvases. These are now your tools, put in place because it's newer, an "evolution" in the medium. Your artwork is still unique in that it came from your hand, but that's where the craftsmanship ends. Sure, you can pump out 300% more paintings in a year, but the resulting work is only 30% of what you once crafted. Creative options have given way to standardized ease, and thus creativity itself has been lost. That's why people like Tarantino and Nolan continue to use and argue for traditional film.
Statuskuo75 The costs of Hollywood movies have just gone up and its not because of the cameras but because of the actors. So I really doubt digital is a choice of costs when it comes to Hollywood, its easier, faster and better in terms of everything compared to film. Film is more of an aesthetically format whereas digital is a medium were you gain total control over your pictures and you can define the very aesthetics instead of being bound to them by a roll of film. People are just being overly emotional about film versus digital, we live in a Capitalist society of course the cheaper and better shit is going to win over something far more expensive, time consuming and pain in the ass in general to work with. People should move to DPRK or China if they still want to shoot film as they still manufacture 35mm and 70mm rolls for cinema cameras, yes I did just include the DPRK because in matter of fact they are one of the few countries who still manufacture cinema film rolls.
***** I live in the United States where Kodak still functions fine. And as a choice. Easier/cheaper/faster...to what end? Recently "Tangerine" was shown at Sundance...a flick completely shot on iPhone. Perfect for the subject? Maybe. Would you say iPhone is easier/cheaper/faster than RED, Arri Alexa. ABSOLUTELY. should we shoot everything on iPhone then? I personally choose to shoot film because there is a quality to it that people respond to, and to the type of stories I tell. To that, I will spend the effort to get that look. I have arguments with another guy here in post about it. He likes to tell me you can replicate a film look onto any digital file. But there is no LUT for print.As I've mentioned before, the argument for digital and film isn't even in the same arena. A film print (strictly photochemical) kills digital. But now that that is a very slim option, guess the population got what it wanted. Cheap & fast.
Statuskuo75 FIlm is by no means superior to the beastly electronic photon catchers produced by Sony, Arri and so on, fuck Red. iPhone footage looks absolutely crap compared to a 70mm digital sensor cinema camera. And how many would get into media production if we still used analogue? There be FAR less people because of the costs and expertise needed for this, we would need countries like the Soviet Union who actually bothered to fund people who wanted to make film, try that in the west were you have to relay everything on your pocket. Does not work so great does it? Even in my country (Norway) you can get funding but not for buying camera equipment only for renting. And if we were going to rent a film camera you they would not want to hand out a 35mm shooter to us. BUT, if you got the cash, the infrastructure, the knowledge then for all its worth, shoot film. How many will actually get to see film on a film projector though? Not many I LIKE the look of film, I would love to shoot film if I could, but I cannot its too expensive and there is not a damn soul in Norway who develops 16mm or 35mm rolls. And I want to take photos with film but I cannot that either, no one here develops negatives I could shoot slides and just scan them but yeah... Scanners... Expensive... I like the format I want to use it but when you live in a Capitalist society were time and money is everything its not really going to work out so great.
Think of your favorite 3 movies. Now ask yourself if being shot digitally or on film changed anything about the story, characters, dialogue or anything that you liked about them. I feel like this is hipster nonsense. If you want to listen to your vinyl then go ahead, but don't tell me that when I listen to "The times they are a-changing" on my Ipod it's somehow not as good of a song.
EisforEvil It's about the quality of the medium not the quality of the content. I can stream the Godfather on my phone and watch it in poor condition but it would obviously be a more enjoyable experience to watch it on a big screen in surround sound. The differences between film and digital are clearly not as blatant as that but there are differences nonetheless which as a result warrant comparison.
You can see where Quentin is coming from because he loves classic cinema so much, I agree with him to an extent that a full on established filmmaker shouldn't shoot digital, it should be a stepping stone for Indies. Atleast until digital surpasses film.
The 'look' of a film is one thing that does change and believe it or not, how a film looks is a big deal. A much bigger deal than you likely realize. The look of a film can do all sorts of things to enhance or even detract from a film. It's the reason why certain directors prefer to shoot in certain formats with particular camera - to get a desired 'look and feel'.
Of course he does not know a thing about digital...he never had to. He CAN shoot whatever project on 35mm without any moderation. That's not only romantic, it is also a luxury in this century.
To all the assholes constantly complaining about digital ruining movies, do you have any idea how much easier it makes it for independent filmmakers to create their work without interference from studios? You can now shoot, edit, and distribute your work a hell of a lot easier, and that is a great thing. Also, its a personal preference. So shoot on what you like, but I will stick to digital.
Yeah which is also the reason why 99.9% of what 'independent filmmakers' are producing nowadays is derivative pedestrian crap. All of this digital innovation is great until you consider the repercussions.
OhMyGod It makes it so much easier for more people to make more movies. Of course there's going to be movies you don't like. But the positive far outweighs the negative.
Seth Robinson That's a double edged sword you moron"Great,now everybody can make movies"...that statement can be read in 2 ways...in an honest or an ironic/sarcastic wayI think you know what I mean
***** Fuck off, you elitist ass. Anyone who wants to make a movie, and put all the time and the effort involved in the process, should have the ability to do it. All digital does is make it a hell of a lot cheaper. Don't call me a moron when you can't even properly use punctuation or the space bar.
When you're watching digital film, you are also watching a series of still frame data being played back. We're now at 4K...quite soon I suppose it'll be more; perhaps 8k. I doubt beyond that the human eye will be able to see the difference. Soon the dynamic range will out perform film. When I go to the movies, I want to see a good story.
If you want a good story, you read a book. When you go to the movies, you see a visual story. The visual part is perhaps the most important. PS. I'm not supporting Film or Digital, I am just commenting on your flawed last sentence.
Stella Deli I still don't understand. Even a sequence of images without dialogue, needs to be written. Where it is possible that you and I part company creatively, is that you may not want a filmmaker to guide the audience towards a narrative. Possibly this is true, I don't know because I require you to be clearer in your point. Perhaps you prefer the ambiguity of the audience having to invent what's happening, which has a certain value, but often it's because the filmmaker/artist has no personal idea himself. This isn't art to me. My comments if wrong may prompt you to be explicit in what you mean.
***** I hadn't denied that. I said that soon we'll be at 8K, meaning the digital resolution keeps getting higher, I'm implying it will eventually become higher than the human eye can see. I don't know what that resolution is. Perhaps it's 8k on a monitor, maybe it's 12k on a 40 foot screen, but whatever it is, it will get there.
+desertdispatch Its not about quality. Its about the feels. Film feels more alive. Think of it like the difference between CD music and Vinyl records. Sure CD is so crisp and clean and no problems in output. But Vinyl has a presence to it where you feel it in the air. That is how film is. All the grains mean something. But that does not mean I am against digital, I just get what Quentin is saying.
desertdispatch I will admit, I do think that artists who have only worked with digital and were not around when digital wasn't either are not as "Talented" in my opinion as those who worked in the past with only film. I say that because in the past with film, you could not take 1000 photos or see the image you took on the spot and tell if you got the shot or if the light was bad. The pressure was higher to be professional and trust your skill that you got the shot on the first go. Not to say their aren't great artists in digital, but now a lot more people are doing film and photos who probably would not have done in the past because of how hard it was in the past and how much more patience was required.
There's another magic as well. The image you capure gets impressed on the 35mm film by light. This somewhat impresses the whole matter of the actors, the places, the energy, the whole set on that 35mm film. Then another light reverses it back on a white screen giving the spectator a real, "physic" touch of those elements. I'm talking about matter transfer via light. The real matter shot on the set travels via light straight to the cinema and the audience. Digital era kills all that process since the matter is no longer travelling in a phisic way but it's dematerialized and transformed into digits, which have no physic nature. That's why this is simple broadcasting and not Cinema.
@@HOTD108_true. But not for long. 16k resolution will have reached close to the theoretical max resolution of 35mm film (and likely well surpassed it given finite resolution due to lens, etc).
@@williambyrne5513 You hit the nail on the head. It's the flaws of it that make it perfect. It's why synths in the 80's are still fantastic due to the imperfection.
Quentin, you could not have put it any better, film is live, it breaths and captures life on something that can not be changed like digital can. you are my hero.
What I like about Tarantino is that sometimes he strikes gold, most of the time does well, and sometimes falls flat. But what ever happens, all his movies have an undertone of "hey, I made this movie. If you like it, awesome. If you don't, like I give a fuck"
I completely agree. I had one chance at SAIC we watched an actual film in my performance art history class and it was on surrealism and the experience was by far more rich. Having access to actual films on 35 mm with the glow of the lightbulb behind it would be worthier than a huge lottery. Wow. It's to me
An actual film frame, created by the exposure to light, is a direct physical consequence of what's in front of the camera. Re-projecting it later then recreates for the audience a continuous physical link to the recording. Digital's just instructions for recreating an image, not an actual, real physical link to the pro-filmic events. It's that real connection to the time & place where the action happened, which I think is what he wanted to say, but didn't find very good words to.
Quentin's one of my favorite filmmakers, but I'll say this: If he's got that big a problem with digital, then, frankly, move aside. I or any other number of young filmmakers will happily take his place, and we'll shoot on digital without complaint.
I do not see digital as the death of cinema. I saw Dunkirk in 70mm iMax and while I enjoyed the experience, it was my first experience with film in years, and I don't miss the color flicker and burn marks and hand off jumps at all. I personally will take digital projection anytime. As for shooting, I think whatever floats the directors boat, but I think cinematographers like Deakins and Lubezki have proven that digitally shot films can be as beautiful as anything shot on film
Digital looks horrible and it is the main reason why people are not going to the cinema because they can see the exact same thing at home. What most people do not realize is that the vast majority of digital theatres are showing 2k source productions and not 4k. Digital cannot even come close to the color details of film projectors. I have also seen digital theatre images stutter so they are not perfect either.
@@bighands69 you were wrong, look at Roger Deakins and Lubezki's works. It's mostly digital and look very good. And who tf you are? When Deakins and Lubezki has prove the audience that digital also can be look as good as film.
@@bighands69 This is partly true, it's still different than watching something at home, but I watched many movies projected on film, some I watched both on film and on 4k, and watching them projected digitally almost feels like I just have a huge tv or a digital projector at home. I could watch a bad movie projected on film and still enjoy it. It's like the difference between watching a painting and watching a perfect print of a painting, or a screen with a high resolution scan of the painting.
@@ruthlessflames7803 Movies like Pitch Black, Blade or Resident Evil look a lot better than Sicario or The Revenant or Birdman. It's not even close, and those were almost considered b-movies back then. Sicario would have been a better movie if it was shot on film, instead it just looks like a really good tv show.
I feel this film versus digital is like watching to children arguing about what candy is better. It does not fucking matter what is better and what is not, they are different, they look different and they work differently. Its aesthetically different formats, one is easier and another is more expensive to use. I mean, in the end its just a personal preference really, I bet no one would be able to see the difference between two shots, one filmed on analogue 35mm and another filmed digitally and then both are transferred to a 35mm copy and shown. In the end its not about what its filmed on but more about what its projected with. Because you can easily replicate analogue film today with digital equipment.
Statuskuo75 Sadly in many places like were I live there are no lab to develop the roll so I would have to develop it on my own which would be hazardous and time consuming something I rather not go through. I for one like both formats and I always wanted to shoot film sadly its just not physically possible for me economical wise. I did try to push for shooting a short film here in Norway on 70mm as a cinematographer but they just did not want to do it even when I did make a perfectly viable plan also being cheaper, the funding for short/art films in Norway does not give out money for buying equipment only renting it and no one rents film cameras anymore. Even when the 70mm Fuji was quite cheap on eBay for a short film shootout. Digital will look nice too if you put extra care on it.
***** Nothing you stated here is relevant whatsoever, and yes you can match the resolution of a 120 film, 59 mgapixels says anything to you? Digital takes more time with processing? No this is absurd, its ready the moment you take the image in a JPEG file if you choose so, post-production is 'OPTIONAL' and takes no more than 5 - 10 minutes to do fast and easy adjustments you would in a darkroom to a film for 30 min to 3 hours. And updating your digital equipment is a choice not a need, my Canon 400D is almost a decade old now and still works just fine of course it does not match my Samsung NX1 in any way or form but its not BAD its got character, its got a certain look to its images. Film is nice, but I am a digital shooter and always will be a digital shooter people say digital cannot have characteristics, it can sometimes have more characteristics than film does, people say digital is too clean this is not true most of the time. Digital have their quarks and artefacts too, noise in digital is random just like in film now while its true that most digital noise is not as pleasing to the eye as film grain its funny to see digital camera manufacturers trying to make digital noise look more and more like film grain, Samsung is the one that has come closest to this with its fine grain like noise other like Nikon, Fuji, Olympics has petty nice ISO noise as well. Film is purely an aesthetically format nowadays there is nothing wrong with film its great, I shoot APS film still because they develop it locally and its a great little format, the images looks good and I can get them in a digital file to edit if I wished for. People saying film is better than digital or the opposite knows not very much about the opposite and is more subjective than objective, they have their up and down each if you have all the equipment for film then film is great, if you do not have that kind of money well digital is cheaper that is just how life is and most people choose cheaper and easier workflows.
***** Ehm, the Hasseblad H5D-60 which shoots 60 megapixels is 43 thousand dollars not the fictional 80k+ you stated. Also you can get a full frame Canon EOS 5DS R which shoots 50 megapixels for 3 899 USD and whether you want to replace this camera in a time span is a choice not a need, you are confusing the terms which is kind of sad. Oh wow you need a laptop, and what do you need with film? A dedicated dark room? Huge amount of liquids like developer, stopper and what not, a dry closet and you also need photo paper to even view the images properly. And please do not come to me with the bullshit that you can just go to local store and have them do it all for a fee because you can go to the library and borrow a damn computer and do your work there, oh yes there is actually Photoshop in the browser its called 'Creative Cloud' looks like you are out of argument at this point. And why do you need to replace your laptop every 3 years? I have laptops from 2001 that works just fine, some of them run Photoshop CS5 fluently or even the newest lightroom CC 2015 You must treat your stuff very badly if it only lasts 3 years for you. And no you do not need the latest in software, load of bollocks on your part, learning curves... Tell me about it, I guess you came into this world knowing how to shoot film and develop it without learning anything, right? What am I missing on? The extra dynamic range? The colour depth? 4k video? 12k video? 5 billion fps slow motion? 50 trillion megapixels? I am starting to think you really are not a film shooter at all, in fact it kind of sounds like you have no idea what photography is about, you seem more focused on equipment than the actual taking photo part. Yes you got a Leica, good for you I suppose, also the Nikkor Coolscan 4000 only has a DPI resolution scan of 18 megapixels, my Samsung NX1 shoots 28 megapixel images. And unless you been living under a cave many cameras nowadays surpass 35mm film in dynamic range and colour depth and specially resolution like many years ago. Point and shoot digital camera, where do I even begin...
Quenten's absolutely right about film. It's still better than the best digital camera. It has better res 70mm has about 8K I'm told. Film has more exposure latitude so highlights don't blow out like digital. I personally think the photo chemical process mimics true life closer than electronic with compression, logarithms,etc. having said that I shoot more digital now as the work flow and my clients want everything now.
Some reasons I prefer film over digital: 1) Grain looks better than noise. If your 35mm looks crappy, audience might consider it stylistic. If digital looks crappy, it is considered crappy. 2) Colors. It is true that with digital coloring of 35mm it´s hard to tell difference between celluloid and graded RAW digital; but the true remains, that nothing beets film, especially skin tones. Cameras like Alexa or Red might have that 35mm structure but feel like someone took away the life of their images. Film will always look naturalistic, while digital plastic. 3) Eternity. Red and Sony keep constantly upgrading, but why no such need for Panavision or analog Arri? Take out your today´s digital camera in 2-3 years. People will laugh at you. Now do the same with your analog and you meet the curiosity.
It's like people bashing CGI when in reality CGI is just an other tool ,CGI can be truly photorealistic but it costs money and is time consuming and if composited well people won't even notice it
Digital noise actually looks good in movies like Collateral or Miami Vice, the problem is that most digital movies don't really use digital for artistic purposes but simply cause it's more convenient. It's also about what's being projected, I've seen The Matrix and Batman Returns on film and then on digital, both were shot on film and while the 4k version or whatever it was looked great, it didn't look as good as it did when projected on film. I was literally amazed by how good Batman Returns looked and it made it a better movie, and I only got half the experience when it was projected digitally.
That's dumb, the only thing that matters in a book is the content, not how it is presented. A story written in toilet paper is just as good as the same story written in a gold book.
Tim Roth on the Eightfull Seven said something interesting.... "I think for the actors,it's like Oh we are in a MOVIE, we are not in a hard drive we are in a movie." BTW Would you act the same if you knew the script was written on toilet paper?
This kind of stuff is subjective, so there is really no dumb or wrong choice. If it doesn't matter how a book is presented, the whole printing industry will be useless. But that's not the case, because, to some people, it's not only about reading, it's about flipping pages too.
Filmstock/celluloid does not make a shit movie any better. There are loads of good stories posted even here on youtube with $1000 digital cameras. Would capturing those in expensive negative format be conducive to something better?
@@Elusive_Pete actually film makes a shit movie better and you would know if you watched actual movies being projected on film. B-movies from 30 years ago looked better than the b-movies that come out now which look like they're shot on a phone and post-processed following youtube tutorials
Great cinematography is great cinematography, regardless of the medium. These days with cameras like the Arri Alexa, digital is becoming more and more cinematic. There are movies shot digitally with gorgeous cinematography (look at The Revenant). I also have a romanticized nostalgia for 35mm film, but I believe it can coexist with digital cinema. The importance of good storytelling and technical craftsmanship outweigh the importance of any one particular medium.
Bob Sewvello incorrect. Digital does not allow the mind to stutter properly.There is a brief gap as film moves where your eyes sees the pitch gap in between perfs move to which mimics the proper human rhythm of our eye blinks that make it more palpable to our brains. Digital bashes our head like a constant finger pointing into your shoulder.
jeffkantoku haha. No. as a frame passes through the gate, you are actually seeing the pitch in between the frames. This mimics a blink, and your brain needs to catch up. Thus engage. Digital doesn't have this effect.
I think many people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Blu-ray picture quality at home and digital projection in theatres. But most would be able to tell the difference of film (35 mm, etc.) compared to the other two.
I think what he's trying to convey to everyone is that he is an artist, his canvas is on film whereas digital is a copy of what the computer sees and not what the artist sees. He want's to give the viewer a picture of what he observed and wanted perfection to be shown to the audience. Digital is too perfect, it enhances everything from focus to the lighting, film only captures what it sees, he is a professional and as so he want's the public (and himself) to be captivated by the true artistry of his creation. To him it's just not natural to produce images that are made by a computer chip, if he want's it done that way then I support him and give him my respect but from what I've seen none of you appreciate anything put on film before digital was invented, Ben Hurr, Charlie Chaplin's The Kid, Quo Vadis, and Hitchcock's The Birds etc... were all crap and should be binned, you hypocrites! you enjoy movies from before digital but instantly hate them now that digital comes along, you are no different than a 12 year old kid who professes how great his console was in the schoolyard and then refuses to play it when a new console comes out simply because it's now OLD and uncool and the new one has better graphics and enhanced gameplay, you all sicken me! Just don't watch any film ever again, you don't deserve it!
I like digital because it gives independent filmmakers like myself to make our movies and distribute them completely independently but at the same time celluloid is the history of cinema and has existed for over 100 years so I love both
film was, for decades, the best way to capture an image. It no longer is... it will die. It costs exponentially more to purchase the stock, process, color correct, print, etc. In the end, there is no benefit. No one will choose to waste thousands of dollars on something that has no real tangible benefit. Most audiences cannot tell the difference any more. Digital Video can produce a superior image cheaper, faster, with no processing/lab fees, no need for prints. Most critically, it is accessible to people without major financial backing... so those who wished, but could not afford, to create cinema in the past now have opportunities that previously did not exist.
scromtrulescent this is incorrect. Film is superior. But has not been compared properly. Film to DI vs. Digital to DI is all people have seen. Film to film print is still superior in terms of color, depth and image quality. It's unfortunate that people have fallen into your way of thinking, b/c it's simply easy to pick up a 5D or GoPro or Red and decide it's convenient enough and make the excuse it's better. You realize (if you're professional) you need to back up LTO archives every 3 years as the hardware reader is not backwards compatible? In other words, continue to drain you long after movie is complete. People find this out the hard way.
I have to agree with Quentin here. It really is magic, and no amount of CGI or IMAX and 3D screenings can take away the classic and immortal power of film prints.
My favorite 2nd run theater converted in 2014. It's like the magic went out. No more velvetty organic texture of light shining through celluloid. Unless you're a stooge and don't even notice the difference, like most people. Film is beautiful. The depth, organic look, actual black dark scenes, not dark grey and better color. 35mm at theaters still has 2x more color than digital cinema projectors. Film has been with us since the late 1890's, and there's one last theater near me showing it, but they will be converting. I'll see Star Wars ep 7 on film as my goodbye to film..
***** I'm a film snob because I like film better? Going to the theaters is a glorified bluray with digital. I don't hate digital, it's just not the same. 35mm is better and not some computer chip.
Godard did make a 3D digital movie. At 85 years old. Considered the greatest film maker of all time with Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles. New technologies give directors new way to tell stories. A lot of people like you in the past didn't want films to have sound in films because they found it horrible and creepy. A lot of people didn't want to go from black and white movie to color because they thought it was ugly.
There have been some stellar productions shot digitally. It’s about laziness vs real commitment to the lifestyle as an artist. It’s never about the movies you make it’s about why you make them. Now maybe you can argue that the convenience of digital is removing the “why” of this but I don’t think so.
I absolutly agree with Quentin. Cinema is not reality. It's an artistic ambience, atmosphere. pictures taken from 35mm are not like camesocope and other digital camcorder.i have a red epic camera, the "best" digital cinema camera but even if pictures are incredibles compare to 35mm argentic camera, it make me not dreaming like older one.
It's astounding that cinemas actually *advertise* when they have digital projection. Trying to tell me digital projection is cool is like trying to tell me a V-12's cool when I already own a V-16.
The audio industry was in the same place 20 years ago when everything went fully digital until research revealed that audiences preferred the sound of analogue music recordings (Id's quote and reference but this isn't an essay). I would compare the video resolution war to the loudness war in audio mastering. I know I prefer the look of 35mm celluloid to any form of digital. CineAlta is the closest I've come but everything else looks too precise and over detailed these days, which is fine in a nature documentary or a football match but I don't need to see an actors spots and pimples, I'd take the film scratches and cigarette burns any day. I guess it's about individual preference. Also - On a 40 inch TV watching at 4K, you have to sit 2ft 11'' away to notice the difference from 1080p. So, 4K res in the average home is pointless anyway.
Thank you my friend. I totally agree, it does look amatuerish. You have to degrade the footge and add film filters to get near. I also really hate is what modern tv's do with it's motion blending soap opera effect! ARRRGHHH! :)
Times change, before we went from silent to sound, Black & White to Color, 2D to 3D and finally digital to film. Everything filmmakers and inventors have been working on have led to this moment in time. We're expanding and evolving, let's not stop now
You're completely right because digital is not celluloid "Film"but they are still movie makers,i don't care if the movie is shot on film or digital as long as it has a good story,plot,acting etc,at the end of the day it's just a tool for people to use however they want
We see light. Both digital and film are light being reflected on a screen, there is no magic. Digital is as well 24 -digital- frames per second. There is no significant difference. Filmmakers choosing between digital and film is a matter of limitation and style. If he wants to keep using film, that's OK, it is not a problem for the film. But you can still make the same movie using digital.
The discussion of film vs digital is something that's over. It was something valid in the late 90s when technology wasn't as good as it is now, hard drives were much more expensive and camera sensors were very poor. Now we are way ahead of it.
***** You know what I mean. Picture quality and CGI in digital is crap. You cannot have clean images because then the eyes focus on everything visible which is all over the screen. Where as with film, the eyes do their job in differentiating between shady and visibility. It's much better. Digital ruined the experience.....just like Tarantino says in this video.
***** Maybe easier to make movies but they look subpar. I am proud to state that I am about to enter production on a dramatic feature being shot on 16mm film.
***** You say "plenty of ugly looking films with crap CGI shot in 35mm." but the question is...what would those same films had looked like if shot digitally?
100% nailed it on the head. I can't believe someone as clever as QT could regress to such trivial notions of what makes 'cinema, cinema.' Purists have to get over the idea that no one goes to films because it's 'light interacting with emulsion.' The digital era is a gift, a true democratization of an otherwise costly and tedious medium. And this is coming from the mouth of a filmmaker trained as a DP through the film medium. Adapt or die, indeed.
***** You are ruining your own argument. Peter Jackson, for example...does The Hobbit compare with LOTR? Scorcese...does his modern films rival Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Raging Bull? Does Riley Scott's modern films hold a candle to Gladiator? Think about what you are saying before you say it.
***** What camera has surpassed 35mm? In what way has it surpassed it? Sounds like you spew a lot of things that you don't know about. Do you work for RED? Color rendition, latitude, highlight roll off, smooth motion handling are all very quantifiable things in films favor. In fact, 35mm may very well be higher than any dig. cams resolution due to Nyquist. If you think 35mm is 4k res then you have to sample at twice that to get the true resolution of film. It is just like audio for film only has a true 24 kHz range but you have to have 48k sampling to attain it.
***** First off, film is not "stuck." If you have noticed, the V3 stocks are the finest grain and high DR stocks Kodak has ever made. Secondly, you should have said "in my opinion, RED Dragon looks better than 35mm." Your opinion hardly has universal consensus. Even RED's own clip from the Dragon, of a man carrying a torch, showed that it clipped the highlights of the flame. Maybe to you, the dragon looks better but not to me and a great deal of others.
***** I say Dragon is good enough to choose over film but digital is going to get cheaper and higher res cameras are going to go into the hands of the consumer. I say film is better for the professional with a larger budget ($20,000 and above) and as a way to stay above the amateur who only has time for immediate results. I am planning on shooting a feature length film on 16mm but only if I can raise at least 15 grand. Obviously shooting on digital is better than not shooting at all but digital is not film.
It's not destroying anything. Digital isn't repressing people's ability to express their creativity. Truly one of the stupidest claims I've heard in a while.
Funny Robert Rodriguez and him have ever even collaborated at all considering Robert's polar opposite view. It must have been entertaining to see their pissing contest during the filming of Grindhouse. At any rate I'm glad to see that there are still directors who prefer film. I don't want digital to "kill" film. I wish this film vs digital war would just end! They *CAN* co-exist!
If they are being negative, let them be. It's subject to have a negative perspective while gaining an aesthetic decision, and neither are wrong. I prefer film over digital when I can differentiate between two of them. Grains,organic colors, softer images makes me happy. But I can't say its better or worse than digital as a fact. There is ipad pro,there is also brushes and pencils.
Film is better for large screens such as at the theatre where the grain and color details really shine and the 8k minimum resolution of film looks really clean and beautiful. Digital is great for small screens such as a tv where picture quality is not as important.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but I can tell the difference between film and digital. There is something more magical-looking about film, something that feels more organic and true-to-life. I would hate to edit in a film-only shop though, it's got to be brutal compared to digital. I do think we will move to an all-digital world though, in terms of film, it's just easier for everyone involved (except for perhaps the cinematographer and/or director if he wants a certain look).
I don't think Tarantino is making any sort of argument against student filmmakers, he's just saying that he personally prefers film. I think he knows first hand the costs of film these days versus the easy accessibility of video cameras. That easy easy access does not equate art necessarily (nor does access to film, but I hope you get my drift)
black-and-white images keep audiences focused on the characters and the story being told, helping them avoid distraction from gaudy, cluttered backgrounds. Each have their place
Another great advantage of digital is it puts movie making into the hands of ANYONE. Just like digital art, the low cost of high quality digital cameras has opened the doors to those who would not normally be able to afford the traditional route. What if were are 5 other Tarantinos who'd never be heard of because couldn't afford the cost of film?
He has a point about the "purity" of classic cinema, but at the end of the day his choice is strictly his and the medium of moviemaking is for the art of storytelling. I'm sure at the end of the day even a purist like QT can put aside his feelings of film vs digital capture/projection if the art of the story is decent. His philosophy on movies has nothing to do with movies themselves.
Digital is an inferiors system for theatres and it was rushed to the marketplace due to the hype of technology. Many theatres had to take out loans to fund those new theatre upgrades that were actually inferior. Most theatres struggle to get access to genuine 4k source productions and only can show 2k that sometimes gets up scaled. It is also the primary reason that people are not going to theatres because they cannot see the difference between the cinema and the home experience in terms of quality.
Movement is the change of position or states with time. When the position of light colors and intensity change on the screen with time , you got real movement, not an illusion .
It's like chosing a plastic canvas instead of a linen canvas to paint. One is more expensive, but the result will be miles above. You need to chose the best material for the art you work in, therefor film will always be the best choice for movie making. Light is captured directly on film by a chemical prosess, it's organic, it's almost alive. Each frame has its own signature, even when nothing is moving in the frame. Digital gives a dead, barren image, especialy when nothing is moving in frame.
I believe that true film making is being able to tell a story through beautiful images, how those images were conceived should not matter. The DP's ability to see and picture those images in their mind is the real art and talent visually, not the camera or format its on.
I've shot on 8mm and 16mm motion picture film. It's time consuming and expensive. If someone else is footing the bill, then fine they can pay for everything. But I'll never again come out of my pocket for film. I suggest people to shot on whatever they can shoot on and get their story out there. Next time some tells you to shoot on film, tell them to give you the money. That will shut them up quick.
I think it all depends on the type of movie you’re making. A big blockbuster action movie that involves a lot of cgi would be better shot in Digital. If you’re making a period piece drama or a western, then film is the way to go. Obviously there are exceptions and variations to this, but these are just some examples.
It can be shot on digital cameras and then mastered on film and it would look far superior to an digital movie shown at digital cinema. I have seen movies that were shot on digital that were then mastered to film and they looked far superior to a the digital cinema version.
Tarantino does not believe in tech, he believes in magic.
So any tech nerd can create a good movie? Or does it take something more?
😂😂
Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan shoot on film.
the illusion of movement with the integrity of exhibition following it all through to the end.
seems like he believes in tech, just less efficient and dynamic tech
I love how the interviewer's face is like "uhhhhhhhh what?"
I was literally told in film school: “You’re wasting your time!” regarding me wanting to learn film and wanting to shoot on film. Truly tragic....
It's the truth
most likely because film is extremely expensive, really inconvenient and just unbelievably hard to shoot a film with considering you’re in film school. For a young filmmaker, digital is your best friend, it’s much easier, more accessible, cheaper, easier to edit, plus no one watching your short film will even care that it’s shot on film or digital. Your biggest problem as a student filmmaker shouldn’t be celluloid film when there’s a perfectly fine alternative to it, maybe in the future when you actually have money and time etc. Shooting on film as a student filmmaker who’s just starting out is just a huge waste of money and time, focus on story, characters, what’s in the frame, creating emotion etc before you start worrying about film or digital
The idea of film that you can't fix mistakes later in post process, that is the magic we are missing!
I went to film school, too, and I wish the digital cameras of today had been available back then. Trying to figure out lighting and exposure without seeing the results immediately was super difficult and incredibly expensive. How many students have tons of cash to blow on film stock, processing, and printing?
Shooting on film is a luxury for A-list directors. For new film makers, it's a waste. All that matters is the story and the characters.
I want Quentin Tarantino to describe life
Read “Cinema Speculation”.
I think that the whole debate is silly. There's room for film AND digital because they each play their own role. Moving from film to digital isn't a step backwards, it's a step sideways to an alternative way of doing things with its own risks and rewards.
Digital is what got me into moviemaking. It's the best gateway into moviemaking that has ever existed. Right now, anyone can pick up a digital camera, or even a smartphone, and start themselves down the long path towards their first feature film. I'm not there yet, but I wouldn't have even STARTED if not for digital. It's crucial for independent films. There are so many artists out there who have a chance to share their vision because of digital.
Of course film is lovely too. I prefer to watch films that are shot and projected on film as opposed to digital, and I hope to one day shoot on film myself, but I understand that the format just isn't feasible for most anymore. I want digital to keep improving and inspiring other young people out there to do the impossible but I also want film to stick around forever, for those special projects that deserve a magical touch.
+Sean Gentry I couldn't agree with you more...right on. As I keep saying and repeating myself I like both and I think both have an interesting quality. I don't think digital is a step backwards either. I think both get the job done. I am just not real fast to say film is necessarily the "better picture"..lastly as I said before. You can be creative with either and neither will be a hindrance as long as you have a talent to create
+desertdispatch Exactly. What format you shoot on doesn't matter if you have something interesting to say.
Sean Gentry exactly...same with painting and drawing. If you have talent you can make spray paint work
+Sean Gentry Of course there is room for film *and* digital. This is obvious to any remotely rational person and basically goes without saying. The problem comes in where you have these sad people (99.5% of whom are lonely white or Asian males) who have invested three to four months worth of mortgage payments (which they can barely afford on their middle management and cubicle job salaries) in the latest technology and, being hounded by either a searing conscience or an aggrieved spouse (or both) are gripped by an overwhelming compulsion to go on the internet and rationalize their exaggerated expenditures in a most extreme and comical fashion. And it is those who have stuck by film who are often the objects of their most intense exasperated diatribes.
The reason for this is not too hard to discern. One can always look down one's nose the digital user with old technology and pity them as poor fellows lacking the resources necessary to rise to the occasion of the finest and the best. In 2015, staunch film advocates are not so easily dismissed, however, as the cost such entails in the wake of the collapse of the consumer film market bespeaks a commitment having little to do with mere thrift. This is particularly vexing for those enslaved by the digital corporate business model of planned obsolescence: after all, they are spending thousands upon thousands of dollars every few years in order to gain entrance into a medium that a very many discerning persons would in fact reject, at ANY cost, in preference to the high quality mechanical and electronic 35mm cameras which have long been discarded by the majority as "obsolete". The tendency to attack film as "hopelessly outdated" and "inferior" is simply a defense mechanism of conformists and consumerist dupes who have internalized the interests and imperatives of a particular kind of business enterprise.
+desertdispatch I agree, it's like saying watercolors are the death of oil painting or pastels. False premises. The media increases, the artist just has more choice now.
explaining how movies work to an old man be like 0:56
Wait until you're 80, and your grand son explains to you about some kind of new game, and you're listening with your mouth open. :'-) And you're like "Son, in my days we had ultra-wide 4k monitors" and he's laughing at you, and your stories about silly old tech.
@@GerbenWijnja haha
I admire Tarantino even more now. I'm always underwhelmed with the look and performance of digital media.
Film has much more depth, vision, scope, and character. It seems to "understand" light and shadow and it portrays them beautifully. I'd always go with film. It's truly cinematic.
Probably the only thing I would agree with him, but despite making pathetic boring movies, on that part he's 100% right. Movies = dreams, and in order to produce the magical dreamy quality, they must be on celluloid, and in black and white/silver screen (with only few exceptions)
Everything you say about film can be applied to digital as well.
@@EasternRomeOrthodoxyi dont think there is anything magical and dreamlike about beneath the planet of the apes.
I prefer film over digital, but I don't agree with QT. Digital also takes 24 pictures a second as does film. There is no difference. I agree more with Nolan in that it really is a matter of preference but it is a fact that film can be archived and remastered much better than digital ever could.
+Tony “The BoneShackles” Dupre Agreed, QT is just being a snob. David Lynch and Terrence Malick, two of the greatest living filmmakers use digital, so if it good enough for them, its good enough for me.
+TheReal META_Z (SUPERMF) don't base your creative choices off of what someone else is doing. Do your own thing. Create your own style and look.
Actually, digital is 29.97 frames per second.
Nope. Digital has all different frame rates. The most common is 23.978 although 24 is used, 25, 29.978, 75, 120, and higher.
In fact, most of the first ever digital cinema cameras were only 23.978. "30p" didn't come around until DSLRs. 30p in my opinion is completely useless.
0:57 - me when my teacher is explaining something
Something else I think worth noting is that isn't the whole story. Tarantino's best friend, Robert Rodriguez, has shot exclusively on digital since 2003 and is one of the most vocal supporters of it. Tarantino has said that he thinks Rodriguez's digital work is fantastic because he feels that the man is uniquely suited to the format in a way not all directors are, and Tarantino actually guest-directed a scene shot digitally for Sin City without objection.
In other words, he's just putting on his usual aggressive persona for this interview. When it comes down to it, he'll watch digital and even shoot digital when asked to- he just doesn't think it's right for every movie, and that I think everyone can agree with.
James Gunn, the director of both Guardians of the Galaxy, had this to say about choosing to shoot Guardians 2 on the digital Red Weapon 8K camera.
"When you're shooting a film at the level of Guardians of the Galaxy, the cost of film vs. digital is negligible - for me it's an aesthetic and creative choice.
Firstly, I believe when shooting on a format like the Red Weapon 8K or the Alexa 65, the amount of data is so massive - certainly more so than on a strip of film - that it gives you more freedom in production and post production to create exactly the film you want to create than actual film does. As anyone who has ever worked with me knows, I am a control freak. Such high resolution gives me the ability to control ever single bit of data (to do so would take a long time, but at least the knowledge comforts me). Many filmmakers look to essentially replicate the look of film, but I don't share that interest. I believe that innovations in camera and shooting technologies as well as visual and practical effects gives us the ability to create a new aesthetic of film, one different from what the past has offered but equally beautiful - perhaps even more so. I respect many of the filmmakers who continue to shoot on film - and some of the most gorgeous movies of 2015 have been in that format. But I think sometimes that the love of actual film is based in nostalgia more than it is in objective beauty. Many filmmakers remember the films of their youth and want to replicate that magic. For me, I'm interested in being one of the many who help to create a new kind of magic that will usher the cinematic experience into the future. What will the children of today think of fondly with nostalgia?"
Oakview Films at the end of the day he still made a mediocre movie that doesn’t look that good, so what was all that about
@@subnormal2953 Doesn't matter if you didn't like the aesthetic of the movie, what mattered was that digital was the only way he felt he could bring his vision to life. Grainy 35mm film stock would have not only been poorly suited for the massive VFX heavy production, but also would have not looked the way it did. I've shot on film and digital, and I like both for different reasons.
Also, whether the movie was "mediocre" or not is irrelevant from my point. Plenty of bad movies were shot on film, plenty of great ones shot digitally, and vice versa, that wasn't the point.
@@OakViewFilms I completely agree with the point you are trying to make, actually, the thing I really don’t agree with is the part where James Gun said that he is interested in helping to create something new... which he didn’t do at all. There is nothing new about the way he shot guardians 2.
Of course a movie like guardians couldn’t be shot on anything but digital, but the point here is that shooting on film can’t be replicated on digital, one is not better or worst than the other one, they are different and both are impossible to truly replicate, no matter how much mister gun says you couldn’t tell a difference... you can, it’s not just “nostalgia”, people like Quentin or Nolan or PTA don’t shoot on film just because it’s nostalgic.
B
The face at 0:58 is my favorite thing.
And digital isn't single frames being played back really fast?
+soulbrothanumbuh3 Seriously, he sounds insane. Does he not understand that film shown on a digital projection is the exact same illusion? Digital has refresh rates like film, and both mediums are still recorded at the same 24 fps, it's just a different means of recording/projection. And despite him saying all this, he still distributes his films for digital projection too.
Not exactly.
+soulbrothanumbuh3 It is, but that's besides the point. The point is the film itself. Film aesthetically looks and behaves differently than digital frames (color, motion, light -- you are capturing virgin images, whereas with digital it's only an "interpretation" of what the sensor sees.) This is why film will always surpass digital in many ways.
It's like arguing that a robot is more human than, a human.
+Brett Plank how so? Is it not true that digital films run at 24 fps like real film? I realize you can tell the difference, their are obvious differences from film and digital artifacts, but the point remains the illusion is more or less the same.
and you know that QT distributes and has his films projected digitally to get them to the masses, you can't argue that.
Im 27 and started in film amidst both formats, I've done every job on set that can be done, and any single person who has either had 35mm the length of their career, or someone who has learned on both film and digital, has a distinctly different view on filmvsdigital than these slr kids of late, we need to stick with celluoid stock. It REALLY is the magic of film.
I certainly wouldn't object to the use of digital for any artist, but I'd hate to see film to away completely. That, IMO, would be a huge loss.
I agree. Most of the people dissing film are, no doubt, people who haven't even worked with it or shot on it.
Matthew Phillips
It's becoming more and more difficult to do that these days.
I believe that Filmmakers should have a choice in what format they’d like to use to make movies. I’ve seen plenty of great movies shot on both formats.
@@jadenvanhess2341 I made my comment 6 years ago. And can still maintain that stock is better than digital.... prove me wrong ?
It's funny that one of QT's great friends and collaborators is Robert Rodriguez, one of the early proponents of digital.
Digital is easier to use and makes movie productions quicker. Movies should be a slow process and not an easy one. What is produced should be of the highest quality and should be art but that is not the case today.
I'm so tired of this directors being so apocalyptic about digital.
There's a documentary, "Side by Side", about this subject and everytime a director is so negative about digital shooting (whether is Aronofsky, Nolan or Tarantino) I remember a quote of Soderbergh that I completely agree with.
"It seems hypocritical if you're a creative person to be saying no to anything, specially anything new. It's the definition of your job to be exploring, to be evolving, to create new knowledge"
I understand that some of them prefer to wok with film, and the option should exist in the future to anyone who wants to use it, but being so negative about this technology, talking that nothing ever will be as good as film, is stupid.
Cinema evolves, get over it.
They announced the death of cinema when sound came in, when color came in, when special effects came in, etc... and guest what? Cinema still very much alive, just in a different way.
englandsensation I think he was defending the supposed death of film rather than being negative about today's technology. Which by the way, most people choose a format solely on supposed cost savings and NOT necessarily if it's correct for story. Sodebergh is an anomaly as he is his own DP. Control freaks embrace digital technology like you wouldn't believe. Film is still a collaborative art. Maybe the discussion should be more about personalities rather than format?
englandsensation The reason you're hearing people bemoan the advent of digital filmmaking is because it standardizes the process, and therefore neuters it. Let's say you're a painter, but you're unique in that you assemble your own materials for paint from a specific corner of the world. No one else has paints like yours, and therefore no one makes art like yours. Now imagine your entire artistic realm is overtaken by standardized brushes, paints, and canvases. These are now your tools, put in place because it's newer, an "evolution" in the medium. Your artwork is still unique in that it came from your hand, but that's where the craftsmanship ends. Sure, you can pump out 300% more paintings in a year, but the resulting work is only 30% of what you once crafted. Creative options have given way to standardized ease, and thus creativity itself has been lost.
That's why people like Tarantino and Nolan continue to use and argue for traditional film.
Statuskuo75 The costs of Hollywood movies have just gone up and its not because of the cameras but because of the actors.
So I really doubt digital is a choice of costs when it comes to Hollywood, its easier, faster and better in terms of everything compared to film.
Film is more of an aesthetically format whereas digital is a medium were you gain total control over your pictures and you can define the very aesthetics instead of being bound to them by a roll of film.
People are just being overly emotional about film versus digital, we live in a Capitalist society of course the cheaper and better shit is going to win over something far more expensive, time consuming and pain in the ass in general to work with.
People should move to DPRK or China if they still want to shoot film as they still manufacture 35mm and 70mm rolls for cinema cameras, yes I did just include the DPRK because in matter of fact they are one of the few countries who still manufacture cinema film rolls.
*****
I live in the United States where Kodak still functions fine. And as a choice. Easier/cheaper/faster...to what end? Recently "Tangerine" was shown at Sundance...a flick completely shot on iPhone. Perfect for the subject? Maybe. Would you say iPhone is easier/cheaper/faster than RED, Arri Alexa. ABSOLUTELY. should we shoot everything on iPhone then? I personally choose to shoot film because there is a quality to it that people respond to, and to the type of stories I tell. To that, I will spend the effort to get that look. I have arguments with another guy here in post about it. He likes to tell me you can replicate a film look onto any digital file. But there is no LUT for print.As I've mentioned before, the argument for digital and film isn't even in the same arena. A film print (strictly photochemical) kills digital. But now that that is a very slim option, guess the population got what it wanted. Cheap & fast.
Statuskuo75 FIlm is by no means superior to the beastly electronic photon catchers produced by Sony, Arri and so on, fuck Red.
iPhone footage looks absolutely crap compared to a 70mm digital sensor cinema camera.
And how many would get into media production if we still used analogue? There be FAR less people because of the costs and expertise needed for this, we would need countries like the Soviet Union who actually bothered to fund people who wanted to make film, try that in the west were you have to relay everything on your pocket. Does not work so great does it?
Even in my country (Norway) you can get funding but not for buying camera equipment only for renting.
And if we were going to rent a film camera you they would not want to hand out a 35mm shooter to us.
BUT, if you got the cash, the infrastructure, the knowledge then for all its worth, shoot film.
How many will actually get to see film on a film projector though? Not many
I LIKE the look of film, I would love to shoot film if I could, but I cannot its too expensive and there is not a damn soul in Norway who develops 16mm or 35mm rolls.
And I want to take photos with film but I cannot that either, no one here develops negatives I could shoot slides and just scan them but yeah... Scanners... Expensive...
I like the format I want to use it but when you live in a Capitalist society were time and money is everything its not really going to work out so great.
Think of your favorite 3 movies. Now ask yourself if being shot digitally or on film changed anything about the story, characters, dialogue or anything that you liked about them.
I feel like this is hipster nonsense. If you want to listen to your vinyl then go ahead, but don't tell me that when I listen to "The times they are a-changing" on my Ipod it's somehow not as good of a song.
EisforEvil What the fuck does a fucking subculture have to do with anything of this?
Fuck is wrong with you?
EisforEvil It's about the quality of the medium not the quality of the content. I can stream the Godfather on my phone and watch it in poor condition but it would obviously be a more enjoyable experience to watch it on a big screen in surround sound. The differences between film and digital are clearly not as blatant as that but there are differences nonetheless which as a result warrant comparison.
You can see where Quentin is coming from because he loves classic cinema so much, I agree with him to an extent that a full on established filmmaker shouldn't shoot digital, it should be a stepping stone for Indies. Atleast until digital surpasses film.
EisforEvil Actually it would sound worse on your ipod as the digital file is compressed
The 'look' of a film is one thing that does change and believe it or not, how a film looks is a big deal. A much bigger deal than you likely realize. The look of a film can do all sorts of things to enhance or even detract from a film. It's the reason why certain directors prefer to shoot in certain formats with particular camera - to get a desired 'look and feel'.
Of course he does not know a thing about digital...he never had to. He CAN shoot whatever project on 35mm without any moderation. That's not only romantic, it is also a luxury in this century.
He my fav dirertor but his an idiot in thhys subject. He doesnt even have smartphone.
To all the assholes constantly complaining about digital ruining movies, do you have any idea how much easier it makes it for independent filmmakers to create their work without interference from studios? You can now shoot, edit, and distribute your work a hell of a lot easier, and that is a great thing. Also, its a personal preference. So shoot on what you like, but I will stick to digital.
Yeah which is also the reason why 99.9% of what 'independent filmmakers' are producing nowadays is derivative pedestrian crap. All of this digital innovation is great until you consider the repercussions.
OhMyGod It makes it so much easier for more people to make more movies. Of course there's going to be movies you don't like. But the positive far outweighs the negative.
Seth Robinson
Seth Robinson That's a double edged sword you moron"Great,now everybody can make movies"...that statement can be read in 2 ways...in an honest or an ironic/sarcastic wayI think you know what I mean
***** Fuck off, you elitist ass. Anyone who wants to make a movie, and put all the time and the effort involved in the process, should have the ability to do it. All digital does is make it a hell of a lot cheaper. Don't call me a moron when you can't even properly use punctuation or the space bar.
When you're watching digital film, you are also watching a series of still frame data being played back. We're now at 4K...quite soon I suppose it'll be more; perhaps 8k. I doubt beyond that the human eye will be able to see the difference. Soon the dynamic range will out perform film.
When I go to the movies, I want to see a good story.
If you want a good story, you read a book.
When you go to the movies, you see a visual story. The visual part is perhaps the most important.
PS. I'm not supporting Film or Digital, I am just commenting on your flawed last sentence.
Stella Deli It's not a flawed sentence, I said "see" a good story.
Avidcomp If you still don't get me, this is an example of what I mean to relay: blip.tv/renegadecut/rc-drive-7138511
Stella Deli I still don't understand. Even a sequence of images without dialogue, needs to be written.
Where it is possible that you and I part company creatively, is that you may not want a filmmaker to guide the audience towards a narrative. Possibly this is true, I don't know because I require you to be clearer in your point.
Perhaps you prefer the ambiguity of the audience having to invent what's happening, which has a certain value, but often it's because the filmmaker/artist has no personal idea himself. This isn't art to me.
My comments if wrong may prompt you to be explicit in what you mean.
***** I hadn't denied that. I said that soon we'll be at 8K, meaning the digital resolution keeps getting higher, I'm implying it will eventually become higher than the human eye can see.
I don't know what that resolution is. Perhaps it's 8k on a monitor, maybe it's 12k on a 40 foot screen, but whatever it is, it will get there.
I'm a video producer and I never heared anything more rediculous about film technology! Period.
Well this psycho dont even have smartphone. So its usrless to see logic here
...maybe no one had told him, that digital recordings are also stills ...mostly 24 frames per second....
but it isn't physical, that's what he means
@@anezzzz so? Doesnt make the story any worse
@@cro-magnum7642 looks clean tho
@@jothishprabu8 that probably only matters for movies with breathtaking visuals.
@@cro-magnum7642 have you ever seen a movie projected on film?
Personally, i don't care for these new fangled "talkies". To me, a 40 piece orchestra is part of the movie going experience.
Films that where shot in 1080p can't be up-scaled to 4K unlike films shot on 35mm, which sucks.
Kekoff People without studio backing can only gain so many resources.
+Kekoff i'm not against film mind you. but of the two I do not necessarily think film is the better picture quality of the two
+desertdispatch Its not about quality. Its about the feels. Film feels more alive. Think of it like the difference between CD music and Vinyl records. Sure CD is so crisp and clean and no problems in output. But Vinyl has a presence to it where you feel it in the air. That is how film is. All the grains mean something. But that does not mean I am against digital, I just get what Quentin is saying.
+gutz1981 fair enough. One of the gripes I read is you can't be creative with digital. I disagree. but fair enough
desertdispatch I will admit, I do think that artists who have only worked with digital and were not around when digital wasn't either are not as "Talented" in my opinion as those who worked in the past with only film. I say that because in the past with film, you could not take 1000 photos or see the image you took on the spot and tell if you got the shot or if the light was bad. The pressure was higher to be professional and trust your skill that you got the shot on the first go. Not to say their aren't great artists in digital, but now a lot more people are doing film and photos who probably would not have done in the past because of how hard it was in the past and how much more patience was required.
There's another magic as well. The image you capure gets impressed on the 35mm film by light. This somewhat impresses the whole matter of the actors, the places, the energy, the whole set on that 35mm film. Then another light reverses it back on a white screen giving the spectator a real, "physic" touch of those elements. I'm talking about matter transfer via light. The real matter shot on the set travels via light straight to the cinema and the audience. Digital era kills all that process since the matter is no longer travelling in a phisic way but it's dematerialized and transformed into digits, which have no physic nature. That's why this is simple broadcasting and not Cinema.
Hey Quentin, digital movies are also a series of still images!
Much lower quality images though, so he still has a point.
@@HOTD108_true. But not for long. 16k resolution will have reached close to the theoretical max resolution of 35mm film (and likely well surpassed it given finite resolution due to lens, etc).
@@HOTD108_ film is a more flawed and lower quality image, thats part of the apeal
@@williambyrne5513 You hit the nail on the head. It's the flaws of it that make it perfect.
It's why synths in the 80's are still fantastic due to the imperfection.
Quentin, you could not have put it any better, film is live, it breaths and captures life on something that can not be changed like digital can. you are my hero.
They are both as good as each other. Both have their flaws, both have their strengths.
A good director knows how and where to direct the audience's focus, regardless of if it's b/w or color. He knows how to construct a scene.
There’s something about analog that will always make what your filming seem more interesting. Less clarity allows for more imagination
Bad take
What I like about Tarantino is that sometimes he strikes gold, most of the time does well, and sometimes falls flat. But what ever happens, all his movies have an undertone of "hey, I made this movie. If you like it, awesome. If you don't, like I give a fuck"
I completely agree. I had one chance at SAIC we watched an actual film in my performance art history class and it was on surrealism and the experience was by far more rich. Having access to actual films on 35 mm with the glow of the lightbulb behind it would be worthier than a huge lottery. Wow. It's to me
Damn. Im a digital user, but Quentin is spot on
well said, buuuuttt.... I'm broke as fuck, so yeah.
An actual film frame, created by the exposure to light, is a direct physical consequence of what's in front of the camera. Re-projecting it later then recreates for the audience a continuous physical link to the recording. Digital's just instructions for recreating an image, not an actual, real physical link to the pro-filmic events. It's that real connection to the time & place where the action happened, which I think is what he wanted to say, but didn't find very good words to.
Everything he said I agree with. Film is magic.
the price of film is magical too, it's indeed unbelievable
If digital is poorly made it looks like shit, if film is poorly made still looks good.
I do like QT's statement on the illusion of motion and still pictures. It is very sensible. All art is illusion.
Film stock is the OG of cinematic acquisition, but how about the idea of electricity capturing images. Is that not magic?
Digital looks stale and lifeless.
This is exactly how I feel. Shooting/projecting movies on video has taken away my last reason to go to the theaters.
Quentin's one of my favorite filmmakers, but I'll say this: If he's got that big a problem with digital, then, frankly, move aside. I or any other number of young filmmakers will happily take his place, and we'll shoot on digital without complaint.
there is and will continue to be plently of complaint.
this doesn't make any sense at all.
Digital is cheap. Film is more expensive but better
I'm 100% with Tarantino here !
I do not see digital as the death of cinema. I saw Dunkirk in 70mm iMax and while I enjoyed the experience, it was my first experience with film in years, and I don't miss the color flicker and burn marks and hand off jumps at all. I personally will take digital projection anytime.
As for shooting, I think whatever floats the directors boat, but I think cinematographers like Deakins and Lubezki have proven that digitally shot films can be as beautiful as anything shot on film
Digital looks horrible and it is the main reason why people are not going to the cinema because they can see the exact same thing at home.
What most people do not realize is that the vast majority of digital theatres are showing 2k source productions and not 4k.
Digital cannot even come close to the color details of film projectors. I have also seen digital theatre images stutter so they are not perfect either.
@@bighands69 you were wrong, look at Roger Deakins and Lubezki's works. It's mostly digital and look very good. And who tf you are? When Deakins and Lubezki has prove the audience that digital also can be look as good as film.
@@bighands69 This is partly true, it's still different than watching something at home, but I watched many movies projected on film, some I watched both on film and on 4k, and watching them projected digitally almost feels like I just have a huge tv or a digital projector at home. I could watch a bad movie projected on film and still enjoy it.
It's like the difference between watching a painting and watching a perfect print of a painting, or a screen with a high resolution scan of the painting.
@@ruthlessflames7803 Movies like Pitch Black, Blade or Resident Evil look a lot better than Sicario or The Revenant or Birdman. It's not even close, and those were almost considered b-movies back then. Sicario would have been a better movie if it was shot on film, instead it just looks like a really good tv show.
He can say that.... but David Fincher's digital films sure look goddamn good.
I feel this film versus digital is like watching to children arguing about what candy is better.
It does not fucking matter what is better and what is not, they are different, they look different and they work differently.
Its aesthetically different formats, one is easier and another is more expensive to use.
I mean, in the end its just a personal preference really, I bet no one would be able to see the difference between two shots, one filmed on analogue 35mm and another filmed digitally and then both are transferred to a 35mm copy and shown.
In the end its not about what its filmed on but more about what its projected with.
Because you can easily replicate analogue film today with digital equipment.
Statuskuo75 Sadly in many places like were I live there are no lab to develop the roll so I would have to develop it on my own which would be hazardous and time consuming something I rather not go through.
I for one like both formats and I always wanted to shoot film sadly its just not physically possible for me economical wise.
I did try to push for shooting a short film here in Norway on 70mm as a cinematographer but they just did not want to do it even when I did make a perfectly viable plan also being cheaper, the funding for short/art films in Norway does not give out money for buying equipment only renting it and no one rents film cameras anymore.
Even when the 70mm Fuji was quite cheap on eBay for a short film shootout.
Digital will look nice too if you put extra care on it.
***** Nothing you stated here is relevant whatsoever, and yes you can match the resolution of a 120 film, 59 mgapixels says anything to you?
Digital takes more time with processing? No this is absurd, its ready the moment you take the image in a JPEG file if you choose so, post-production is 'OPTIONAL' and takes no more than 5 - 10 minutes to do fast and easy adjustments you would in a darkroom to a film for 30 min to 3 hours.
And updating your digital equipment is a choice not a need, my Canon 400D is almost a decade old now and still works just fine of course it does not match my Samsung NX1 in any way or form but its not BAD its got character, its got a certain look to its images.
Film is nice, but I am a digital shooter and always will be a digital shooter people say digital cannot have characteristics, it can sometimes have more characteristics than film does, people say digital is too clean this is not true most of the time.
Digital have their quarks and artefacts too, noise in digital is random just like in film now while its true that most digital noise is not as pleasing to the eye as film grain its funny to see digital camera manufacturers trying to make digital noise look more and more like film grain, Samsung is the one that has come closest to this with its fine grain like noise other like Nikon, Fuji, Olympics has petty nice ISO noise as well.
Film is purely an aesthetically format nowadays there is nothing wrong with film its great, I shoot APS film still because they develop it locally and its a great little format, the images looks good and I can get them in a digital file to edit if I wished for.
People saying film is better than digital or the opposite knows not very much about the opposite and is more subjective than objective, they have their up and down each if you have all the equipment for film then film is great, if you do not have that kind of money well digital is cheaper that is just how life is and most people choose cheaper and easier workflows.
not to be a dick, but it's not "120mm" film. it's just 120.
Statuskuo75 My mistake, fixed
***** Ehm, the Hasseblad H5D-60 which shoots 60 megapixels is 43 thousand dollars not the fictional 80k+ you stated.
Also you can get a full frame Canon EOS 5DS R which shoots 50 megapixels for 3 899 USD and whether you want to replace this camera in a time span is a choice not a need, you are confusing the terms which is kind of sad.
Oh wow you need a laptop, and what do you need with film? A dedicated dark room?
Huge amount of liquids like developer, stopper and what not, a dry closet and you also need photo paper to even view the images properly.
And please do not come to me with the bullshit that you can just go to local store and have them do it all for a fee because you can go to the library and borrow a damn computer and do your work there, oh yes there is actually Photoshop in the browser its called 'Creative Cloud' looks like you are out of argument at this point.
And why do you need to replace your laptop every 3 years? I have laptops from 2001 that works just fine, some of them run Photoshop CS5 fluently or even the newest lightroom CC 2015
You must treat your stuff very badly if it only lasts 3 years for you.
And no you do not need the latest in software, load of bollocks on your part, learning curves... Tell me about it, I guess you came into this world knowing how to shoot film and develop it without learning anything, right?
What am I missing on? The extra dynamic range? The colour depth? 4k video? 12k video? 5 billion fps slow motion? 50 trillion megapixels? I am starting to think you really are not a film shooter at all, in fact it kind of sounds like you have no idea what photography is about, you seem more focused on equipment than the actual taking photo part.
Yes you got a Leica, good for you I suppose, also the Nikkor Coolscan 4000 only has a DPI resolution scan of 18 megapixels, my Samsung NX1 shoots 28 megapixel images.
And unless you been living under a cave many cameras nowadays surpass 35mm film in dynamic range and colour depth and specially resolution like many years ago.
Point and shoot digital camera, where do I even begin...
Quenten's absolutely right about film. It's still better than the best digital camera. It has better res 70mm has about 8K I'm told. Film has more exposure latitude so highlights don't blow out like digital. I personally think the photo chemical process mimics true life closer than electronic with compression, logarithms,etc. having said that I shoot more digital now as the work flow and my clients want everything now.
Some reasons I prefer film over digital:
1) Grain looks better than noise. If your 35mm looks crappy, audience might consider it stylistic. If digital looks crappy, it is considered crappy.
2) Colors. It is true that with digital coloring of 35mm it´s hard to tell difference between celluloid and graded RAW digital; but the true remains, that nothing beets film, especially skin tones. Cameras like Alexa or Red might have that 35mm structure but feel like someone took away the life of their images. Film will always look naturalistic, while digital plastic.
3) Eternity. Red and Sony keep constantly upgrading, but why no such need for Panavision or analog Arri? Take out your today´s digital camera in 2-3 years. People will laugh at you. Now do the same with your analog and you meet the curiosity.
like i say..if you dont know what your doing film can look crappy too
herpderpmonkey its the artist..not the medium.
It's like people bashing CGI when in reality CGI is just an other tool ,CGI can be truly photorealistic but it costs money and is time consuming and if composited well people won't even notice it
Film Grain sucks.
Especially in dark scenes, digital recordings looks much better than if it would have been shot on film.
Digital noise actually looks good in movies like Collateral or Miami Vice, the problem is that most digital movies don't really use digital for artistic purposes but simply cause it's more convenient. It's also about what's being projected, I've seen The Matrix and Batman Returns on film and then on digital, both were shot on film and while the 4k version or whatever it was looked great, it didn't look as good as it did when projected on film. I was literally amazed by how good Batman Returns looked and it made it a better movie, and I only got half the experience when it was projected digitally.
Film has this grainy look to it
While digital has this kind of clean look to it
I love Tarantino movies but he's just so wrong, his argument is pretty much like "books are better than eBooks because you can't smell the paper" :D
Maybe to some people the smell of a book is equally important.
That's dumb, the only thing that matters in a book is the content, not how it is presented.
A story written in toilet paper is just as good as the same story written in a gold book.
Tim Roth on the Eightfull Seven said something interesting....
"I think for the actors,it's like Oh we are in a MOVIE, we are not in a hard drive we are in a movie."
BTW Would you act the same if you knew the script was written on toilet paper?
Yes, it's the information that matters not the form, it would just be a bit impractical to write on toilet paper :D
This kind of stuff is subjective, so there is really no dumb or wrong choice. If it doesn't matter how a book is presented, the whole printing industry will be useless. But that's not the case, because, to some people, it's not only about reading, it's about flipping pages too.
There was a poet (I forget who) who said "Progress is a wonderful thing - if only it would stop!"
+Anton K Robert Musil. "Progress would be wonderful - if only it would stop."
Couldn't agree more. More movies need to be in IMAX film or shot on 35mm film. Film is no contest better than digitial. IMAX 70mm would be fantastic.
+JoeDotPHP Film is not better than digitial if you insert a lot of CGI is it now?
+Nautilus1972 No it still looks a lot more crisp and the colors are more vivid. Interstellar is proof of that.
Filmstock/celluloid does not make a shit movie any better.
There are loads of good stories posted even here on youtube with $1000 digital cameras. Would capturing those in expensive negative format be conducive to something better?
Interstellar is NOT vivid. The grade is desaturated by creative choice.
@@Elusive_Pete actually film makes a shit movie better and you would know if you watched actual movies being projected on film. B-movies from 30 years ago looked better than the b-movies that come out now which look like they're shot on a phone and post-processed following youtube tutorials
Film will never die..
Great cinematography is great cinematography, regardless of the medium. These days with cameras like the Arri Alexa, digital is becoming more and more cinematic. There are movies shot digitally with gorgeous cinematography (look at The Revenant). I also have a romanticized nostalgia for 35mm film, but I believe it can coexist with digital cinema. The importance of good storytelling and technical craftsmanship outweigh the importance of any one particular medium.
So people like Quentin are the reason why I will never have my mind blown by 60 fps movies in theaters?
Digital is also a succession of still images. Digital is also an "illusion". Technology changes.
Bob Sewvello incorrect. Digital does not allow the mind to stutter properly.There is a brief gap as film moves where your eyes sees the pitch gap in between perfs move to which mimics the proper human rhythm of our eye blinks that make it more palpable to our brains. Digital bashes our head like a constant finger pointing into your shoulder.
Statuskuo75 are you saying people blink 24 times per second?
jeffkantoku haha. No. as a frame passes through the gate, you are actually seeing the pitch in between the frames. This mimics a blink, and your brain needs to catch up. Thus engage. Digital doesn't have this effect.
Statuskuo75 So in other words, its less tiresome to watch a digital film than an analogue one?
***** no. Film is more dream-like in quality.Preserves the natural way we should view things. Digital is square wave assault.
I think many people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between Blu-ray picture quality at home and digital projection in theatres. But most would be able to tell the difference of film (35 mm, etc.) compared to the other two.
I think what he's trying to convey to everyone is that he is an artist, his canvas is on film whereas digital is a copy of what the computer sees and not what the artist sees.
He want's to give the viewer a picture of what he observed and wanted perfection to be shown to the audience.
Digital is too perfect, it enhances everything from focus to the lighting, film only captures what it sees, he is a professional and as so he want's the public (and himself) to be captivated by the true artistry of his creation.
To him it's just not natural to produce images that are made by a computer chip, if he want's it done that way then I support him and give him my respect but from what I've seen none of you appreciate anything put on film before digital was invented, Ben Hurr, Charlie Chaplin's The Kid, Quo Vadis, and Hitchcock's The Birds etc... were all crap and should be binned, you hypocrites! you enjoy movies from before digital but instantly hate them now that digital comes along, you are no different than a 12 year old kid who professes how great his console was in the schoolyard and then refuses to play it when a new console comes out simply because it's now OLD and uncool and the new one has better graphics and enhanced gameplay, you all sicken me!
Just don't watch any film ever again, you don't deserve it!
I like digital because it gives independent filmmakers like myself to make our movies and distribute them completely independently but at the same time celluloid is the history of cinema and has existed for over 100 years so I love both
film was, for decades, the best way to capture an image. It no longer is... it will die. It costs exponentially more to purchase the stock, process, color correct, print, etc. In the end, there is no benefit. No one will choose to waste thousands of dollars on something that has no real tangible benefit. Most audiences cannot tell the difference any more.
Digital Video can produce a superior image cheaper, faster, with no processing/lab fees, no need for prints. Most critically, it is accessible to people without major financial backing... so those who wished, but could not afford, to create cinema in the past now have opportunities that previously did not exist.
scromtrulescent this is incorrect. Film is superior. But has not been compared properly. Film to DI vs. Digital to DI is all people have seen. Film to film print is still superior in terms of color, depth and image quality. It's unfortunate that people have fallen into your way of thinking, b/c it's simply easy to pick up a 5D or GoPro or Red and decide it's convenient enough and make the excuse it's better. You realize (if you're professional) you need to back up LTO archives every 3 years as the hardware reader is not backwards compatible? In other words, continue to drain you long after movie is complete. People find this out the hard way.
filmguyclarenville craft services cost more on a studio production than film and processing. That's an expendable cost.
Real poetry right here with what he said at the end
I love you, Quentin.
LONG LIVE DIGITAL!!!!! ITS THE FUTURE !!!!
0:56 I think you lost him Quentin xD
I have to agree with Quentin here. It really is magic, and no amount of CGI or IMAX and 3D screenings can take away the classic and immortal power of film prints.
My favorite 2nd run theater converted in 2014. It's like the magic went out. No more velvetty organic texture of light shining through celluloid. Unless you're a stooge and don't even notice the difference, like most people. Film is beautiful. The depth, organic look, actual black dark scenes, not dark grey and better color. 35mm at theaters still has 2x more color than digital cinema projectors.
Film has been with us since the late 1890's, and there's one last theater near me showing it, but they will be converting. I'll see Star Wars ep 7 on film as my goodbye to film..
***** I'm a film snob because I like film better? Going to the theaters is a glorified bluray with digital. I don't hate digital, it's just not the same.
35mm is better and not some computer chip.
+Travis Stalard You would be saying the exact same thing about digital if digital had come out first.
Godard did make a 3D digital movie. At 85 years old. Considered the greatest film maker of all time with Stanley Kubrick and Orson Welles. New technologies give directors new way to tell stories. A lot of people like you in the past didn't want films to have sound in films because they found it horrible and creepy. A lot of people didn't want to go from black and white movie to color because they thought it was ugly.
this was 6 years ago. Lots has changed
Viva 35mm!
Edward Muybridge's persistence of vision. Movies are a a magic trick to the eye, not a recording or a playback.
But digital uses the same illusion.
There have been some stellar productions shot digitally. It’s about laziness vs real commitment to the lifestyle as an artist. It’s never about the movies you make it’s about why you make them. Now maybe you can argue that the convenience of digital is removing the “why” of this but I don’t think so.
He is right.
I absolutly agree with Quentin. Cinema is not reality. It's an artistic ambience, atmosphere. pictures taken from 35mm are not like camesocope and other digital camcorder.i have a red epic camera, the "best" digital cinema camera but even if pictures are incredibles compare to 35mm argentic camera, it make me not dreaming like older one.
Idk man technology has come such a long way that you really can’t tell the difference
Fuck off
@@colmedy no u
It's astounding that cinemas actually *advertise* when they have digital projection. Trying to tell me digital projection is cool is like trying to tell me a V-12's cool when I already own a V-16.
The audio industry was in the same place 20 years ago when everything went fully digital until research revealed that audiences preferred the sound of analogue music recordings (Id's quote and reference but this isn't an essay). I would compare the video resolution war to the loudness war in audio mastering. I know I prefer the look of 35mm celluloid to any form of digital. CineAlta is the closest I've come but everything else looks too precise and over detailed these days, which is fine in a nature documentary or a football match but I don't need to see an actors spots and pimples, I'd take the film scratches and cigarette burns any day. I guess it's about individual preference. Also - On a 40 inch TV watching at 4K, you have to sit 2ft 11'' away to notice the difference from 1080p. So, 4K res in the average home is pointless anyway.
Thank you my friend. I totally agree, it does look amatuerish. You have to degrade the footge and add film filters to get near. I also really hate is what modern tv's do with it's motion blending soap opera effect! ARRRGHHH! :)
But with 4K also comes HDR, and you don't need to be so close to notice that.
Times change, before we went from silent to sound, Black & White to Color, 2D to 3D and finally digital to film. Everything filmmakers and inventors have been working on have led to this moment in time. We're expanding and evolving, let's not stop now
Well put, Mr. Tarantino.
He's right. Digital cinema cheapens the experience. But it sure as hell doesn't cheapen the price of the tickets, we all know where the profits go.
anyone who films with digital today is not a "film maker". they are a digital video camcorder person. that is a FACT. now prove me wrong.
You're completely right because digital is not celluloid "Film"but they are still movie makers,i don't care if the movie is shot on film or digital as long as it has a good story,plot,acting etc,at the end of the day it's just a tool for people to use however they want
We see light. Both digital and film are light being reflected on a screen, there is no magic. Digital is as well 24 -digital- frames per second. There is no significant difference.
Filmmakers choosing between digital and film is a matter of limitation and style. If he wants to keep using film, that's OK, it is not a problem for the film. But you can still make the same movie using digital.
The discussion of film vs digital is something that's over. It was something valid in the late 90s when technology wasn't as good as it is now, hard drives were much more expensive and camera sensors were very poor. Now we are way ahead of it.
Digital ruined movies. 35mm is what makes a movie.
***** You know what I mean. Picture quality and CGI in digital is crap. You cannot have clean images because then the eyes focus on everything visible which is all over the screen. Where as with film, the eyes do their job in differentiating between shady and visibility. It's much better. Digital ruined the experience.....just like Tarantino says in this video.
***** Maybe easier to make movies but they look subpar. I am proud to state that I am about to enter production on a dramatic feature being shot on 16mm film.
***** You say "plenty of ugly looking films with crap CGI shot in 35mm." but the question is...what would those same films had looked like if shot digitally?
Blame the movie makers and producers not the tool (CGI/digital)
Whats your film man? I'm interested
100% nailed it on the head. I can't believe someone as clever as QT could regress to such trivial notions of what makes 'cinema, cinema.' Purists have to get over the idea that no one goes to films because it's 'light interacting with emulsion.' The digital era is a gift, a true democratization of an otherwise costly and tedious medium. And this is coming from the mouth of a filmmaker trained as a DP through the film medium. Adapt or die, indeed.
I hate digital, it is destroying REAL talent and creativity. Film all the way.
***** You are ruining your own argument. Peter Jackson, for example...does The Hobbit compare with LOTR? Scorcese...does his modern films rival Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, and Raging Bull? Does Riley Scott's modern films hold a candle to Gladiator? Think about what you are saying before you say it.
***** What camera has surpassed 35mm? In what way has it surpassed it? Sounds like you spew a lot of things that you don't know about. Do you work for RED? Color rendition, latitude, highlight roll off, smooth motion handling are all very quantifiable things in films favor. In fact, 35mm may very well be higher than any dig. cams resolution due to Nyquist. If you think 35mm is 4k res then you have to sample at twice that to get the true resolution of film. It is just like audio for film only has a true 24 kHz range but you have to have 48k sampling to attain it.
***** First off, film is not "stuck." If you have noticed, the V3 stocks are the finest grain and high DR stocks Kodak has ever made. Secondly, you should have said "in my opinion, RED Dragon looks better than 35mm." Your opinion hardly has universal consensus. Even RED's own clip from the Dragon, of a man carrying a torch, showed that it clipped the highlights of the flame. Maybe to you, the dragon looks better but not to me and a great deal of others.
***** I say Dragon is good enough to choose over film but digital is going to get cheaper and higher res cameras are going to go into the hands of the consumer. I say film is better for the professional with a larger budget ($20,000 and above) and as a way to stay above the amateur who only has time for immediate results. I am planning on shooting a feature length film on 16mm but only if I can raise at least 15 grand. Obviously shooting on digital is better than not shooting at all but digital is not film.
It's not destroying anything. Digital isn't repressing people's ability to express their creativity.
Truly one of the stupidest claims I've heard in a while.
Funny Robert Rodriguez and him have ever even collaborated at all considering Robert's polar opposite view. It must have been entertaining to see their pissing contest during the filming of Grindhouse. At any rate I'm glad to see that there are still directors who prefer film. I don't want digital to "kill" film. I wish this film vs digital war would just end! They *CAN* co-exist!
If they are being negative, let them be. It's subject to have a negative perspective while gaining an aesthetic decision, and neither are wrong.
I prefer film over digital when I can differentiate between two of them. Grains,organic colors, softer images makes me happy. But I can't say its better or worse than digital as a fact.
There is ipad pro,there is also brushes and pencils.
Film is better for large screens such as at the theatre where the grain and color details really shine and the 8k minimum resolution of film looks really clean and beautiful.
Digital is great for small screens such as a tv where picture quality is not as important.
we all have mediocre friends, but we still love them.
Yaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn ! 86 seconds of opinion that I'll never get back.
I'm nowhere near an expert, but I can tell the difference between film and digital. There is something more magical-looking about film, something that feels more organic and true-to-life. I would hate to edit in a film-only shop though, it's got to be brutal compared to digital. I do think we will move to an all-digital world though, in terms of film, it's just easier for everyone involved (except for perhaps the cinematographer and/or director if he wants a certain look).
I don't think Tarantino is making any sort of argument against student filmmakers, he's just saying that he personally prefers film. I think he knows first hand the costs of film these days versus the easy accessibility of video cameras. That easy easy access does not equate art necessarily (nor does access to film, but I hope you get my drift)
black-and-white images keep audiences focused on the characters and the story being told, helping them avoid distraction from gaudy, cluttered backgrounds. Each have their place
Something the Prequel lovers should watch.
Another great advantage of digital is it puts movie making into the hands of ANYONE. Just like digital art, the low cost of high quality digital cameras has opened the doors to those who would not normally be able to afford the traditional route.
What if were are 5 other Tarantinos who'd never be heard of because couldn't afford the cost of film?
He has a point about the "purity" of classic cinema, but at the end of the day his choice is strictly his and the medium of moviemaking is for the art of storytelling. I'm sure at the end of the day even a purist like QT can put aside his feelings of film vs digital capture/projection if the art of the story is decent.
His philosophy on movies has nothing to do with movies themselves.
Logically he sounds like a moron
Digital is an inferiors system for theatres and it was rushed to the marketplace due to the hype of technology. Many theatres had to take out loans to fund those new theatre upgrades that were actually inferior.
Most theatres struggle to get access to genuine 4k source productions and only can show 2k that sometimes gets up scaled.
It is also the primary reason that people are not going to theatres because they cannot see the difference between the cinema and the home experience in terms of quality.
Movement is the change of position or states with time. When the position of light colors and intensity change on the screen with time , you got real movement, not an illusion .
It's like chosing a plastic canvas instead of a linen canvas to paint. One is more expensive, but the result will be miles above. You need to chose the best material for the art you work in, therefor film will always be the best choice for movie making. Light is captured directly on film by a chemical prosess, it's organic, it's almost alive. Each frame has its own signature, even when nothing is moving in the frame. Digital gives a dead, barren image, especialy when nothing is moving in frame.
This question is exploding today. Although, I prefer film but digital is catching up.
I believe that true film making is being able to tell a story through beautiful images, how those images were conceived should not matter. The DP's ability to see and picture those images in their mind is the real art and talent visually, not the camera or format its on.
Basically, Tarantino is romanticizing the whole thing.
I've shot on 8mm and 16mm motion picture film. It's time consuming and expensive. If someone else is footing the bill, then fine they can pay for everything. But I'll never again come out of my pocket for film. I suggest people to shot on whatever they can shoot on and get their story out there. Next time some tells you to shoot on film, tell them to give you the money. That will shut them up quick.
I think it all depends on the type of movie you’re making. A big blockbuster action movie that involves a lot of cgi would be better shot in Digital. If you’re making a period piece drama or a western, then film is the way to go. Obviously there are exceptions and variations to this, but these are just some examples.
It can be shot on digital cameras and then mastered on film and it would look far superior to an digital movie shown at digital cinema.
I have seen movies that were shot on digital that were then mastered to film and they looked far superior to a the digital cinema version.