Reading Lynch's biography right now. He has always been about utility and accessibility to materials. He has repeatedly said that the only reason he used film in his day was because it was the only game in town if you wanted a detailed image. He evangelises in the book about digital too. His dream scenario is everyone having immediate access to creative tools without too much expense or hassle. There's a passage where he talks about using Photoshop for the first time and he almost blacks out with happiness because it does things in seconds it used to take him hours to do.
Room to Dream? Such a great book! I would recommend listening on tape, because David narrates his sections himself, and adds extra detail at points. Very inspiring stuff.
@@zachmorley158 What elitist, bourgeois drivel. Skill & artistry are what make a good film. And those are still hard to come by even with accessible technology.
Old school filmmakers are very pre-planned in their approach. Lynch however makes many decisions on set guided by his unique intiution. That demands a more agile filming pipeline, which digital caters to perfectly, because it is so much quicker to set up and a lot less of a hassle.
The reason this man's work is so unique and ground breaking is because he doesn't hold any useless archaic values. He's an innovator, and innovators know when something has been improved. "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."
Funnily enough,If you look at a lot of old Filmmaker, Spielberg, Lucas, Scorsese, Fincher, Mann etc they seem to favor Digital cause they can do more stuff with it. Then you have the newer ones like Tarantino, Nolan and others (Cant remember on top of my head sorry) who prefers film because they grew up with it and love the purity of it. Kinda ironic to think about the older ones are the ones who much prefer the newer ways. 🤣
This is what I love about Lynch. He is, all at once, simultaneously, an old school classicist AND a new school visionary. The rare mark of only the greatest storytellers.
Great way to describe him. I saw him talk at this Ideas festival about serious stuff like philosophy, art, meditation, his films, etc. And the audience was rolling with laughter. I think it's accidental but I think he also amuses himself constantly. You think it's going to be dead serious and it somehow becomes extremely goofy. Just like Twin Peaks I suppose.
I definitely like his take. It’s all about how you use the tools. If digital makes you work better, use it. On the flipside if someone like Nolan works best with film that’s fine too. Point is, beating your chest about being a purist because something is “just the way it’s always been done” is pointless.
@@MrCarpen7er Yeah, why don't mention someone like Scorsese or even Tarantino? Nolan is one; though while just one, still a big step below the truly great ones in cinema history. He's one of those that, while loved in his times, history won't treat greatly. Basically because he's not actually very interesting or does anything truly, truly remarkable.
Life of a filmmaker. Simultaneous "I love it" and "it's a nightmare." You can't build dreams out of movies without facing the nightmare of production, unfortunately.
Both statements can be true at the same time, that's what he's saying. He loves film, but it's a nightmare, so he prefers digital. He similarly also said "I love cinema, but I don't want to go there anymore".
the movie reels are extremely large & heavy too. i used to work for a local movie theatre & the projectionist was too old & too short to carry them. he used to make us ushers carry them over our shoulder whenever a movie switched rooms to switch them. but he was always so nervous about it. the reels were so big that they barely missed scraping the floor as you walked w/them. and you had to be strong enough to keep it from touching the ground. he only used me if other workers weren’t available b/c i was kind of a klutz and some workers he wouldn’t use at all. it was always so nerve wracking b/c the reels were so expensive. the owners would switch rooms all the time too
Your standard film reel usually weighs anywhere from 40-60 pounds, so pretty heavy. The film reel for the 70mm IMAX film Oppenheimer weighs about 600 pounds. @@taroteverafter6406
Some old-school audio guys have similar feelings about tape vs digital, too. I remember an interview with Malcolm Toft (Trident Studios engineer who worked on songs like "Hey Jude" and "Space Oddity," and later helped design Trident consoles) where he talked about a situation where you've chosen the right microphone, set it up properly, got the levels right, the compression, the EQ from the board-all good, until you hit payback and have to make adjustments because the tape coloration screwed it up; whereas with digital, what you're hearing is what's being captured.
@@damianoakes2592 as a newish audio nerd, hearing its aural (not really but the pun was right there) history is just so fascinating to me! I’m so glad I didn’t have to deal with the tape and all that analog machinery. Recording digital audio was (mostly) a breeze!
He’s a professional, who realizes that digital is the tool to the creativity that he needs for himself for his craft. We all can appreciate the multitude of ways that the tools that are disposal with media can be used
Old school projectionists certainly don’t miss the noise and massively cumbersome size and weight of film reels they had to deal with. They also used to get so crappy after just a few weeks. I remember our showing of Saving Private Ryan got cancelled after the reel broke midway through.
@@Mitch_Feral There’s a romanticism to film I totally understand. I started shooting film myself and did so for many years. I get it. It’s the CD vs vinyl debate all over again and neither side are really “wrong”. The advantages of digital are so numerous though from capture to post-production that celluloid projection is now all but extinct save for a small handful of screens around the world. Even movies shot on film are projected digitally by 99% of theaters. I’m not a very nostalgic person, but maybe it is a little sad to see such a prominent aspect of theatrical exhibition throughout the 20th century fade away into obscurity. Without modern filmmakers like Nolan, Tarantino, and P.T. Anderson championing the format and workflow, I doubt Kodak could continue to justify manufacturing such expensive celluloid. When I read about Oppenheimer’s 11 mile, 600 pound reels, I couldn’t help but laugh a little at how comically antiquated that seemed. It made me think of that photograph from the 1950s showing four IBM employees pushing an early hard disk drive the size of 3 washing machines up a ramp onto a truck.
How he’s literally by all definitions the filmmaking “dinosaur” in any room and yet stays so fresh and open to anything is beyond me. Mf is just so chill and doesn’t give a shit. I can’t not stan..
Well, there's no director more opposite to Lynch than Nolan. Nolan believes his viewers to be morons, that's why he always feels the need to explain everything in his films. Lynch regards his viewers as intelligent people than can be challenged both intelectual and emotionally.
@@saidtoshimaru1832 I understand your point, but I think Nolan does that because he is obsessive compulsive. For example I believe that he really wanted to release Tenet in 2020 because 20 mirrors the other 20 as Tenet reads the same backwards. Also Nolan movies are way more costly to produce and he is obligated to explain things for the average viewer .
@@Doctordoompapito Well, Kubrick was quite obsessive too, even more than him, but he still refused to explain anything in 2001: a space Odyssey, and thank's god he did. But I understand that maybe Nolan is pressured by the studios to explain most things.
Some years later in a different interview(masterclass), David would admit that, while he still loves digital, celluloid can translate things that digital is not yet capable of (even when celluloid is digitally projected). ua-cam.com/video/pPial9mu-RI/v-deo.htmlsi=aHNLfJFahzqKcCSd (20:40 onwards)
For sure - film will always look better, but it is such a hassle for filmmakers. And 99% of students coming out of film school nowadays have no idea how to use it anyway (myself included)
@@matthewsawczyn6592Buy a film camera to play around, your parents or family probably already have a camera laying around somewhere inside a cardboard box but its better if you have acess to a full manual camera
@@matthewsawczyn6592 My first two production classes in college had us use Super 8 and 16mm film, respectively. It was fun and interesting in some ways, but it was also a pain in the butt, and the local person who we had to use to develop the Super 8 film did it in her bathtub or something and it always came out with developing problems-which was maddening, given how expensive the film was in the first place. The argument that the professors made is that it taught us discipline, because we wouldn't want to waste film, but I feel like there could have been other ways to teach that...There must be, in fact, because the semester after I took the 16mm class, they switched to 100% digital, with film as an option for some electives and stuff.
Lynch, Rodriguez and Deakins have provided the best cases for digital filmmaking; elsewhere the lo-fi movement has been making the case for homespun art for half a century. I adore celluloid and will champion those try to preserve its usage in blockbuster filmmaking. But it’s not so pure that I’d think less of work that isn’t shot on it.
@@josephmayfield945 True, but I think sound has a great deal to do with it too. A trashy old movie on film usually also has crappy sound quality. It completes the experience. A trashy movie on digital has very good studio level sound. There's something off.
I put on that list as well Jackson, Zemeckis, Fincher and Refn, especially Refn. Excellent cases of digital pioneers. Malick's A Hidden Life is also a very good example of digital cinema with high aesthetics. I love film, but if you use digital in a smart way you can get great results.
The idea that film is pure or has a instilled magical essence is obviously a farce and is likely due to the sheer number of Films that we all have seen that look good for a variety of reasons- not because they were developed on cellulose. There’s a sort of crossover between what people like about movies that were made on film, and film itself
@@jbtownsend9535 Well, I wouldn't call it a farce. I don't agrree with that. The truth is somewhere in-between. I don't like purists either. But film is superior to digital in a number of ways, which are linked with the essence of what cinema is and how it developed historically and aesthetically and taught us to experience movies. I don't like the crispness and ultra high analysis of digital either and I also don;t like how the cinematography of most modern films has lost its traditional lighting approach due to the new sensors which are able now to photograph in the dark with almost no lights. I believe that one way or another, most digital films aesthetically always try to emulate the feeling of film. But that could end sometime soon, supposedly with the advance of A.I. where any kind of digitally shot movie could be mistaken for any kind of film.
Because so many of us grew up watching his films, and he's the man behind so many of the classics we came in contact with at a younger age, I think we incorrectly think that he's "old school." But he's actually rebellious when it comes to the old way of doing things. He craves agility, but also works best when there aren't restraints - and it makes sense that he'd preach digital, since he plugs into his style so perfectly.
So refreshing to hear this point of view. Not that I am partial one way or the other but it's refreshing to hear an old-school director have an opinion that the film snobs reel at.
'Film snobs'. Pointing out that Film is objectively the superior format that is not suppressed by mandatory resolution and speculative digits equals 'film snob'? Come on, where do we get the word 'Movie' or 'Film' from? From Film itself. The 'Motion Picture'. 'Moving Images'. This is kind of obvious. And most if not all of the best looking features are all shot on Film. Sometimes, what some call "snobbery" is just basic facts. Why does Hollywood and its small subsidiaries keep applying fake grain filters to remind people of film? What's better, the real deal or the imitator?
@@Synky Define a "film snob". That just sounds like your way of saying that you don't like what i have to say but at the same time having a difficult time making a objective standing. I propose that you pass that declaration on to yourself.
It’s always really interesting hearing David talk about things no matter how mundane the subject is. It does surprise me that he prefers Digital over Film considering how old-school he is.
I totally understand his points from a director's pov. The hassle alone shooting with film nowadays must be tremendous. As a viewer, however, I prefer film visually to digital.
Easy. Still, after all these years of hugely expensive digital cameras, film wins. Also film scanned digitally to a computer and cleaned is simply the best picture you can get.
in europe aspiring filmakers develop their film shorts and full features in romanian labs, most anyone can now afford scanning facilities for this look that digital still can't emulate. Most digital movies are graded in monochrome o bichrome these days.
The thing is, even filmmakers who still shoot on film, scan it to digital and almost everyone views it through digital projection anyway. There are only a small handful of theaters still projecting through film anymore.
Lynch has 100% the point. Most people praise the authenticity of film stock footage, but they are rarely aware of problems that come with shooting on it, and they are PLENTY. - 35mm film stock is monumentally expensive, as well as cameras for it, and they are so power hungry, they practically always require to be connected to external power source. The are much bigger, and heavier and therefore require more expensive gear, and don't fit in many places digital cameras do - all of this require putting much more work into planning and production design. - Film is less sensitive to light which means that A LOT more consideration has to be put into lighting, making using household grade lights impossible - if they are present in the shot, their light has to always be faked with expensive lighting gear. - You have limited means of examining the footage on set - and it requires another set of expensive gear. - It needs expensive and time consuming chemical development that can always go wrong. - Editing on film is a whole new level of complex - e.g. reversing footage either flips the image or require cutting and reordering frame by frame. Adjusting speed require making multiple photocopies, and list goes on, and of course it requires specialized gear - that's way nobody does that, even if the movie is shot on film, it's scanned, edited digitally and re-projected back to film. Speaking of which.... - Any computer assisted VFX, not only CGI but even simple compositing require scanning the footage and re-projecting it anyways. - Because the entire industry has switched to digital long ago, all of the above is order of magnitude more expensive than it used to be. All of this literally requires millions of dollars and months of additional time to achieve an effect that can be 90% accurately reproduced using a vintage lens and degrading footage in post with a ready made plug-in like dehancer for less than 0.1 % of the cost.
Film may have a better look to a viewer, but I think he is speaking as a creator who has to work with it, and no matter which way you cut it things like tape in music and film in cinema are a pain in the ass for the creators.
@@paulelroy6650Watch zodiac by fincher, digital is as good as film there. Since then digital is a great medium in cinema, and to light it properly can be as hard, as zodiac process has shown. The highlight roll off is almost identical, dynamic range iqual. The main difference is film has more latitude in light and digital has more latitude in dark, in shadows. But digital is cleaner, faster and you can see the result ASAP… plus I’d more sensitive to light.. film go with good resolution to ISO 500, digital go with no problem to 6400 ISO… in the end it’s a better tool for the job.
Just another tool in the belt tbh, digital may appear easier on the surface, but when shooting film you typically end up with more discipline on set as a result as the sound of film running through a camera is the sound of money burning. This tends to result in an overall better performance from everyone involved. In theory you could approach shooting digital in the same way, but ultimately it's not the same.
@paulelroy6650 On paper, you could make way harder, more complex things with digital cause there are more options. This isn't about easy or hard, and I doubt a guy like Lynch is thinking about that when trying to get an idea realized and recorded. I think following what gets the ideas out the best is what matters. If that's working on film for you? Great! If not? Great! This fetishization and rose tinted glasses on things like tape and film are really silly, imo and come from a viewer/listener perspective almost 70% of the time. I want the art to be good. I don't care how it becomes good. that's up to the artist. I can only have an opinion on my own art process.
@@paulelroy6650 Do you have in your kitchen only handmade forged knives, or do you opted to go the easy route, lazy coward??!! (What a moronic thing to say, lol)
I feel like a happy medium there is: film to acquire the image, then scan it and use a digital pipeline for the rest. Which is what a lot of films are doing these days. Best of both worlds.
Inland Empire is his best (most precise) film in my opinion. Hypnosis is the recurring theme here. There are a lot of important details that you can mistake for imperfections due to the video quality. One cue is the scene of misunderstanding between the director and Bucky J played by David Lynch. There is a squeal of the door as the old witch enters the house and says hello. A bird flies right above as Nikki enters the studios. And so on and so on. BTW I hated it the first time I saw it.
Inland empire is far from his best 💀 every Lynch film is precise, he’s been making his film in a detailed manner ever since his early short films. Eraserhead is EXTREMELY detailed. There are at least 5 lynch movies better than inland empire…
@@jonathanramsey1269 Eraserhead is great too and I really like the third season of Twin Peaks. Inland Empire goes back to the roots of cinema with simple tricks involving cuts, exposure, theatrical acting and horror while embracing the technology of a digital camera. I think it will stand the test of time with all the other cinematic masterpieces.
@@jonathanramsey1269 Every true masterpiece redefines what it means to be a masterpiece. But I understand your view since I thought the same in the past.
I feel like David Lynch and Roger Deakins would work really well together. Not only do they have the same opinion but I feel like Roger Deakin's stylistic cinematography would give an element to a David's film that he would find appealing.
Very cool of Lynch to not just go with the hipster "Analog is just better man" answer. Sometimes convenience is just better, like using an electric kettle instead of a gas one.
The origins of certain technology are _always_ worthy of the respect they get, but for stuff like this the ones with the hard-on for nostalgia and purism are the ones either too young to know the *professional* workload, limitations, and sheer cost in both time and money; or are too old and thus intimidated by investing that same commitment into re-learning their craft. As he touched on, film is a big physical thing that you're constantly needing to care for to ensure longevity. It's still superior in terms of scaling to digital as far as I know, but unless you've got a weird hard-on for the physical medium itself, that's the only objective benefit over digital that will face all the issues of preservation that could degrade the whole point of archiving for scalability in the first place. I'm happy to be educated with correction, though. I have no bias, just speaking on what I've passively absorbed over the years from interviews and study of the medium itself. This attitude of fetishised pseudo-nostalgia applies to just about any field and is always annoying when faced with the unrelenting torrent of "retro" fads. For instance: Windows 3.1/Vaporwave/90's ａｅｓｔｈｅｔｉｃ - sure, whatever. It's certainly fun to look at, I guess. But these kids never had to LIVE with what they're romanticizing and get to walk away when they've had their fill. Older people like myself didn't have that luxury and had to endure it for decades before technology matured into the powerful, HiFi/HD Goliath it has become in barely two decades. With the exception of the miserable invasion of privacy and compulsory theft of consumer rights by tech companies these days, I'd take modern tech over "retro" every time haha
3840*2160 resolution for a screen the size of your typical cinema, its the exact same resolution as your TV, and is hardly impressive and 65/70mm film blows it out of the water. Admittedly 70mm was almost dead before the days of digital. But that doesn't change the fact that a movie filmed and projected in 70mm will look far superior to digital. Hollywood switched to digital for $$ reasons, not artistic reasons. So spare me the "everything new is better" spiel.
Without the past, there is no present. And that is often why the present is as lame & soulless as what it is now, outside of certain interesting projects on the Internet.
Many filmmakers or tv producers say digital is better and they can’t tell the difference in quality on the screen. I completely disagree. I can almost always tell if movie is film or video and film looks way better. On the other hand, the Holdovers uses video with a filter to make it look like it was shot on film. I kinda like that.
holdovers is a great example of digital replicating film well. another one is dune, in which they shot on digital and then transferred it to film and then digitally mastered that transfer, and it looks incredibly filmic.
Movie nerds can’t tell most of the time. I’m working on a documentary right now and the only reason is because it’s digital. Somebody in the comments of Fury Road said that the movie fury road looked great because it was George Miller directing it in film. The whole movie was shot in digital and George Miller admitted using Canon DSLR cameras rigged to the cars inside wrecking boxes. John Seale was the DP. He was 77 when he worked on Fury road. Two old dudes who moved on.
This is SOOOOOOOO refreshing to hear from Lynch! I'd be lying if I said I always knew he'd come to his senses when it came to film, but I'm really glad to know that he feels this way about film 😂
For me, the most important thing is accessibility. Does it matter if something looks better if you can't actually use it? Do you have the time and money?
@@CuriousEnthusiast956It's not about learning to use it. It's about the access to it. A kid can make a movie now with their cellphone or a cheap digital camera and that is more beautiful than any expensive film camera.
Wasn't expecting him to say that. Because film has kind of a dreamy effect to it. But pragmatically it makes a lot of sense. Without the practical limitations he can probably experiment more with a scene with digital. Personally I miss film. I have a weird love of lens flairs.
Film is capable of much higher resolution than digital. That might change someday. But 70MM is basically 18K and digital is having a hard time justifying 6K and up.
@@PeterKoperdan The best way is to go to an IMAX theater showing a 70MM print since digital screens literally can't depict it. But make sure it isn't a "limax" where it isn't actually an Imax system.
Film does not have a “resolution” and it’s an inherently soft medium by nature. The perception of captured detail is highly subjective and affected by so many things, especially technique, lenses used, and viewing distance, making most of this an academic exercise ignoring all the other myriad advantages that the digital medium has over film emulsion.
@@tronam how much detail you capture isn't subjective. And saying it's inherently soft is like saying digital is inherently pixilated. idk why you'd imply that sharp images aren't possible in film. idk if you're trying to "show off" but you're basically just saying "if you don't do it right, it isn't sharp" which is also true for digital. I said "basically 18k" because the level of information and detail in that film stock completely surpasses all digital formats upto this point and it isn't even close. Hoyte van Hoytema is the guy who cited that figure and he's one of the leading experts on the subject.
When I started my film degree in like 2016/17 ish, one person there taught film cameras, and badly, so I never even got a chance to get into it, that plus the impossible prices of film...you know, i was a student. On a student loans income, in a 4 bedroom shared flat, you do the maths. So yeah safe to say films never coming back if theirs an entire generation of filmmakers out there who had my experience.
I agree that film can't "come back", because it never went away. Over 60 movies with theatrical releases in 2023 were shot on film including Oppenheimer, Asteroid City, and Killers of the Flower Moon. There are many tools in this world that students cannot afford, that has little to do with the tools merit, availability, and usage.
@@broseywales5538 now name one not directed by someone above the age of 50 Edit: Before you misunderstand, my point is they are old enough to remember being taught film when it was the only viable option, as they get older and die, less people are going to know.
There's nothing wrong with falling in love with the art form of cinema and what it took to make a motion picture back in the day. But there's a reason it's not around, because technology evolves, things change, and change in the world of film has made things easier but also opened so many more doors for new artists to enter the industry.
This is what George Lucas been saying too. He was one of the early adopters and trying to tell other filmmakers that these are just tools. It's the story that matters, the tools are just the way to get there. EDIT: There have been enough "Lucas is a hack" and "Prequels are terrible" comments here. If you have anything of substance to say on the subject, go ahead. If your points are "dialogue is bad" or "acting is bad", you may as well leave it. These baseless criticisms are ubiquitous, and you're not enlightening anyone. I advise you to actually do some research, because these criticisms have been addressed many times by more intelligent people than you. If you wanna drop your arrogance and for once in your life admit that you might not be understanding something, I'll be glad to try and help you expand your horizons and see Star Wars in a new light. You're not stupid for not understanding a movie. Stupidity is the arrogance to think you're smart and George Lucas is stupid. The man who, other than creating Star Wars, made American Graffiti, wrote Indiana Jones, started Industrial Light & Magic, indirectly started Pixar, kickstarted improvements and innovations in movie theater experience, editing technology and video game development, and is respected by all the great filmmakers in Hollywood, while himself making some of his greatest work outside of the corrupt Hollywood system. He is one of the few auteurs in big-budget mainstream filmmaking. A man with enough artistic integrity to do what he wants in the way he wants, regardless of what people expect of him or how they're gonna react. He knew the prequels were gonna be misunderstood and hated, and you guys have proven him right. Congrats, keep spouting vitriol, you're not on the right side of history here.
@seanolaocha940 not in the slightest. He's never been one to stick to old technology out of some romantic obsession. This is why he never shied away from implementing newest technologies in his films and pushing the technological progress forward, even when not working on films. Digital editing, THX, 3D animation, CGI, video games - all of this has been significantly affected by his involvement. His impact on our modern culture has been enormous, and he never gets the credit.
@seanolaocha940 the prequels are deemed to be failures by manchildren who wanted it to be like the Star Wars they grew up with. There are no major flaws with the plot or the characterization. And to say there was a lack of effort is not only offensive, but ignorant. People who know about the production of those movies know how much thought went into every little element. There's a reason why these movies took nearly a decade to make, Lucas was extremely meticulous with them. Watch Rick Worley's "How to Watch Star Wars" videos, he goes way into detail. >And of Lucas' films I think the ones shot on film look much better than those using digital cameras. Ditto for practical effects and CGI. You're just parroting what you've heard on the internet. Practical effects are never better than the CGI. The muppet show that was the Cantina in the originals is not in any way more "realistic" than anything from the prequels. You just believe in it more because you like the story more. On this subject watch "The Real Reason The Thing (1982) is Better than The Thing (2011)" by The Morbid Zoo.
Everyone is always nostalgic for records too, but when you talk to people who actually produced music on records the my say BON VOYAGE! GOOD RIDDANCE! producing all those bands on records was a nightmare and nothing distorted the sound more than the record itself.
He’s so refreshing among these superiority complex having film edge lords😭😭 it’s the facts film is novel and beautiful, but in the middle of the process you realize it’s insane to use something so expensive and difficult to work with when there’s a much easier, cheaper, and more accessible alternative where you can get nearly the same effect
"Nearly the same effect". Ok, then how do we explain something like the 4K of T2 where it was so excessively processed to look like a modern digital feature that it ended up making everyone look like wax figures? Digital does not have the same effect, why do you think Hollywood and small subsidiaries constantly try to imitate 35MM by applying fake grain filters and yet looks nothing like the real dead? Because like all corporations, they're always caught up in the "future is always better than the past" mindset that they can't admit that they're "progressive" practices are wrong. But they will still remind you with shadows of the past. Hypocrisy at its very finest.
I’m here throwing whatever weight I have behind Lynch. I’ve worked as a photographer since the late ‘80s. Any current photographer making a living is shooting digital, maybe a rare unicorn is the exception, but never heard of one. I also shoot corporate video. The camera I use could be utilized to make feature films if needed. That kind of (affordable) advancement was a total game changer in the cinema world.
I’d argue the ease of access has taken cinema to a lower level of quality. There’s so much subpar film making out there right now it’s staggering. I think when it was a harder hurdle to jump, only the people with real drive were able to get their project done, and it shows.
@@josephmayfield945 - Good point, but that would have to be a very low bar indeed! I'm a fan of 'B' and unintentionally comedic cinematic efforts, and there has always been an abundance of low-quality film making, regardless of whether it was photochemical or digital. Quite a few YT channels are devoted to this historical fact.
I agree with everything David said about film, none the less it is still the premier acquisition format for drama hands down. Digital is real, film is a dream.
@@damienx0x Aquisition format is commonly used to describe the medium of choice when shooting anything with respect to photography. Was the image that you see in the final presentation aquired with a camera that uses the photochemical process or was it aquired with a digital format? How it is ultimately processed for presentation purposes is different. Just like when I watch Netflix, I can tell when a movie was shot on a digital format or traditional photochemical photography was used. If you have a speech written by A.I. or written by a person is the aquisition of the wording. If a person reads it to an audience or a digital voice reads it to them that is the presentation format. Only with the spoken word, the presentation is far more degrading with AI.
Personally, I find it extremely pretentious when a filmmaker or film enthusiast makes claims that film is better than digital. It’s how you use it. I’m not an expert but I know that much at least
Shooting movies on film does sound like a nightmare. However, I'm currently getting into film photography and really enjoying it. Images seem to mean more, and you have to take your time with the shots you take so you don't waste expensive film. As someone who's only ever had a digital camera since about 2006, I find the old school medium really refreshing.
Love it. This reminds me of Gary Numan, the guy who is synonymous with synth pop created on analog hardware synths in the 1970s and 1980s now uses 100% only software synths, and runs everything from his synth sounds to overall live sound mix to even his stage lights via MIDI. He does it for the amount of control, reproducibility, price, and lack of things failing at critical moments.
He's mostly right, but he jumped ship too early when the resolution was terrible (Inland Empire, using SD cameras) . I presume he wanted that look (there was better gear available at the time), but I found it distracting.
Asking him if he's not a cinema romantic is kind of ridiculous. You can adore the artform but still not stay mired in primitive approaches. After all, how many filmmakers are using silent black and white with hand cranked cameras? You can love the history and respect the roots, but binding yourself to those limited approaches will in fact limit your creativity. Where would us UA-cam creators be if we swore to film only? Where would broadcasting be if it had stuck to analogue black and white air transmission? A true artist uses every tool and revels in an ever evolving experience, and cinematic art has enjoyed a truly fantastic evolution to explore. If you've seen Lynch's Dune, SyFy's Dune, and Villeneuve's Dune, then you can clearly see how evolution of media has helped to create an ever more impressive experience as the years have passed. Imagine trying to convey that amazing core story with grainy black and white and the primitive filming methods of the dawn of cinema. It had long been said that Dune cannot be transposed to the big screen properly. I think it just needed the world to catch up to it.
All the things he says he dislikes about film are things I love about it. It’s organic and unpredictable. In a medium that’s all about control, it’s a little agent of chaos that keeps things interesting.
He's right about the noise from cameras - it's crazy that you can get a Sony FX-3, get a lens for about $1200-$1500, and shoot an entire film that will come out looking better than 90% of the "classic" films from the golden age of hollywood, and the thing is SILENT.
@@DamienLavizzo True enough. I do think a camera at that price range will result in very good picture quality, and probably could look modern cinema worthy if executed correctly.
@@VinnytotheK Im on the other side of the coin where Im amazed we live in a world now where cinema grade cameras are so cheap. Even a digital ARRI camera (what most major productions use) not that long ago was literally $40,000 dollars.
A digital camera is not going to make footage look better than a classic film unless it's being used by a skilled cinematographer who knows how to light a scene properly. That's what make Golden Age films look so good -- the artfulness of the lighting. That hasn't changed. Fortunately, not only have the cameras gotten much lighter and cheaper, the lights have too. But you still have to know how to use them properly.
Inland Empire doesn’t look bad. It’s not exactly Eraserhead, but there’s some great shots in it. The set of the bunny’s in particular is great. Twin Peaks season 3 is shot in digital, and looks absolutely amazing. Especially the episode in black and white.
This reminds me of an older cricket fan liking tests cricket but loving t20s too. You can’t really argue with it and they’re not wrong… …and yet they’re dead wrong.
Working with film is tedious. But nothing beats the look of film, at least not yet. Just look at the cinematography of Saltburn. It's beautiful. The colors all look bright and natural. Digital looks dull unless properly color graded. Even when color graded, sometimes they look tinted.
This is the problem with all technologies though. Just as we perfected a technology, a new one comes along that can do things thought impossible, but has decades to go before it improves to the same level. It will eventually supersede though and ironically, be superseded by something else in the future.
Saltburn looked like complete shit, especially compared to the Holdovers, which was shot digitally but edited to look like a 70s movie which works because it takes place in the 70s and looks good. Saltburn was just slop trying too hard to appeal to letterboxd bros with the fancy aspect ratios, film grain, etc.
@CONNER_ you're kidding me. The Haldovers looked like they threw a green tint and added some dirt and grain. Despite how hard they tried to emulate the style of film, it's still obviously digital. They added the film dirt but forgot about proper color grading. Saltburn's colors are rich with sharp images, and it feels dirty at the same time because it is shot film. Even though modern 35mm is clean.
I miss film for still photography. The smell of a darkroom. The tangible sensation of holding a negative in your hand. The processing mistakes that accidentally reveal something you had not thought of. Digital is easier and more accurate, but some of the magic of discovery is lost along the way.
Digital media needs a physical version for archival purposes. There is the M-Disc media format. I have an M-Disc option on my computer's Multi-disk drive. M-Disc Wiki: "In 2022, the NIST Interagency Report NIST IR 8387[22](Page 12), stated that M-Disc is an acceptable archival format rated for up to 100 years+."
I see it more pragmatic. I simply prefer the way Film captures images because it is a lot closer to how our eyes perceive light. Digital Image sensors are always just interpreting the incoming light and every image sensor does it differently. Some do it better than others. The Arri Alexa sensor however creates one of the worst and most boring looking picture i have ever seen. It's lightyears away from actual 35mm filmstock. Specs can be one thing but the actual image is all that matters to me. And 35mm, 16mm and even Super 8 scanned to digital files are simply my definition of aesthetic and gorgeous. THAT is how i prefer to use digital technology. Analog film in combination with digital image sensors and editing techniques. That being said i LOVE Lynch's digital productions as much as his film productions. When i first saw "INLAND EMPIRE" it felt like Lynch was never THIS free before and it really felt like his most independent and limitless movie. You could tell mow much liberated he was from the downsides that come with heavy film equipment and lighting. He just took his DV camera and shot what he had in mind. And for an artist like him this is definitely the best way to work. And i totally understand him here. He just wants to put his ideas to movies without too much in between. And i'm glad that technology has progressed so much that he can indeed shoot in high resolution and do what he wants without getting slowed down too much in a frustrating way.
@@alvareo92 The Arri Alexa produces anything but a filmlike picture. It looks absolutely boring, flat, cold, and tooooo digital. I have never seen any digital Filmcamera that creates such a terribly sterile looking image. Even the Cine Eos cameras of Canon create a more pleasing picture. The interplay of the components (Image Sensor, D/A Converter, software) is an aspect that can make or break a good digital cine camera. And sadly the Alexa sucks and doesn't look anywhere close to film. Not even David Fincher could pull this off for "Mank" or Denis Villeneuve with "Blade Runner 2049". The biggest problem is the electronic shutter of Digital Cinecameras. It makes the picture look totally different than a mechanical shutterblade inside a filmcamera does. There is also no halation effect like on Film. If you want that, it has to be added with an effect in Post.
As a musician I can say one thing about it, It's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy(more y's if I could) more comfortable to use digital than analog tapes, but there is something unique to to the sound of some albums thanks to it, bands like Pink Floyd had a very warm and unique sound thanks to the analog gear and analog tapes, it's unreplaceable compare to digital.
The problem is that thought and contemplation are the natural antecedents of required effort. That isn't to say we should abolish assembly lines and make cars with hammers and torches. But has the digital revolution really improved the quality of movies? Storywise, NO. Visually, even there is an argument. In some ways, it has vastly improved it. In other ways, as we see more digital movies, the edges of the cookie cutter begin to show. Digital has allowed us to tell stories we never could have otherwise, so there is that, too. I'm not a Luddite, but when things get easier, a certain mental investment is lost. Over time, we can hope the growing expertise with tools recaptures some of that investment, once the money folks are out of the picture. Indie movies are where its at, probably!
The moment he (and others like noticeably Michael Mann) started using Digital is the moment his movies started to look like south american soap operas. Inland Empire (and in that regard MM's Collateral and Miami Vice for example) looks like something they shot with a smartphone, now to some people that isn't a problem and it's fine but for me the idea of loving the beauty of cinema AND digital is the most absurd of concepts. It's gotten better with time and the differences are less noticeable now but still film Is so much better to me.
Inland Empire is kind of a weird example, that was shot on a super cheap camera relative to what you'd expect from a professional production, we're talking a handheld that gets listed for as low as a couple hundred bucks on eBay these days, which makes sense considering the origin of the project was Lynch shooting one-off scenes he thought of without knowing if and how he would use them. I guess you either get it or you don't but imo the look and style of the movie as a result of that approach is an integral part of its appeal, and I get the impression that was also the case for Lynch as the creator, to the point that he would likely not have made the movie at all if he hadn't made it with a cheap, handheld digital camera.
I would strongly disagree in 2006 with David Lynch, as the digital video capabilities was quite underwhelming, especially what was available to the hobbyist filmmaker. Low dynamic range, rubbery and mushy kind of camcorderish, footage. Same gripes I have with modern cellphone recorded video. Of course now, the situation is different, where digital camera technology has much matured in dynamic range, resolution, fidelity and processing options, even for a low budget.
Definitely interesting that a lot of film people find this sentiment strange. As someone who comes from recording music and focuses a lot on limitations and such I completely agree. Older canons have (to me) a equally great character as film. I think maybe its because there's more space to be playful with formats and instruments whereas making movies doesnt really lend itself to that. I know lynch is primarily a painter but that's I view it.
It looks beautiful... if you have a cameraman that know what they're doing. It's a tool like anything else. It's only good if you have someone who gets how to make it work
Well, if I had a time machine, I would love to go back in time long before digital or streaming, and just enjoy movies made on old film and shown with old projectors.
As just a plain movie lover and watcher, I want to see film. Not many digitally shot movies look that good to me. Funny, talking about the expense of shooting on film. Shooting digital sure hasn’t reduced the budgets on most movies. I guess catering got more expensive…lol
Film looks and feels better than digital. Inland Empire and Twin Peaks The Return are ugly, sharp, soulless. I'm all for digital once it can be made to look as good as film. It's not about resolution It's not even about the screen or the playback. A UA-cam video of something shot on film looks better than an all digital movie shot in 4k. It's the atmosphere, the _way_ in which movement and detail is captured
Convenient, like fast food and athletisure. Art is not supposed to be convenient. Life is not supposed to be convenient. It’s supposed to be beautiful, magical and also sometimes difficult.
@@davebowman1337 What world do you live in? As a citizen of the USA, I witness everything being run by corporations. So many decisions are made based on business and money. Convenience is a HUGE facet of the economy. Do you think if Nolan had a fraction of his talent and box office records, they would have allowed all the transportation costs of the 70mm reels? No, they wouldn't. What about the handling and maintenance costs of the film projectors due by theaters? Artistic freedom is nice, but this is the real world. Truly, I envy your jolly attitude and inexperience.
@@SonGoku-tp8gb You are arguing for films being made by AI. Digital is vastly inferior to film in every way except convenience. In just a few years time it will be much more convenient for studios to simply not use cameras, lights, microphones, actors, directors or writers. The movie going public today doesn’t know or care about film vs digital and they won’t care when the films they watch are made entirely by a computer. Will you? Just to be clear: I agree with you. But I’m saying that this is not a good thing. Digital is bad not only because it’s ugly (which it is) but because it cheapens the entire process. There are far more films being made today then ever before but 99,9% of it is pure shit. The quality of filmmaking is already so low that by the time films are longer being made by human beings no one will notice and therefor no one will care. This needs to change before its too late.
@@davebowman1337 Did you even read my comment? That industry is all about making money. Movies accused of being made by AI are terrible and losing money. That is not at all supported in my comment, please be logical. There are no theaters with film projectors within a convenient drive for me. I know you're not driving 2+ hours for every movie just for film when a digital projector is 5 minutes away. How often have you supported digital by going to such theaters? Once you get a job and start earning, I hope you can fund a movement to promote film by making sacrifices in your living conditions, motivated by your passion. I sure won't, and not many people will have your back. That is, unless you don't quite care enough, and would rather fund your own living conditions for your convenience. If the latter is your choice, then congrats you're kind of starting to understand the business side of America.
@@SonGoku-tp8gb I read your comment. Did you read mine? I was not talking about AI films today. I’m telling you, filmmaking as we know it is going away in much less then a generation, most of us just don’t know about it yet. Perhaps you’re not aware of the progress that is being made and how fast it’s going. If you don’t care, that’s fine. Since you seem interested in my personal background, I’m in my mid 30s and work in finance. I’m not interested in watching digital projections of digitally shot movies when I may as well watch them at home, on my own digital device. I an however lucky enough to live in a city with a theather where I can watch all kinds of different films, on film. I go as often as I can. Again, the film industry doesn’t seem to care that digital is going to lead to its own destruction. Can’t you see this? There will be no need for digital video cameras when the films made by the future versions of Sora et al. are advanced enough. When there is no more need for cameras, there is no more film industry. It’s done. ua-cam.com/video/-6hwjN2VlYg/v-deo.htmlsi=l5NKaAnXctNs2ZhN This technology is very early. We’re talking Lumière train footage early. Give it a few years and nothing will ever be the same.
And he knows innovation while using film. Check out his short scene in Lumiere(?) where directors use the brother’s classic film camera and aren’t allowed post editing. DL does a handful of In scene edits.
Reading Lynch's biography right now. He has always been about utility and accessibility to materials. He has repeatedly said that the only reason he used film in his day was because it was the only game in town if you wanted a detailed image.
He evangelises in the book about digital too. His dream scenario is everyone having immediate access to creative tools without too much expense or hassle. There's a passage where he talks about using Photoshop for the first time and he almost blacks out with happiness because it does things in seconds it used to take him hours to do.
Room to Dream? Such a great book! I would recommend listening on tape, because David narrates his sections himself, and adds extra detail at points. Very inspiring stuff.
I would love to hear his thoughts on generative AI
This ends up just devaluing the medium. Everyone can make it and view it at any time. Value lost. Mankind Returns to tribalism.
@zachmorley158 Bit of a harsh, hysterical conclusion to draw from a guy saying he likes digital video and Photoshop, mate.
@@zachmorley158 What elitist, bourgeois drivel. Skill & artistry are what make a good film. And those are still hard to come by even with accessible technology.
My nightmares: David Lynch films. David Lynch’s nightmares: film.
David Lynch's films: nightmares
Never expected an old-school filmmaker like him to have this preference
There is nothing old school about him.
@@ToxicTurtleIsMadexcept his age, but yeah, he’s always been forward thinking and I totally buy that he sees the benefits of digital cameras.
Old school filmmakers are very pre-planned in their approach. Lynch however makes many decisions on set guided by his unique intiution. That demands a more agile filming pipeline, which digital caters to perfectly, because it is so much quicker to set up and a lot less of a hassle.
The reason this man's work is so unique and ground breaking is because he doesn't hold any useless archaic values. He's an innovator, and innovators know when something has been improved. "To improve is to change; to be perfect is to change often."
Funnily enough,If you look at a lot of old Filmmaker, Spielberg, Lucas, Scorsese, Fincher, Mann etc they seem to favor Digital cause they can do more stuff with it.
Then you have the newer ones like Tarantino, Nolan and others (Cant remember on top of my head sorry) who prefers film because they grew up with it and love the purity of it.
Kinda ironic to think about the older ones are the ones who much prefer the newer ways. 🤣
This is what I love about Lynch. He is, all at once, simultaneously, an old school classicist AND a new school visionary. The rare mark of only the greatest storytellers.
It's all about having the widest awareness. Applies to all things.
He reminds me of Bowie, and vice versa, somehow. 🤷♂️
His career started in the wake of the new hollywood movement which I think was the biggest link between modern cinema and classical hollywood.
He complaining about people watching movies on their phones and tablets.
"storytellers" 😂
It's a new rahmen. Just call it noodles ffs
Everything he says is so smart but also so accidentally funny at the same time
Great way to describe him. I saw him talk at this Ideas festival about serious stuff like philosophy, art, meditation, his films, etc. And the audience was rolling with laughter. I think it's accidental but I think he also amuses himself constantly. You think it's going to be dead serious and it somehow becomes extremely goofy. Just like Twin Peaks I suppose.
Autism (he's literally me)
dude from american dad lol
That's autism for ya
I think it's actually very much a feature, not a bug. The man's always had a great sense of humor.
I definitely like his take. It’s all about how you use the tools. If digital makes you work better, use it.
On the flipside if someone like Nolan works best with film that’s fine too.
Point is, beating your chest about being a purist because something is “just the way it’s always been done” is pointless.
Using David Lynch´s and Nolan´s names in the same sentence is the same that talking about a sushi dinner and a turd sandwich.
@@MrCarpen7er Yeah, why don't mention someone like Scorsese or even Tarantino? Nolan is one; though while just one, still a big step below the truly great ones in cinema history. He's one of those that, while loved in his times, history won't treat greatly. Basically because he's not actually very interesting or does anything truly, truly remarkable.
@@brunoactis1104c'mon dude
go take a shower hipster lol @@brunoactis1104
@@MrCarpen7er Is Nolan Turd? (here come the nolanites!!)
Man goes from "I love film" to "It's a nightmare!" in about a minute 😂😂
Life of a filmmaker. Simultaneous "I love it" and "it's a nightmare." You can't build dreams out of movies without facing the nightmare of production, unfortunately.
If anyone loves nightmares, it's David Lynch
1:07
Both statements can be true at the same time, that's what he's saying. He loves film, but it's a nightmare, so he prefers digital. He similarly also said "I love cinema, but I don't want to go there anymore".
One thing is being an spectator of film and another is working with it.
He just like to work quicker and shoot longer. Digital allows him that.
I can just listen to David Lynch talk for hours and hours
I think this is the first time I've ever heard this man laugh.
Ah Ah! Right dude! 😀
the movie reels are extremely large & heavy too. i used to work for a local movie theatre & the projectionist was too old & too short to carry them. he used to make us ushers carry them over our shoulder whenever a movie switched rooms to switch them. but he was always so nervous about it.
the reels were so big that they barely missed scraping the floor as you walked w/them. and you had to be strong enough to keep it from touching the ground. he only used me if other workers weren’t available b/c i was kind of a klutz and some workers he wouldn’t use at all. it was always so nerve wracking b/c the reels were so expensive. the owners would switch rooms all the time too
That’s so interesting! 😮
Your standard film reel usually weighs anywhere from 40-60 pounds, so pretty heavy. The film reel for the 70mm IMAX film Oppenheimer weighs about 600 pounds. @@taroteverafter6406
Imagine that with avatar 2
As a former projectionist, I've dropped those reels before, it's not fun, spirals everywhere and takes a day to respool it.
wow. if this was in the US thats especially scary since there's nothing stopping the employer from just firing you on a whim if you drop it
As if I couldn't like this man any more, he knows his audio history!! He's totally on the money here
Some old-school audio guys have similar feelings about tape vs digital, too. I remember an interview with Malcolm Toft (Trident Studios engineer who worked on songs like "Hey Jude" and "Space Oddity," and later helped design Trident consoles) where he talked about a situation where you've chosen the right microphone, set it up properly, got the levels right, the compression, the EQ from the board-all good, until you hit payback and have to make adjustments because the tape coloration screwed it up; whereas with digital, what you're hearing is what's being captured.
@@damianoakes2592 as a newish audio nerd, hearing its aural (not really but the pun was right there) history is just so fascinating to me! I’m so glad I didn’t have to deal with the tape and all that analog machinery. Recording digital audio was (mostly) a breeze!
Amen to that. It also puts film making into the hands of ordinary people with just a good digital camera and a computer. Bravo David Lynch.
He’s a professional, who realizes that digital is the tool to the creativity that he needs for himself for his craft. We all can appreciate the multitude of ways that the tools that are disposal with media can be used
Lynch inadvertently explaining everything I like about film.
Old school projectionists certainly don’t miss the noise and massively cumbersome size and weight of film reels they had to deal with. They also used to get so crappy after just a few weeks. I remember our showing of Saving Private Ryan got cancelled after the reel broke midway through.
@@tronam That is not what the two projectionists I know think, but I am sure that's true for a lot of folk.
@@Mitch_Feral There’s a romanticism to film I totally understand. I started shooting film myself and did so for many years. I get it. It’s the CD vs vinyl debate all over again and neither side are really “wrong”. The advantages of digital are so numerous though from capture to post-production that celluloid projection is now all but extinct save for a small handful of screens around the world. Even movies shot on film are projected digitally by 99% of theaters. I’m not a very nostalgic person, but maybe it is a little sad to see such a prominent aspect of theatrical exhibition throughout the 20th century fade away into obscurity. Without modern filmmakers like Nolan, Tarantino, and P.T. Anderson championing the format and workflow, I doubt Kodak could continue to justify manufacturing such expensive celluloid. When I read about Oppenheimer’s 11 mile, 600 pound reels, I couldn’t help but laugh a little at how comically antiquated that seemed. It made me think of that photograph from the 1950s showing four IBM employees pushing an early hard disk drive the size of 3 washing machines up a ramp onto a truck.
How he’s literally by all definitions the filmmaking “dinosaur” in any room and yet stays so fresh and open to anything is beyond me. Mf is just so chill and doesn’t give a shit. I can’t not stan..
I wouldn't call him a dinosaur though, many filmmakers dream of catching up to his genius. If anything he is ahead of his time,
Christopher Nolan: 💀
Quentin Tarantino: 🤬
Well, there's no director more opposite to Lynch than Nolan. Nolan believes his viewers to be morons, that's why he always feels the need to explain everything in his films. Lynch regards his viewers as intelligent people than can be challenged both intelectual and emotionally.
@@saidtoshimaru1832 I understand your point, but I think Nolan does that because he is obsessive compulsive. For example I believe that he really wanted to release Tenet in 2020 because 20 mirrors the other 20 as Tenet reads the same backwards. Also Nolan movies are way more costly to produce and he is obligated to explain things for the average viewer .
@@Doctordoompapito Well, Kubrick was quite obsessive too, even more than him, but he still refused to explain anything in 2001: a space Odyssey, and thank's god he did. But I understand that maybe Nolan is pressured by the studios to explain most things.
@@saidtoshimaru1832 you mean afterwards with interviews or that he explains it in the film itself?
Some years later in a different interview(masterclass), David would admit that, while he still loves digital, celluloid can translate things that digital is not yet capable of (even when celluloid is digitally projected).
ua-cam.com/video/pPial9mu-RI/v-deo.htmlsi=aHNLfJFahzqKcCSd
(20:40 onwards)
For sure - film will always look better, but it is such a hassle for filmmakers. And 99% of students coming out of film school nowadays have no idea how to use it anyway (myself included)
@@matthewsawczyn6592Buy a film camera to play around, your parents or family probably already have a camera laying around somewhere inside a cardboard box but its better if you have acess to a full manual camera
@@matthewsawczyn6592 My first two production classes in college had us use Super 8 and 16mm film, respectively. It was fun and interesting in some ways, but it was also a pain in the butt, and the local person who we had to use to develop the Super 8 film did it in her bathtub or something and it always came out with developing problems-which was maddening, given how expensive the film was in the first place.
The argument that the professors made is that it taught us discipline, because we wouldn't want to waste film, but I feel like there could have been other ways to teach that...There must be, in fact, because the semester after I took the 16mm class, they switched to 100% digital, with film as an option for some electives and stuff.
@@matthewsawczyn6592film looks better for certain shots, but not all.
@@matthewsawczyn6592 "film will always look better" How do you know that? Digital is still a changing medium.
Lynch, Rodriguez and Deakins have provided the best cases for digital filmmaking; elsewhere the lo-fi movement has been making the case for homespun art for half a century.
I adore celluloid and will champion those try to preserve its usage in blockbuster filmmaking. But it’s not so pure that I’d think less of work that isn’t shot on it.
I love old trash cinema, but I’ve noticed my tolerance for really bad movies shot on digital is not the same as something shot on film.
@@josephmayfield945
True, but I think sound has a great deal to do with it too. A trashy old movie on film usually also has crappy sound quality. It completes the experience. A trashy movie on digital has very good studio level sound. There's something off.
I put on that list as well Jackson, Zemeckis, Fincher and Refn, especially Refn. Excellent cases of digital pioneers. Malick's A Hidden Life is also a very good example of digital cinema with high aesthetics. I love film, but if you use digital in a smart way you can get great results.
The idea that film is pure or has a instilled magical essence is obviously a farce and is likely due to the sheer number of Films that we all have seen that look good for a variety of reasons- not because they were developed on cellulose.
There’s a sort of crossover between what people like about movies that were made on film, and film itself
@@jbtownsend9535 Well, I wouldn't call it a farce. I don't agrree with that. The truth is somewhere in-between. I don't like purists either. But film is superior to digital in a number of ways, which are linked with the essence of what cinema is and how it developed historically and aesthetically and taught us to experience movies. I don't like the crispness and ultra high analysis of digital either and I also don;t like how the cinematography of most modern films has lost its traditional lighting approach due to the new sensors which are able now to photograph in the dark with almost no lights. I believe that one way or another, most digital films aesthetically always try to emulate the feeling of film. But that could end sometime soon, supposedly with the advance of A.I. where any kind of digitally shot movie could be mistaken for any kind of film.
I love David Lynch so much. What a character
Because so many of us grew up watching his films, and he's the man behind so many of the classics we came in contact with at a younger age, I think we incorrectly think that he's "old school." But he's actually rebellious when it comes to the old way of doing things. He craves agility, but also works best when there aren't restraints - and it makes sense that he'd preach digital, since he plugs into his style so perfectly.
So refreshing to hear this point of view. Not that I am partial one way or the other but it's refreshing to hear an old-school director have an opinion that the film snobs reel at.
'Film snobs'. Pointing out that Film is objectively the superior format that is not suppressed by mandatory resolution and speculative digits equals 'film snob'? Come on, where do we get the word 'Movie' or 'Film' from? From Film itself. The 'Motion Picture'. 'Moving Images'. This is kind of obvious. And most if not all of the best looking features are all shot on Film. Sometimes, what some call "snobbery" is just basic facts. Why does Hollywood and its small subsidiaries keep applying fake grain filters to remind people of film? What's better, the real deal or the imitator?
@@CuriousEnthusiast956you are by definition a film snob lol
@@Synky Define a "film snob". That just sounds like your way of saying that you don't like what i have to say but at the same time having a difficult time making a objective standing. I propose that you pass that declaration on to yourself.
reel. hah.
@@CuriousEnthusiast956 oh my god you are just the worst kind of film snob
Very charming, and with the leaps and bounds we've had in digital image capture, I think he's right.
David Lynch is about Capturing DREAMS. He doesn't care about "smell this celluloid" stuff, he is CAPTURING DREAMS
It’s always really interesting hearing David talk about things no matter how mundane the subject is. It does surprise me that he prefers Digital over Film considering how old-school he is.
I totally understand his points from a director's pov. The hassle alone shooting with film nowadays must be tremendous. As a viewer, however, I prefer film visually to digital.
Easy. Still, after all these years of hugely expensive digital cameras, film wins. Also film scanned digitally to a computer and cleaned is simply the best picture you can get.
The processes nowadays are actually far smoother than they were even 10 years ago.
in europe aspiring filmakers develop their film shorts and full features in romanian labs, most anyone can now afford scanning facilities for this look that digital still can't emulate. Most digital movies are graded in monochrome o bichrome these days.
The thing is, even filmmakers who still shoot on film, scan it to digital and almost everyone views it through digital projection anyway. There are only a small handful of theaters still projecting through film anymore.
Lynch has 100% the point. Most people praise the authenticity of film stock footage, but they are rarely aware of problems that come with shooting on it, and they are PLENTY.
- 35mm film stock is monumentally expensive, as well as cameras for it, and they are so power hungry, they practically always require to be connected to external power source. The are much bigger, and heavier and therefore require more expensive gear, and don't fit in many places digital cameras do - all of this require putting much more work into planning and production design.
- Film is less sensitive to light which means that A LOT more consideration has to be put into lighting, making using household grade lights impossible - if they are present in the shot, their light has to always be faked with expensive lighting gear.
- You have limited means of examining the footage on set - and it requires another set of expensive gear.
- It needs expensive and time consuming chemical development that can always go wrong.
- Editing on film is a whole new level of complex - e.g. reversing footage either flips the image or require cutting and reordering frame by frame. Adjusting speed require making multiple photocopies, and list goes on, and of course it requires specialized gear - that's way nobody does that, even if the movie is shot on film, it's scanned, edited digitally and re-projected back to film. Speaking of which....
- Any computer assisted VFX, not only CGI but even simple compositing require scanning the footage and re-projecting it anyways.
- Because the entire industry has switched to digital long ago, all of the above is order of magnitude more expensive than it used to be.
All of this literally requires millions of dollars and months of additional time to achieve an effect that can be 90% accurately reproduced using a vintage lens and degrading footage in post with a ready made plug-in like dehancer for less than 0.1 % of the cost.
Film may have a better look to a viewer, but I think he is speaking as a creator who has to work with it, and no matter which way you cut it things like tape in music and film in cinema are a pain in the ass for the creators.
so you think its better to cop out and go the easy route
@@paulelroy6650Watch zodiac by fincher, digital is as good as film there. Since then digital is a great medium in cinema, and to light it properly can be as hard, as zodiac process has shown. The highlight roll off is almost identical, dynamic range iqual. The main difference is film has more latitude in light and digital has more latitude in dark, in shadows. But digital is cleaner, faster and you can see the result ASAP… plus I’d more sensitive to light.. film go with good resolution to ISO 500, digital go with no problem to 6400 ISO… in the end it’s a better tool for the job.
Just another tool in the belt tbh, digital may appear easier on the surface, but when shooting film you typically end up with more discipline on set as a result as the sound of film running through a camera is the sound of money burning. This tends to result in an overall better performance from everyone involved. In theory you could approach shooting digital in the same way, but ultimately it's not the same.
@paulelroy6650 On paper, you could make way harder, more complex things with digital cause there are more options. This isn't about easy or hard, and I doubt a guy like Lynch is thinking about that when trying to get an idea realized and recorded. I think following what gets the ideas out the best is what matters. If that's working on film for you? Great! If not? Great! This fetishization and rose tinted glasses on things like tape and film are really silly, imo and come from a viewer/listener perspective almost 70% of the time. I want the art to be good. I don't care how it becomes good. that's up to the artist. I can only have an opinion on my own art process.
@@paulelroy6650 Do you have in your kitchen only handmade forged knives, or do you opted to go the easy route, lazy coward??!!
(What a moronic thing to say, lol)
I feel like a happy medium there is: film to acquire the image, then scan it and use a digital pipeline for the rest. Which is what a lot of films are doing these days. Best of both worlds.
Inland Empire is his best (most precise) film in my opinion. Hypnosis is the recurring theme here. There are a lot of important details that you can mistake for imperfections due to the video quality. One cue is the scene of misunderstanding between the director and Bucky J played by David Lynch. There is a squeal of the door as the old witch enters the house and says hello. A bird flies right above as Nikki enters the studios. And so on and so on. BTW I hated it the first time I saw it.
Inland empire is far from his best 💀 every Lynch film is precise, he’s been making his film in a detailed manner ever since his early short films. Eraserhead is EXTREMELY detailed. There are at least 5 lynch movies better than inland empire…
@@jonathanramsey1269 Eraserhead is great too and I really like the third season of Twin Peaks. Inland Empire goes back to the roots of cinema with simple tricks involving cuts, exposure, theatrical acting and horror while embracing the technology of a digital camera. I think it will stand the test of time with all the other cinematic masterpieces.
@@evetrue2615 inland empire is good but by no means a masterpiece
@@jonathanramsey1269 Every true masterpiece redefines what it means to be a masterpiece. But I understand your view since I thought the same in the past.
There's nothing precise about that 3 hour movie and it's certainly not his best.
I feel like David Lynch and Roger Deakins would work really well together. Not only do they have the same opinion but I feel like Roger Deakin's stylistic cinematography would give an element to a David's film that he would find appealing.
Bro that’s actually a fucking awesome idea. It pains me knowing they’ll probably never work together but goddamn they could make it work really well.
Very cool of Lynch to not just go with the hipster "Analog is just better man" answer. Sometimes convenience is just better, like using an electric kettle instead of a gas one.
Wow I never expected David Lynch to love digital over film.
The origins of certain technology are _always_ worthy of the respect they get, but for stuff like this the ones with the hard-on for nostalgia and purism are the ones either too young to know the *professional* workload, limitations, and sheer cost in both time and money; or are too old and thus intimidated by investing that same commitment into re-learning their craft. As he touched on, film is a big physical thing that you're constantly needing to care for to ensure longevity. It's still superior in terms of scaling to digital as far as I know, but unless you've got a weird hard-on for the physical medium itself, that's the only objective benefit over digital that will face all the issues of preservation that could degrade the whole point of archiving for scalability in the first place. I'm happy to be educated with correction, though. I have no bias, just speaking on what I've passively absorbed over the years from interviews and study of the medium itself.
This attitude of fetishised pseudo-nostalgia applies to just about any field and is always annoying when faced with the unrelenting torrent of "retro" fads. For instance: Windows 3.1/Vaporwave/90's ａｅｓｔｈｅｔｉｃ - sure, whatever. It's certainly fun to look at, I guess. But these kids never had to LIVE with what they're romanticizing and get to walk away when they've had their fill. Older people like myself didn't have that luxury and had to endure it for decades before technology matured into the powerful, HiFi/HD Goliath it has become in barely two decades. With the exception of the miserable invasion of privacy and compulsory theft of consumer rights by tech companies these days, I'd take modern tech over "retro" every time haha
Sounds like you take the retro fads far more seriously than the people who enjoy them
@doofsdoofs he's right, young people are annoying with their quirky crt walls or whatever. shit is wack.
@@CONNER_No his comment is pretty deranged and melodramatic
“Dem younglings never understood the hardships I went through with my old tech” 👴🏻
3840*2160 resolution for a screen the size of your typical cinema, its the exact same resolution as your TV, and is hardly impressive and 65/70mm film blows it out of the water.
Admittedly 70mm was almost dead before the days of digital. But that doesn't change the fact that a movie filmed and projected in 70mm will look far superior to digital.
Hollywood switched to digital for $$ reasons, not artistic reasons.
So spare me the "everything new is better" spiel.
(it's actually fairly easy to get reel-to-reel audio tape)
He always was a pioneer, a true creative never stuck in the past
Without the past, there is no present. And that is often why the present is as lame & soulless as what it is now, outside of certain interesting projects on the Internet.
This man was one of the biggest contributors to my love for cinema. I will always adore his work
Lynch is probably the realest of any film director
This feels like the antithesis of his iconic cell phone take ☎️
Many filmmakers or tv producers say digital is better and they can’t tell the difference in quality on the screen. I completely disagree. I can almost always tell if movie is film or video and film looks way better. On the other hand, the Holdovers uses video with a filter to make it look like it was shot on film. I kinda like that.
holdovers is a great example of digital replicating film well. another one is dune, in which they shot on digital and then transferred it to film and then digitally mastered that transfer, and it looks incredibly filmic.
Movie nerds can’t tell most of the time. I’m working on a documentary right now and the only reason is because it’s digital. Somebody in the comments of Fury Road said that the movie fury road looked great because it was George Miller directing it in film. The whole movie was shot in digital and George Miller admitted using Canon DSLR cameras rigged to the cars inside wrecking boxes. John Seale was the DP. He was 77 when he worked on Fury road. Two old dudes who moved on.
This is SOOOOOOOO refreshing to hear from Lynch! I'd be lying if I said I always knew he'd come to his senses when it came to film, but I'm really glad to know that he feels this way about film 😂
I feel the same about music recording and I am not afraid to say.
Silver nitrate. That's what made old celluloid flammable.
I think there are non flammable film sticks now
For me, the most important thing is accessibility. Does it matter if something looks better if you can't actually use it? Do you have the time and money?
Well here's the thing: Learn to use it. The opportunity to learn is not impossible.
@@CuriousEnthusiast956It's not about learning to use it. It's about the access to it. A kid can make a movie now with their cellphone or a cheap digital camera and that is more beautiful than any expensive film camera.
Wasn't expecting him to say that. Because film has kind of a dreamy effect to it. But pragmatically it makes a lot of sense. Without the practical limitations he can probably experiment more with a scene with digital. Personally I miss film. I have a weird love of lens flairs.
He described everything I love about film aha
Not that it wasn't great, but he was the best part of The Fableman's.
Film is capable of much higher resolution than digital. That might change someday. But 70MM is basically 18K and digital is having a hard time justifying 6K and up.
Lawrence of Arabia
Can you point me in the direction of any tests demonstrating that? Thank you.
@@PeterKoperdan The best way is to go to an IMAX theater showing a 70MM print since digital screens literally can't depict it. But make sure it isn't a "limax" where it isn't actually an Imax system.
Film does not have a “resolution” and it’s an inherently soft medium by nature. The perception of captured detail is highly subjective and affected by so many things, especially technique, lenses used, and viewing distance, making most of this an academic exercise ignoring all the other myriad advantages that the digital medium has over film emulsion.
@@tronam how much detail you capture isn't subjective. And saying it's inherently soft is like saying digital is inherently pixilated. idk why you'd imply that sharp images aren't possible in film. idk if you're trying to "show off" but you're basically just saying "if you don't do it right, it isn't sharp" which is also true for digital. I said "basically 18k" because the level of information and detail in that film stock completely surpasses all digital formats upto this point and it isn't even close. Hoyte van Hoytema is the guy who cited that figure and he's one of the leading experts on the subject.
Same with veteran DJs hating vinyl and newbies loving the novelty
When I started my film degree in like 2016/17 ish, one person there taught film cameras, and badly, so I never even got a chance to get into it, that plus the impossible prices of film...you know, i was a student. On a student loans income, in a 4 bedroom shared flat, you do the maths. So yeah safe to say films never coming back if theirs an entire generation of filmmakers out there who had my experience.
I agree that film can't "come back", because it never went away. Over 60 movies with theatrical releases in 2023 were shot on film including Oppenheimer, Asteroid City, and Killers of the Flower Moon. There are many tools in this world that students cannot afford, that has little to do with the tools merit, availability, and usage.
@@broseywales5538 now name one not directed by someone above the age of 50
Edit: Before you misunderstand, my point is they are old enough to remember being taught film when it was the only viable option, as they get older and die, less people are going to know.
@@broseywales5538all auteur driven films by directors who were taught the process in their generation. That’s not happening anymore
@@broseywales5538 And what happens when Nolan, Anderson and Scorsese retire? Film will die unfortunately.
@@broseywales5538That isn’t what the comment is saying. When these filmmakers are gone, we will have a new generation of them. Will they use film?
There's nothing wrong with falling in love with the art form of cinema and what it took to make a motion picture back in the day. But there's a reason it's not around, because technology evolves, things change, and change in the world of film has made things easier but also opened so many more doors for new artists to enter the industry.
This is what George Lucas been saying too. He was one of the early adopters and trying to tell other filmmakers that these are just tools. It's the story that matters, the tools are just the way to get there.
EDIT: There have been enough "Lucas is a hack" and "Prequels are terrible" comments here. If you have anything of substance to say on the subject, go ahead. If your points are "dialogue is bad" or "acting is bad", you may as well leave it. These baseless criticisms are ubiquitous, and you're not enlightening anyone. I advise you to actually do some research, because these criticisms have been addressed many times by more intelligent people than you. If you wanna drop your arrogance and for once in your life admit that you might not be understanding something, I'll be glad to try and help you expand your horizons and see Star Wars in a new light. You're not stupid for not understanding a movie. Stupidity is the arrogance to think you're smart and George Lucas is stupid. The man who, other than creating Star Wars, made American Graffiti, wrote Indiana Jones, started Industrial Light & Magic, indirectly started Pixar, kickstarted improvements and innovations in movie theater experience, editing technology and video game development, and is respected by all the great filmmakers in Hollywood, while himself making some of his greatest work outside of the corrupt Hollywood system. He is one of the few auteurs in big-budget mainstream filmmaking. A man with enough artistic integrity to do what he wants in the way he wants, regardless of what people expect of him or how they're gonna react. He knew the prequels were gonna be misunderstood and hated, and you guys have proven him right. Congrats, keep spouting vitriol, you're not on the right side of history here.
@seanolaocha940 not in the slightest. He's never been one to stick to old technology out of some romantic obsession. This is why he never shied away from implementing newest technologies in his films and pushing the technological progress forward, even when not working on films. Digital editing, THX, 3D animation, CGI, video games - all of this has been significantly affected by his involvement. His impact on our modern culture has been enormous, and he never gets the credit.
@seanolaocha940 the prequels are deemed to be failures by manchildren who wanted it to be like the Star Wars they grew up with. There are no major flaws with the plot or the characterization. And to say there was a lack of effort is not only offensive, but ignorant. People who know about the production of those movies know how much thought went into every little element. There's a reason why these movies took nearly a decade to make, Lucas was extremely meticulous with them. Watch Rick Worley's "How to Watch Star Wars" videos, he goes way into detail.
>And of Lucas' films I think the ones shot on film look much better than those using digital cameras. Ditto for practical effects and CGI.
You're just parroting what you've heard on the internet. Practical effects are never better than the CGI. The muppet show that was the Cantina in the originals is not in any way more "realistic" than anything from the prequels. You just believe in it more because you like the story more. On this subject watch "The Real Reason The Thing (1982) is Better than The Thing (2011)" by The Morbid Zoo.
@seanolaocha940 okay, maybe next time do some research before spouting nonsense
He’s not a good director
@@TheCatLoverLord he is, you're just too stupid to get it
This is about utility which anyone can agree with. What makes film special is its visual substance.
No matter the medium, it’s the genius of the artist that ultimately shines through
It just a lot less of a hassle and also you can get the same look using old lenses or with software
Modern cinema cameras have a wider dynamic range than film. Recording RAW gives tremendous latitude in adjusting exposure while editing.
I respect his honesty abt it
David Lynch being based as usual
Everyone is always nostalgic for records too, but when you talk to people who actually produced music on records the my say BON VOYAGE! GOOD RIDDANCE! producing all those bands on records was a nightmare and nothing distorted the sound more than the record itself.
He’s so refreshing among these superiority complex having film edge lords😭😭 it’s the facts film is novel and beautiful, but in the middle of the process you realize it’s insane to use something so expensive and difficult to work with when there’s a much easier, cheaper, and more accessible alternative where you can get nearly the same effect
"Nearly the same effect". Ok, then how do we explain something like the 4K of T2 where it was so excessively processed to look like a modern digital feature that it ended up making everyone look like wax figures? Digital does not have the same effect, why do you think Hollywood and small subsidiaries constantly try to imitate 35MM by applying fake grain filters and yet looks nothing like the real dead?
Because like all corporations, they're always caught up in the "future is always better than the past" mindset that they can't admit that they're "progressive" practices are wrong. But they will still remind you with shadows of the past. Hypocrisy at its very finest.
A better effect in my opinion. Digital is superior 💪 and it's so nice he cuts the BS
@@Synky "Digital is superior". Yeah, for convenience and plastic looking shampoo commercials. 🥱🥱
@@Synky
Peasant talking
I'm surprised he abandoned film and started shooting digitally in the mid-2000's. I love film and film grain.
I’m here throwing whatever weight I have behind Lynch. I’ve worked as a photographer since the late ‘80s. Any current photographer making a living is shooting digital, maybe a rare unicorn is the exception, but never heard of one. I also shoot corporate video. The camera I use could be utilized to make feature films if needed. That kind of (affordable) advancement was a total game changer in the cinema world.
I’d argue the ease of access has taken cinema to a lower level of quality. There’s so much subpar film making out there right now it’s staggering.
I think when it was a harder hurdle to jump, only the people with real drive were able to get their project done, and it shows.
@@josephmayfield945 - Good point, but that would have to be a very low bar indeed! I'm a fan of 'B' and unintentionally comedic cinematic efforts, and there has always been an abundance of low-quality film making, regardless of whether it was photochemical or digital. Quite a few YT channels are devoted to this historical fact.
I agree with everything David said about film, none the less it is still the premier acquisition format for drama hands down. Digital is real, film is a dream.
He's talking about the projectors. I argue in favor of film at least in terms of an aquisition format.
@@damienx0x Aquisition format is commonly used to describe the medium of choice when shooting anything with respect to photography. Was the image that you see in the final presentation aquired with a camera that uses the photochemical process or was it aquired with a digital format? How it is ultimately processed for presentation purposes is different. Just like when I watch Netflix, I can tell when a movie was shot on a digital format or traditional photochemical photography was used. If you have a speech written by A.I. or written by a person is the aquisition of the wording. If a person reads it to an audience or a digital voice reads it to them that is the presentation format. Only with the spoken word, the presentation is far more degrading with AI.
David Lynch is a wonderful man.
Personally, I find it extremely pretentious when a filmmaker or film enthusiast makes claims that film is better than digital. It’s how you use it. I’m not an expert but I know that much at least
Shooting movies on film does sound like a nightmare. However, I'm currently getting into film photography and really enjoying it. Images seem to mean more, and you have to take your time with the shots you take so you don't waste expensive film. As someone who's only ever had a digital camera since about 2006, I find the old school medium really refreshing.
Love it. This reminds me of Gary Numan, the guy who is synonymous with synth pop created on analog hardware synths in the 1970s and 1980s now uses 100% only software synths, and runs everything from his synth sounds to overall live sound mix to even his stage lights via MIDI. He does it for the amount of control, reproducibility, price, and lack of things failing at critical moments.
He's mostly right, but he jumped ship too early when the resolution was terrible (Inland Empire, using SD cameras) . I presume he wanted that look (there was better gear available at the time), but I found it distracting.
That's why watching movies on your telephone is okay
🤣🤣
I mean he must changed his mind on that too.
"GET REAL"
on your FUCKING TELEPHONE
*fucking telephone
Asking him if he's not a cinema romantic is kind of ridiculous. You can adore the artform but still not stay mired in primitive approaches. After all, how many filmmakers are using silent black and white with hand cranked cameras? You can love the history and respect the roots, but binding yourself to those limited approaches will in fact limit your creativity. Where would us UA-cam creators be if we swore to film only? Where would broadcasting be if it had stuck to analogue black and white air transmission? A true artist uses every tool and revels in an ever evolving experience, and cinematic art has enjoyed a truly fantastic evolution to explore. If you've seen Lynch's Dune, SyFy's Dune, and Villeneuve's Dune, then you can clearly see how evolution of media has helped to create an ever more impressive experience as the years have passed. Imagine trying to convey that amazing core story with grainy black and white and the primitive filming methods of the dawn of cinema. It had long been said that Dune cannot be transposed to the big screen properly. I think it just needed the world to catch up to it.
All the things he says he dislikes about film are things I love about it. It’s organic and unpredictable. In a medium that’s all about control, it’s a little agent of chaos that keeps things interesting.
Lynch always keeps it real
He's right about the noise from cameras - it's crazy that you can get a Sony FX-3, get a lens for about $1200-$1500, and shoot an entire film that will come out looking better than 90% of the "classic" films from the golden age of hollywood, and the thing is SILENT.
I'm gonna hope for that price that it'd be on par with something more recent.
@@VinnytotheKSeeing as how a 720p TV camera cost about 20,000 twenty years ago, I think we're doing ok.
@@DamienLavizzo True enough. I do think a camera at that price range will result in very good picture quality, and probably could look modern cinema worthy if executed correctly.
@@VinnytotheK Im on the other side of the coin where Im amazed we live in a world now where cinema grade cameras are so cheap. Even a digital ARRI camera (what most major productions use) not that long ago was literally $40,000 dollars.
A digital camera is not going to make footage look better than a classic film unless it's being used by a skilled cinematographer who knows how to light a scene properly. That's what make Golden Age films look so good -- the artfulness of the lighting. That hasn't changed.
Fortunately, not only have the cameras gotten much lighter and cheaper, the lights have too. But you still have to know how to use them properly.
All that stuff he mentioned is what gives it character.
I agree with lynch although particularly his movies looked bad in digital.
Inland Empire doesn’t look bad. It’s not exactly Eraserhead, but there’s some great shots in it. The set of the bunny’s in particular is great. Twin Peaks season 3 is shot in digital, and looks absolutely amazing. Especially the episode in black and white.
This reminds me of an older cricket fan liking tests cricket but loving t20s too. You can’t really argue with it and they’re not wrong…
…and yet they’re dead wrong.
Working with film is tedious. But nothing beats the look of film, at least not yet. Just look at the cinematography of Saltburn. It's beautiful. The colors all look bright and natural. Digital looks dull unless properly color graded. Even when color graded, sometimes they look tinted.
This is the problem with all technologies though. Just as we perfected a technology, a new one comes along that can do things thought impossible, but has decades to go before it improves to the same level. It will eventually supersede though and ironically, be superseded by something else in the future.
Saltburn looked like complete shit, especially compared to the Holdovers, which was shot digitally but edited to look like a 70s movie which works because it takes place in the 70s and looks good.
Saltburn was just slop trying too hard to appeal to letterboxd bros with the fancy aspect ratios, film grain, etc.
@CONNER_ you're kidding me. The Haldovers looked like they threw a green tint and added some dirt and grain. Despite how hard they tried to emulate the style of film, it's still obviously digital. They added the film dirt but forgot about proper color grading. Saltburn's colors are rich with sharp images, and it feels dirty at the same time because it is shot film. Even though modern 35mm is clean.
@@VincentStevenStudio Nebraska also looks digital, despite trying hard to be otherwise.
I miss film for still photography. The smell of a darkroom. The tangible sensation of holding a negative in your hand. The processing mistakes that accidentally reveal something you had not thought of. Digital is easier and more accurate, but some of the magic of discovery is lost along the way.
I like the visual aesthetic of film personally, but there's been a lot of advancements in recent years that allows digital to look similar to film.
Digital media needs a physical version for archival purposes. There is the M-Disc media format. I have an M-Disc option on my computer's Multi-disk drive.
M-Disc Wiki:
"In 2022, the NIST Interagency Report NIST IR 8387[22](Page 12), stated that M-Disc is an acceptable archival format rated for up to 100 years+."
I see it more pragmatic. I simply prefer the way Film captures images because it is a lot closer to how our eyes perceive light. Digital Image sensors are always just interpreting the incoming light and every image sensor does it differently. Some do it better than others. The Arri Alexa sensor however creates one of the worst and most boring looking picture i have ever seen. It's lightyears away from actual 35mm filmstock. Specs can be one thing but the actual image is all that matters to me. And 35mm, 16mm and even Super 8 scanned to digital files are simply my definition of aesthetic and gorgeous. THAT is how i prefer to use digital technology. Analog film in combination with digital image sensors and editing techniques. That being said i LOVE Lynch's digital productions as much as his film productions. When i first saw "INLAND EMPIRE" it felt like Lynch was never THIS free before and it really felt like his most independent and limitless movie. You could tell mow much liberated he was from the downsides that come with heavy film equipment and lighting. He just took his DV camera and shot what he had in mind. And for an artist like him this is definitely the best way to work. And i totally understand him here. He just wants to put his ideas to movies without too much in between. And i'm glad that technology has progressed so much that he can indeed shoot in high resolution and do what he wants without getting slowed down too much in a frustrating way.
I'm shocked that you dislike so much the digital cinema camera that creates the image that can look the closest to film!
@@alvareo92 The Arri Alexa produces anything but a filmlike picture. It looks absolutely boring, flat, cold, and tooooo digital. I have never seen any digital Filmcamera that creates such a terribly sterile looking image. Even the Cine Eos cameras of Canon create a more pleasing picture. The interplay of the components (Image Sensor, D/A Converter, software) is an aspect that can make or break a good digital cine camera. And sadly the Alexa sucks and doesn't look anywhere close to film. Not even David Fincher could pull this off for "Mank" or Denis Villeneuve with "Blade Runner 2049". The biggest problem is the electronic shutter of Digital Cinecameras. It makes the picture look totally different than a mechanical shutterblade inside a filmcamera does. There is also no halation effect like on Film. If you want that, it has to be added with an effect in Post.
As a musician I can say one thing about it, It's wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy(more y's if I could) more comfortable to use digital than analog tapes, but there is something unique to to the sound of some albums thanks to it, bands like Pink Floyd had a very warm and unique sound thanks to the analog gear and analog tapes, it's unreplaceable compare to digital.
The problem is that thought and contemplation are the natural antecedents of required effort. That isn't to say we should abolish assembly lines and make cars with hammers and torches. But has the digital revolution really improved the quality of movies? Storywise, NO. Visually, even there is an argument. In some ways, it has vastly improved it. In other ways, as we see more digital movies, the edges of the cookie cutter begin to show.
Digital has allowed us to tell stories we never could have otherwise, so there is that, too. I'm not a Luddite, but when things get easier, a certain mental investment is lost. Over time, we can hope the growing expertise with tools recaptures some of that investment, once the money folks are out of the picture. Indie movies are where its at, probably!
The moment he (and others like noticeably Michael Mann) started using Digital is the moment his movies started to look like south american soap operas.
Inland Empire (and in that regard MM's Collateral and Miami Vice for example) looks like something they shot with a smartphone, now to some people that isn't a problem and it's fine but for me the idea of loving the beauty of cinema AND digital is the most absurd of concepts.
It's gotten better with time and the differences are less noticeable now but still film Is so much better to me.
Inland Empire is kind of a weird example, that was shot on a super cheap camera relative to what you'd expect from a professional production, we're talking a handheld that gets listed for as low as a couple hundred bucks on eBay these days, which makes sense considering the origin of the project was Lynch shooting one-off scenes he thought of without knowing if and how he would use them. I guess you either get it or you don't but imo the look and style of the movie as a result of that approach is an integral part of its appeal, and I get the impression that was also the case for Lynch as the creator, to the point that he would likely not have made the movie at all if he hadn't made it with a cheap, handheld digital camera.
He's probably right. But film looks and feels gorgeous.
I would strongly disagree in 2006 with David Lynch, as the digital video capabilities was quite underwhelming, especially what was available to the hobbyist filmmaker. Low dynamic range, rubbery and mushy kind of camcorderish, footage. Same gripes I have with modern cellphone recorded video. Of course now, the situation is different, where digital camera technology has much matured in dynamic range, resolution, fidelity and processing options, even for a low budget.
Now there are people deliberately looking for that kind of effect lol.
(Eg skinamarink).
Definitely interesting that a lot of film people find this sentiment strange. As someone who comes from recording music and focuses a lot on limitations and such I completely agree. Older canons have (to me) a equally great character as film. I think maybe its because there's more space to be playful with formats and instruments whereas making movies doesnt really lend itself to that. I know lynch is primarily a painter but that's I view it.
I was never able to pinpoint why the "vintage" movement bugged me but this really nailed it
You can't deny just how beautiful film looks compared to digital
It looks beautiful... if you have a cameraman that know what they're doing. It's a tool like anything else. It's only good if you have someone who gets how to make it work
Fincher, Villenueve, Lynch
V
Nolan, Tarantino, Spielberg
Nolan, Tarantino and Spielberg - All their best movies are way in the past
The others keep making classics.
Well, if I had a time machine, I would love to go back in time long before digital or streaming, and just enjoy movies made on old film and shown with old projectors.
He’s not wrong
He's not entirely right either!
Easier isn't always better and it's making filmmakers lazier.
@@Mickey-1994 Absolutely!
As just a plain movie lover and watcher, I want to see film. Not many digitally shot movies look that good to me. Funny, talking about the expense of shooting on film. Shooting digital sure hasn’t reduced the budgets on most movies. I guess catering got more expensive…lol
Film looks and feels better than digital. Inland Empire and Twin Peaks The Return are ugly, sharp, soulless.
I'm all for digital once it can be made to look as good as film. It's not about resolution
It's not even about the screen or the playback. A UA-cam video of something shot on film looks better than an all digital movie shot in 4k. It's the atmosphere, the _way_ in which movement and detail is captured
"I will remain loyal to this analogue artform until the last lab closes." ~Stephen Spielberg
He's not wrong. As much as people praise film for having the superior look, digital is far more convenient.
Convenient, like fast food and athletisure. Art is not supposed to be convenient. Life is not supposed to be convenient. It’s supposed to be beautiful, magical and also sometimes difficult.
@@davebowman1337 What world do you live in? As a citizen of the USA, I witness everything being run by corporations. So many decisions are made based on business and money. Convenience is a HUGE facet of the economy. Do you think if Nolan had a fraction of his talent and box office records, they would have allowed all the transportation costs of the 70mm reels? No, they wouldn't. What about the handling and maintenance costs of the film projectors due by theaters? Artistic freedom is nice, but this is the real world. Truly, I envy your jolly attitude and inexperience.
@@SonGoku-tp8gb You are arguing for films being made by AI. Digital is vastly inferior to film in every way except convenience. In just a few years time it will be much more convenient for studios to simply not use cameras, lights, microphones, actors, directors or writers. The movie going public today doesn’t know or care about film vs digital and they won’t care when the films they watch are made entirely by a computer. Will you?
Just to be clear: I agree with you. But I’m saying that this is not a good thing. Digital is bad not only because it’s ugly (which it is) but because it cheapens the entire process. There are far more films being made today then ever before but 99,9% of it is pure shit. The quality of filmmaking is already so low that by the time films are longer being made by human beings no one will notice and therefor no one will care. This needs to change before its too late.
@@davebowman1337 Did you even read my comment? That industry is all about making money. Movies accused of being made by AI are terrible and losing money. That is not at all supported in my comment, please be logical.
There are no theaters with film projectors within a convenient drive for me. I know you're not driving 2+ hours for every movie just for film when a digital projector is 5 minutes away. How often have you supported digital by going to such theaters?
Once you get a job and start earning, I hope you can fund a movement to promote film by making sacrifices in your living conditions, motivated by your passion. I sure won't, and not many people will have your back. That is, unless you don't quite care enough, and would rather fund your own living conditions for your convenience. If the latter is your choice, then congrats you're kind of starting to understand the business side of America.
@@SonGoku-tp8gb
I read your comment. Did you read mine? I was not talking about AI films today. I’m telling you, filmmaking as we know it is going away in much less then a generation, most of us just don’t know about it yet. Perhaps you’re not aware of the progress that is being made and how fast it’s going. If you don’t care, that’s fine.
Since you seem interested in my personal background, I’m in my mid 30s and work in finance. I’m not interested in watching digital projections of digitally shot movies when I may as well watch them at home, on my own digital device. I an however lucky enough to live in a city with a theather where I can watch all kinds of different films, on film. I go as often as I can.
Again, the film industry doesn’t seem to care that digital is going to lead to its own destruction. Can’t you see this? There will be no need for digital video cameras when the films made by the future versions of Sora et al. are advanced enough. When there is no more need for cameras, there is no more film industry. It’s done.
ua-cam.com/video/-6hwjN2VlYg/v-deo.htmlsi=l5NKaAnXctNs2ZhN
This technology is very early. We’re talking Lumière train footage early. Give it a few years and nothing will ever be the same.
Can't believe the man that said he hates people who watch movies on their phone also said this 💀
quetin tarantino getting owned 😂 hes very mad
I like some of his movies but Quinton is a fuckin nerd
Tarantino is just as much within his right to stick to film as Lynch is to move on to digital.
Nonsense. Both views are valid.
And he knows innovation while using film. Check out his short scene in Lumiere(?) where directors use the brother’s classic film camera and aren’t allowed post editing. DL does a handful of In scene edits.