thank god matrix was shot on film...movies shot on film look like film....but this generation era has blessings and all the tools...digital has its advntages and cost efficent..film has to be great if made with a good eye and give me 65mm any day..play with all...but respect film its come a long way!
Film will always be different than digital. Weather you like it better is a matter of opinion. I certainty do. A lot of movies are still recorded using film.
I agree 100% with you! We use film for 100 years and we can see them today! Even Martin Scorcese said'We do not know the life of digitat.I) It's the reason why we archive them on film.
Film (photochemical) will go the way of traditional film in photography. Same as what happened with telecommunications, analog was replaced by digital. And the same happened with television. Film will eventually just become replaced by digital. It's inevitable.
Film is more authentic. But digital is more manageable. I like the look of film best, but I won’t shoot on film because I can’t ensure that the scene is perfect for me. It has to be what I want. I can’t just go with it and say, “Oh well. It’s too late to reshoot.”
Kudos to the interviewer and Reeves, editor and camera and lighting people as well as The Talent Team hiding very well. I don't feel like I'm watching an interview, I feel like I've been allowed in on a very private and sincere conversation between true film lovers.
Im fed up with this whole "digital vs film" thing. At the end of the day they are two different tools however. It's not the camera that does the magic it's the person behind it.
Film looks so much better for movies in general. I like the grain, softer focus and warmer colours as that cannot be edited digitally due to shooting on film. It gave older movies a more cinematic look imo, they looked dreamy or "other worldly". Too many movies from around the mid 2000s onwards are indistinguishable, they look too clean and just like real life. There's a lack of immersion.
There's room for both. Lots of blockbusters are still shot on film like Jurassic World, newest transformers (35mm, 65mm, & digital mix) , the original transformers was all film including the b&h eyemo, dark knight, etc, etc People forget how much data storage actually costs with filming(hint: it's not free) so with bigger movies film can actually be cheaper to shoot than digital, but on a smaller scale digital can be cheaper. The Sony F65 is an awesome digital camera and the new Arri and Panavision 65mm film cameras are awesome. But more importantly I enjoy a good story and good acting above all.
Consider how fast storage technology is moving. In 5 years consumers will most like have MicroSDs that can hold like 10Tb of information (The biggest you can buy now is 512Gb and just couple of years ago it was 512Mb). One the biggest advantages film has is that it can be stored for 100years and it can be played after. I don't think that has been solved yet with digital.
Timppa 3 bro no one cares about consumer grade SD cards when you're recording a big movie. You have to use industrial enterprise grade hard drives that can not fail, plus you have to build in redundancy with a raid setup. If you're shooting some UA-cam bound short film, sure who cares no one is going to watch that anyway. But for theatrical release ain't happening. 4k takes about 32GB per minute. 8K is even worse. I have a 20TB NAS for my plex server and already need 20TB more. That's just for storing Blu Ray movies. 10TB is nothing.
Timppa 3 memory is usually always the lagging technology in a computer system unfortunately. You'll get fast processors cheap, but reliable hard drives are always expensive. with a good shooting ratio Film is cheaper than digital and doesn't need 800 hard drives to store the footage. You can shoot a good short film on 16mm dirt cheap. Couple hundred bucks for film and cheap processing. Its hard to understand if you've never shot film. Its extremely archival and more affordable than people think. Studios are already struggling with maintaining digital footage and opting to just copy them on film for long term storage. Again make it easier to just shoot film in the first place and bypass the whole headache of managing digital files.
The beauty of film is it's natural artistic quality, rhythm and ambience. We don't want razor sharp images all the time . suttlety , soft focus , grainy and even low light fuzzy. That is photography without the garbage effects.
When I started in the early 90's, I shot my projects on film and only film (16mm or Super 8). I was a film snob. When 'digital' started to arrive on the scene, I scoffed at it. It looked terrible in the early days (even early HD). Looking back, I still think it doesn't look too good (at least compared to film). However, I turned to the digital 'dark side' around 2008 when I noticed that the images coming out of even the smaller, inexpensive 'digital' cameras were quite good. As digital HD and 4k/8k started to take over (where there were times I was questioning whether something was shot on film or not), my heart began to sink, seeing so many major movies being shot digitally and looking pretty good, realizing that film was slowly dying. I truly hope it does not completely disappear as I still hold onto the dream of shooting a movie on 35mm (or 65mm!). That used to be a big dream for a starting filmmaker. To shoot something on 35mm. It was one of the only ways to be taken seriously by the industry. I'm probably of the last generation that understands both sides of the argument.
Nah, most of my generation (I'm 20.) understands both sides of the argument, BUT we have only been able to shoot on digital, so... we have pretty much zero experience with film.
I'm no film vs digital expert, but to me film tend to look "bigger". I'm not sure if that's the intension of the director, but I think movie makers today who use film tend to think about it more. Partically the effects seen in films like Ben Hur and good, bad and the ugly are often seen in movies shot on film - Those panoramic shots followed by extreme close up. It makes going to the cinema alot more fun.
WHAT the hell is David Lynch talking about?? You CAN talk to your actors and actresses when shooting on film too, if it is NOT a synchronised take. ~ good grief! ~ hahahaha!
The way I understood it, he is talking about the monetary restraints not technical restraints. If you are shooting with film on a very small budget, you can't just do endless takes with the camera continuously rolling. When the amount of film you have at your disposal is wasted because you discussed and tried out too many things that didn't work, you have to get additional funding for more film. With digital, you can try something out, discuss it, look back at the performance, discuss the performance, decide it doesn't work, or that it does work but wouldn't it be fun to try out something else and at the end of the day you have wasted way too much time, but you still have an almost infinite amount of 'digital roll' left.
Herfinnur Árnafjall I agree that digital cameras are useful for rehearsals. That is the way I use them (and only the cheapest of cameras is necessary here) When we get a scene down like we want it, THEN we commit to film.
*Need Side by Side chapter 2 with Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Peter Jackson, Ang Lee ,Bong Jong hoo, James Wan, Justin Lin, The Russo Brothers.*
How will movie companies make titles in 4k UHD bluray ( or even 8k bluray say 5 to 10 years from now ) for movies shot using digital cinematography and specially those made earlier say upto 2010 ?? Those movies will not have enough pixel data I believe to create a 4k or 8k version . Can someone explain ?
111danish111 well for movies like the Star Wars Prequels they were most likely shot in 2K and any sort of 4K release of those movies will be an upscale and not genuine 4K. This also applies for movies shot on film that are mastered in 2K as well as digitally shot movies that are shot in 4 or 8K but mastered in 2K.
I work part time in a movie theater. I started with Film of course but 20 years later we switched to digital. For me it's makes no difference. The most important thing are still the stories. The good thing about digital is that even we play a movie over 3 weeks the audience get the same quality every single time. With analog we sometimes really had bad quality. Raining and cuts. Also I have to work a lot less😊
The beauty of doing it on film and having just 9 minutes I'd say it was more raw. Let's shoot something and see what we get, we can't do it over again. In real life you can't do things over again. I'd say digital in my opinion takes away from the movie magic, the wow all that in one take. Not to mention half movies are still being shot on film. Kodack film is still very popular in the cinema world. Dark Knight Rises was shot on film.
What does he mean by going right up in there, in a making to the Shining Kubrick was right underneath Jack filming, he says it like it is impossible to film close up, or at least hard to.
+CornishCreamtea07 I think more like "The director himself" Meaning, that with film camera's due to their size and the main requirement of the DP being in charge of the camera and operating it, the director NOW has extra control of how he wants to see the camera by actually holding it moving and positioning it to his or her specification.
Film is really good but there are a lot of directors that prefer digital, because is cheaper, decent quality and they can use a lot of effects, also finish his work is much more faster, of course film has a really cool effect and has a lot of history, but c'mon almost nobody note if some movie is digital or film anymore.
The new generation cannot see the diference! Digital is not really faster nor cheaper. The technology forces you to upgrade your equipment every 2 years. Film still fim.
GuyBodart Yes the new generation cannot see the diference or it doesn't matter to them,digital is succesful out there you know is a fact and it's working, and yes is faster and yes is cheaper, that is why there are a lot of movies shitty and good ones over there, I agree with this that film is very dependable to use, but at very very first film was very shitty like digital is right now so, give it a break, would you, digital is just another tool taking shape, film will be over there for a long time, while digital becomes better and better.
fulangator Digital is not cheaper than film. You need to buy good cameras like Alexa and you will have a lot of post to try to get a descent picture. Yes, it's another tool. But a bad one. All the kids call themselves Film Director because they shoot shots in digital. Give me a break!
GuyBodart Oh yeah, Slumdog Millionaire was shot on digital camera. How many awards did it win again? So was American Hustle, Nebraska, The Wolf of Wall street, 12 Years of Slave, Prisoners, Captain Philips, etc, etc.. all Oscar nominated / winner movies shot on digital cameras. Again, if you don't like it quite and find something else to do! Is that simple...
***** You are right! I have no time to waste with you! But digital killed the cinema. Ask Steven, Quentin etc...You will never finish to upgrade your little camera...Digital is ok for TV shows. Nothing else!
David Lynch says it all. Digital is easy to use.. and thats always a plus.. moreover Digital technology will always be on the rise with the years to come. Imagine Star Wars and imagine District 9 or say Avengers or the hobbit .. The fact that digital imagery is not medium dependent is the biggest advantage. Plus post production works become really easy . The pressure of delivery dates are no more there. Restoration process is very easy . As there is no concept of moving frames or photographs , there is no danger of physical harm to the master negative. With digital drives when you are shooting pixels there can be no harm. More retakes can take place till you get the perfect shot. Grading and VFX is easier. Also the technology is rising . Now we have 5K digital resolution. Slowly with better Lens technology , the quality will rise even further. Atlast any inspired amateur can start to make films without thinking anything of the cost
sanch Sanchayan I know! And you know the reason? Studio imposed digital to Directors because the distribution was cheaper. It's cheaper to send a Hard drive than 8 rolls of 35mm film. But good films are shot on film.For the last few years, we did not see any real good movie! But some very good director do not want to shoot digital and the US need them because they bring to this country a lot of money. So, Studios and Kodak made a contract to not stop film productions.
Yes, I agree, amateurs have a better chance to make a movie! But they make bad movies!About digital, we do not know the life time of the hard drive etc...It's the reason that we use film to archives digital.Digital is not really cheaper than film.You need to upgrade your equipment to often. It's like your TV set, they find something new every years...There is no end to that absurdity. 2K, 4K, 5K non stop!! Why do we need a 4k TV. I do not want any of them because pictures are fake! They are to sharp to be real. 3D is almost over. It was an old system with a new approach. Do you like 3D? I think it's interesting, but I prefer a normal 2k TV.I have a Canon 5D and you know what, the little Sony Coolpix gives me the same quality than that $3000.00 Canon 5D.I just use those cameras on the set. But when I want to shoot pictures, I use film cameras. Much better results! Trust me, I tried and digital was always under a Nikon F2,F3,F4, Contax-Zeiss, Canon F1..Yes, they are old, butI can go anywhere in the world, I would never need any batteries and no DEW problems! I shoot on film and edit digital to finish it with CGI. But my master is film. I have a friend who almost lost his complete feature using digital. The film is Rage of Innocence.
People who were in this film Side by Side are real filmmakers because they care about the art form and are passionate about it; these other "directors" like spielberg and tarantino are just commercial film idiots who don't know shit about real art and that's why refused to be in the film because they wouldn't know what to talk about.
Robert, if it's not good after 3 shoots, it will never work well. Guy Bodart! Digital kills films and the 7thArt! I stay with film like a lot of great directors!
***** I am not an idiot! Steven Spielbeg , Tarantino etc are not idiots either.Alexa or Epic are the same crap. Flat picture that cannot take a direct sunlight like the film does. Digital has a dead picture compared to film.Jim Cameron WAS good, but Avatar is not a film ,it's a computer technology (He lost the Oscar against a S16 movie). Gravity is boring, Skyfall is really bad! (Story, acting and pictures) The next Bond will be on film. I hope they will take another actor than Daniel Craig!! Yes, all those movies suck! All the theatres suck since they project digital.If I want to watch digital, I watch the TV. But digital killed the 7th Art...The cinema. If you cannot see the diference between digital and film, you need an eyes exam! By the way, film is picking up! Call Fotokem and Kodak.Digital is not FILM making. They do not use film, so, respect film camera and call you Alexa or red camera by digital making.Digital help film and good for commercial. Riddley Scott made some very good movie like Gladiator (On Film!). I can see the diference between film and digital! I am a DP for 40 years!
GuyBodart Totally Agree with it's not good after 3 shoots. After three shoots the actor almost is forcing it. Of coarse you could bring up Stanley Kubrick's style but I like a more one and done pace myself.
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
"I was gonna go punk-rock"... "You should!!!". Hah! That interviewer had no clue what "punk-rock" is. That said, I think Keanu's much smarter than he gives himself credit for.
All these people crying and complaining about Digital cinema needs to suck it up and get over it. That's life. Film-making is evolving and if you don't go with it, you'll be left behind. Yes FILM looks great but so does Alexa and Red Epic / Dragon. AT this point, all you die hard film guys, can you even tell the difference when looking at both film and digital image side to side?? I think not...that's how close digital is to film now. In the next 3-5 years, you can't tell the freaking difference what's shot on what. So you cry babies need to shut up and go with technology because there's no stopping it.
So: 1- Film is not going anywhere, studios made a huge deal with Kodak recently for their film supply for the next decades. 2- No, Red looks like shit, when you say it looks "great" you're not showing much knowledge on the subject. Alexa is the best digital camera and is still not there. 3- Yes, I can tell the difference between film and digital, not only that, I can tell the difference between digital different cameras and different film stock. 4- You're right, there's no stoping technology, but we can stop digital snobs who only want to see the death of a wonderful media like film just to prove a point and for profit. 5- Film went away for a while because of economic reasons, studios wanted to save money and they cut it from the worse place possible, now fat cats in Hollywood are saving 4 billions dollars a year on film, but they are going back to film because digital is not yet standarized (and probably never will) and their digitally shot movies are staying behind with technology as time passes by, while movies shot on film you can scan them again and put them on the next HD media in the market. So, the best thing to do is shoot on film, go to digital intermediate and show your movie on DCP, so you wont compromise the look of your movie and still save money on the delivery, but we all know film is about a good story, right?
Atheist Ateo Listen, no one is saying film is not a great tool to use for capturing motion picture. What I'm saying is, things evolve. Think of when cell phones started. Remember those brick phones?? HOw would you feel about using a brick phone in 2015?? Things and technology has changed. Even for editors and animators. Is either you role with it or you get out of the way. It's that simple. 80% of theaters world wide are now Digital projectors. Key word being digital. You can't deny it no matter how much you hate it or are against it. A lot of hollywood heavy weight directors are now in love with digital filmmaking. I mean, once you are in theaters, the normal eye can't tell what's shot with what. You have to really look to tell the difference. I'm a cinematographer with over 16 years experience, sometimes I have to look twice to know what format a film was shot in. I've shot music videos on film and digital, film is richer , no doubt but damn it, digital is right there on it's ass. At the end of the day, what matters is the story. A lot of movies that were shot on film still ended up sucking major dick and was flops at the box office while on the other hand, a lot of the movies shot digitally are mega box office hits. So it's all about the story to me not just what format you shoot in. That was the point I was making.
But film cameras are not brick phones! They have evolved enormously, in weight and body, lenses, film stock, but the basic process of capturing image is the same as it was 120 hears ago because it is perfect, it has not needed to change. Of course, I told you at the end of my post that i'm all for digital delivery. The problem is, digital is hardly an artistic choice, unless you're shooting a movie that is documentary alike like District 9 or filled with special effects (which by the way, film takes perfectly). I have shot all formats of film and digital too and it comes to your need and possibilities. I shoot digital all the time, is what I have at hand and I don't fight against it, I do the same as I do with film cameras, make the best out of it. What I personally resent is that some people seem to be happy that film is going away and most of them have never held a film camera on their hands. And they want it to go away for all the wrong reasons! Digital needs to come a long way before being an industry standard (i'm talking movies wise, still photography is more settled in digital nowadays) not only aesthetically but functionally. We have dozens of brands putting out models and technology every single day and none is compatible with the other (or at least they try for us to marry with them all the way of the workflow) and it sucks big time. At least with film you could take a fuji or kodak or afga roll and stick in an arri, bolex or panavision camera and it would work, the same with post production. If people don't like film, well, don't use it! Let the old romantic fools shoot on it and be unpractical, that's our problem, you can shoot all the digital you want, why root for it's disappearance? That's not only foolish but is deeply unartistic (if that word even exists). Please forgive my bad English, it is not my main language. Sorry if I sounded a little harsh on my original comment.
That's right Statuskuo75 recently I had this same argument with a guy and I told him to take UA-cam's example, videos uploaded at 144p look like shit now that the player is 1080+ and he could not see it, he told me I was crazy. Well, it translates to movie cameras, the digital resolution you captured your movie digitally is going to stay like that forever unless someone comes with a software that enhances the resolution or something like that. A lot of great movies shot digitally are going to disappear eventually unless the creators saved them on film... oh the irony. What actually bothers me is the attitude of some of the digital guys, that "you're an old fart" and "you're outdated" attitude, when I trained some of them to use these very same digital cameras we are talking about! They actually believe that using a RED camera is making their movie better, not look better, but actually a better movie! and that worries me a bit. Fortunately film is making a small comeback these days and that's positive, I believe we need all capturing media possible so we can choose which we will use for our project, that's all.
Statuskuo75 Listen to what you just said. I mean, it's like saying just because an old Mercedes is considered classic and expensive that there should not be another luxury vehicle. Horses has been mankind's means of transportation since the beginning of time but guess what? Technology created cars, airplanes, trains, ships and so forth. The point I am making is this, not every fucking body can afford to shoot on film for Christ sake, so what the fuck is the big ass problem for indie guys to use the tools they can afford to tell their story? What pisses me off is how you film guys look down on digital filmmakers like what we do is a joke. That's so fucking insulting. I've shot film and digital and frankly I prefer digital because the work flow is easier, less expensive and faster. You see right then and there what you are shooting not praying and hoping you've got the shot while waiting on dailies. What I'm saying is...what ever tool you have available to you, fucking use it and tell your God damn story!! Yes the entire world gets it! Film is the shit, I never said it wasn't. What I said was, technology is getting better and better to where a director can tell his story without having to depend on Major studios to give him money. And the picture quality is fucking fantastic!!! As long as the movie is good, the fucking audience don't give a fuck what it was shot on. That's why 70% of Hollywood name directors have all switched to digital. That a lone is saying something so again, suck it up and get with the program and stop looking down on directors that shoot digital. I'm done with debate because you will never change my mind just as I will never change yours.
First, Keanu Reeves has nothing to become a good director!He is not even a great actor. So, I do not pay attention about what he says. Quentin Tarantino is a genius. He also brings something new in his stories.
Janissary m Keanu a great actor? Are you kidding me! He is just an OK actor. I watch a movie with him yesterday and felt asleep. That guy has no expression at all. Quentin is a genius. Maybe you do not understand his movies. But I can assure you he is great about story and directing.He comes with original ideas in his movies. What Keanu brought me? A poor role in the very good movie from Francis 'Dracula' He did not mane any progress since.. One question please? Are you a director or are you a pro actor? Tu judge you must know very who you are.
GuyBodart its not important I am actor, or director,, actors act for movies, people,directors shoot movies or average people, average people decide who is good actor or director, did you just compare Keanu with Psycho Tarantino..Tarantino has some fans as I said some,. but keanu well loved actor. means his opinion for people more important then yours or Tarantino's.Tarantino movies are crap.
average people knows more then you would know,otherwise how great actors getting great?people knows who can act who is not.if average people do not know your name as much as keanu's it means you behind him,
Janissary m Sorry, you are wrong. Actors are the choice of directors. No directors = no job for actors. People who go to cinema want to see something and do not judge actors etc...If you say Steven Spielberg, everybody know that Steven made the right choice. Francis who made Dracula ( love it) was not really happy with Keanu.I have nothing against Keanu.But you are free to say your opinion.
thank god matrix was shot on film...movies shot on film look like film....but this generation era has blessings and all the tools...digital has its advntages and cost efficent..film has to be great if made with a good eye and give me 65mm any day..play with all...but respect film its come a long way!
6:58 dude this is why Keanu is love
Scanners and Telecines have evolved so much. Film looks way better now than it did back in the day. Now we can scan film to 10k and beyond.
so true, but telecines ar way more advanced than scanners :)
I’m glad he mention my own private Idaho whenever I think of a movie shot on film I always think of that one
Film will always be different than digital. Weather you like it better is a matter of opinion. I certainty do. A lot of movies are still recorded using film.
I agree 100% with you! We use film for 100 years and we can see them today! Even Martin Scorcese said'We do not know the life of digitat.I) It's the reason why we archive them on film.
Film (photochemical) will go the way of traditional film in photography. Same as what happened with telecommunications, analog was replaced by digital. And the same happened with television. Film will eventually just become replaced by digital. It's inevitable.
@@bradtorville5526 Especially as the tech improves and as we get younger directors involved. To my youngest brother, digital is all he's ever known.
Film is more authentic. But digital is more manageable. I like the look of film best, but I won’t shoot on film because I can’t ensure that the scene is perfect for me. It has to be what I want. I can’t just go with it and say, “Oh well. It’s too late to reshoot.”
I think Sir Peter is in love
but we all understand him :')
Hahahahaha!! Pretty sure the interviewer didn't saw that last part coming. You GOTTA love Keanu. He is so damn awesome!
Kudos to the interviewer and Reeves, editor and camera and lighting people as well as The Talent Team hiding very well. I don't feel like I'm watching an interview, I feel like I've been allowed in on a very private and sincere conversation between true film lovers.
Im fed up with this whole "digital vs film" thing. At the end of the day they are two different tools however. It's not the camera that does the magic it's the person behind it.
Film looks so much better for movies in general. I like the grain, softer focus and warmer colours as that cannot be edited digitally due to shooting on film. It gave older movies a more cinematic look imo, they looked dreamy or "other worldly". Too many movies from around the mid 2000s onwards are indistinguishable, they look too clean and just like real life. There's a lack of immersion.
" up yours, keanu!" LOLOL
Tommy wiseau shot the room both with film and digital. Looks like he was ahead of his time
There's room for both. Lots of blockbusters are still shot on film like Jurassic World, newest transformers (35mm, 65mm, & digital mix) , the original transformers was all film including the b&h eyemo, dark knight, etc, etc
People forget how much data storage actually costs with filming(hint: it's not free) so with bigger movies film can actually be cheaper to shoot than digital, but on a smaller scale digital can be cheaper. The Sony F65 is an awesome digital camera and the new Arri and Panavision 65mm film cameras are awesome. But more importantly I enjoy a good story and good acting above all.
Consider how fast storage technology is moving. In 5 years consumers will most like have MicroSDs that can hold like 10Tb of information (The biggest you can buy now is 512Gb and just couple of years ago it was 512Mb).
One the biggest advantages film has is that it can be stored for 100years and it can be played after. I don't think that has been solved yet with digital.
Timppa 3 bro no one cares about consumer grade SD cards when you're recording a big movie. You have to use industrial enterprise grade hard drives that can not fail, plus you have to build in redundancy with a raid setup.
If you're shooting some UA-cam bound short film, sure who cares no one is going to watch that anyway. But for theatrical release ain't happening.
4k takes about 32GB per minute. 8K is even worse.
I have a 20TB NAS for my plex server and already need 20TB more. That's just for storing Blu Ray movies.
10TB is nothing.
Joe Doe I was just using that as an example of how fast technology is moving.
Timppa 3 memory is usually always the lagging technology in a computer system unfortunately. You'll get fast processors cheap, but reliable hard drives are always expensive. with a good shooting ratio Film is cheaper than digital and doesn't need 800 hard drives to store the footage.
You can shoot a good short film on 16mm dirt cheap. Couple hundred bucks for film and cheap processing.
Its hard to understand if you've never shot film. Its extremely archival and more affordable than people think.
Studios are already struggling with maintaining digital footage and opting to just copy them on film for long term storage. Again make it easier to just shoot film in the first place and bypass the whole headache of managing digital files.
The beauty of film is it's natural artistic quality, rhythm and ambience. We don't want razor sharp images all the time . suttlety , soft focus , grainy and even low light fuzzy. That is photography without the garbage effects.
When I started in the early 90's, I shot my projects on film and only film (16mm or Super 8). I was a film snob. When 'digital' started to arrive on the scene, I scoffed at it. It looked terrible in the early days (even early HD). Looking back, I still think it doesn't look too good (at least compared to film). However, I turned to the digital 'dark side' around 2008 when I noticed that the images coming out of even the smaller, inexpensive 'digital' cameras were quite good. As digital HD and 4k/8k started to take over (where there were times I was questioning whether something was shot on film or not), my heart began to sink, seeing so many major movies being shot digitally and looking pretty good, realizing that film was slowly dying. I truly hope it does not completely disappear as I still hold onto the dream of shooting a movie on 35mm (or 65mm!). That used to be a big dream for a starting filmmaker. To shoot something on 35mm. It was one of the only ways to be taken seriously by the industry. I'm probably of the last generation that understands both sides of the argument.
Directors like Tarantino and Scorsese still shoot on film.
Kodak is selling more film than before
Nah, most of my generation (I'm 20.) understands both sides of the argument, BUT we have only been able to shoot on digital, so... we have pretty much zero experience with film.
Keanu's a great guy!
"Why" by Discharge...hell yes Keanu!!
"Side By Side" is an excellent documentary that I like to watch about once a year.
I'm no film vs digital expert, but to me film tend to look "bigger". I'm not sure if that's the intension of the director, but I think movie makers today who use film tend to think about it more. Partically the effects seen in films like Ben Hur and good, bad and the ugly are often seen in movies shot on film - Those panoramic shots followed by extreme close up. It makes going to the cinema alot more fun.
Ahh..it is good for folks to see a bit of the real Keanu! He is brillant, Toonsesalacarte..glad the world is catching up!
I love keanu..
Great interview!
Did anyone else see Keanu Shoes?
WHAT the hell is David Lynch talking about?? You CAN talk to your actors and actresses when shooting on film too, if it is NOT a synchronised take. ~ good grief! ~ hahahaha!
The way I understood it, he is talking about the monetary restraints not technical restraints. If you are shooting with film on a very small budget, you can't just do endless takes with the camera continuously rolling. When the amount of film you have at your disposal is wasted because you discussed and tried out too many things that didn't work, you have to get additional funding for more film. With digital, you can try something out, discuss it, look back at the performance, discuss the performance, decide it doesn't work, or that it does work but wouldn't it be fun to try out something else and at the end of the day you have wasted way too much time, but you still have an almost infinite amount of 'digital roll' left.
Herfinnur Árnafjall I agree that digital cameras are useful for rehearsals. That is the way I use them (and only the cheapest of cameras is necessary here) When we get a scene down like we want it, THEN we commit to film.
That is an obvious but clever way to do it. hadn't thought of that. And maybe Lynch hadn't either
For interviews too! Lol.
*Need Side by Side chapter 2 with Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino, Peter Jackson, Ang Lee ,Bong Jong hoo, James Wan, Justin Lin, The Russo Brothers.*
Kodak is re-releasing Ektachrome this year, nuff said.
Keanu has actual punk in his veins. that was a real deal punk scream with the proper amount of true angst. YESSS.
How will movie companies make titles in 4k UHD bluray ( or even 8k bluray say 5 to 10 years from now ) for movies shot using digital cinematography and specially those made earlier say upto 2010 ?? Those movies will not have enough pixel data I believe to create a 4k or 8k version . Can someone explain ?
111danish111 well for movies like the Star Wars Prequels they were most likely shot in 2K and any sort of 4K release of those movies will be an upscale and not genuine 4K. This also applies for movies shot on film that are mastered in 2K as well as digitally shot movies that are shot in 4 or 8K but mastered in 2K.
Keanu i love u❤❤❤❤
I work part time in a movie theater. I started with Film of course but 20 years later we switched to digital. For me it's makes no difference. The most important thing are still the stories. The good thing about digital is that even we play a movie over 3 weeks the audience get the same quality every single time. With analog we sometimes really had bad quality. Raining and cuts. Also I have to work a lot less😊
well this just proved that digital is for lazy mediocre people
Last part says it all…. It’s sad that you don’t find any difference at all
@@heidykatheryn8279 I guess cars are for "lazy mediocre people", too. Everyone should go back to riding horses to work.
The beauty of doing it on film and having just 9 minutes I'd say it was more raw. Let's shoot something and see what we get, we can't do it over again. In real life you can't do things over again. I'd say digital in my opinion takes away from the movie magic, the wow all that in one take. Not to mention half movies are still being shot on film. Kodack film is still very popular in the cinema world. Dark Knight Rises was shot on film.
All of Nolan's films are shot on film.
Good for Nolan. Not good for me! Sorry!
What does he mean by going right up in there, in a making to the Shining Kubrick was right underneath Jack filming, he says it like it is impossible to film close up, or at least hard to.
+CornishCreamtea07 I think more like "The director himself" Meaning, that with film camera's due to their size and the main requirement of the DP being in charge of the camera and operating it, the director NOW has extra control of how he wants to see the camera by actually holding it moving and positioning it to his or her specification.
Amateurs
Pemain serba bisa love ny hus Keanu❤❤❤❤
Would would change much if My Own Private Idaho was shot digitally? I'm not an expert on film but trying to imagine what could be the difference here.
Interesting👍 I'd love too see it.Robert Rodriguez 10 minute film school are brilliant.
7:03 Reminds me of "You suffer but why" - Napalm Death : D
Film is really good but there are a lot of directors that prefer digital, because is cheaper, decent quality and they can use a lot of effects, also finish his work is much more faster, of course film has a really cool effect and has a lot of history, but c'mon almost nobody note if some movie is digital or film anymore.
The new generation cannot see the diference! Digital is not really faster nor cheaper. The technology forces you to upgrade your equipment every 2 years. Film still fim.
GuyBodart Yes the new generation cannot see the diference or it doesn't matter to them,digital is succesful out there you know is a fact and it's working, and yes is faster and yes is cheaper, that is why there are a lot of movies shitty and good ones over there, I agree with this that film is very dependable to use, but at very very first film was very shitty like digital is right now so, give it a break, would you, digital is just another tool taking shape, film will be over there for a long time, while digital becomes better and better.
fulangator Digital is not cheaper than film. You need to buy good cameras like Alexa and you will have a lot of post to try to get a descent picture. Yes, it's another tool. But a bad one. All the kids call themselves Film Director because they shoot shots in digital. Give me a break!
GuyBodart Oh yeah, Slumdog Millionaire was shot on digital camera. How many awards did it win again? So was American Hustle, Nebraska, The Wolf of Wall street, 12 Years of Slave, Prisoners, Captain Philips, etc, etc.. all Oscar nominated / winner movies shot on digital cameras. Again, if you don't like it quite and find something else to do! Is that simple...
***** You are right! I have no time to waste with you! But digital killed the cinema. Ask Steven, Quentin etc...You will never finish to upgrade your little camera...Digital is ok for TV shows. Nothing else!
David Lynch says it all. Digital is easy to use.. and thats always a plus.. moreover Digital technology will always be on the rise with the years to come. Imagine Star Wars and imagine District 9 or say Avengers or the hobbit .. The fact that digital imagery is not medium dependent is the biggest advantage. Plus post production works become really easy . The pressure of delivery dates are no more there. Restoration process is very easy . As there is no concept of moving frames or photographs , there is no danger of physical harm to the master negative. With digital drives when you are shooting pixels there can be no harm. More retakes can take place till you get the perfect shot. Grading and VFX is easier. Also the technology is rising . Now we have 5K digital resolution. Slowly with better Lens technology , the quality will rise even further. Atlast any inspired amateur can start to make films without thinking anything of the cost
The next Star war will be shoot on film! Tell me the reason why the director did not want to use digital!
because Abrams like film.. David Lynch is an elite film maker.. Fincher shoots digital.. literally most of them shoot digital..
sanch Sanchayan I know! And you know the reason? Studio imposed digital to Directors because the distribution was cheaper. It's cheaper to send a Hard drive than 8 rolls of 35mm film. But good films are shot on film.For the last few years, we did not see any real good movie! But some very good director do not want to shoot digital and the US need them because they bring to this country a lot of money. So, Studios and Kodak made a contract to not stop film productions.
Yes, I agree, amateurs have a better chance to make a movie! But they make bad movies!About digital, we do not know the life time of the hard drive etc...It's the reason that we use film to archives digital.Digital is not really cheaper than film.You need to upgrade your equipment to often. It's like your TV set, they find something new every years...There is no end to that absurdity. 2K, 4K, 5K non stop!! Why do we need a 4k TV. I do not want any of them because pictures are fake! They are to sharp to be real. 3D is almost over. It was an old system with a new approach. Do you like 3D? I think it's interesting, but I prefer a normal 2k TV.I have a Canon 5D and you know what, the little Sony Coolpix gives me the same quality than that $3000.00 Canon 5D.I just use those cameras on the set. But when I want to shoot pictures, I use film cameras. Much better results! Trust me, I tried and digital was always under a Nikon F2,F3,F4, Contax-Zeiss, Canon F1..Yes, they are old, butI can go anywhere in the world, I would never need any batteries and no DEW problems! I shoot on film and edit digital to finish it with CGI. But my master is film. I have a friend who almost lost his complete feature using digital. The film is Rage of Innocence.
Every VFX supervsior have preffered digital over film .. each and every one of them.. these are two schools and clearly digital is here to stay
People who were in this film Side by Side are real filmmakers because they care about the art form and are passionate about it; these other "directors" like spielberg and tarantino are just commercial film idiots who don't know shit about real art and that's why refused to be in the film because they wouldn't know what to talk about.
Keanu Reeves with the best download di sini untuk melihat dengan mata yang tidak dapat di download disini
interview was shot digital.
+Jesse Compton the interview isn't cinema.
I love how professional he is💯
that was pretty cool :)
Bue Velvet was a weird film I did not count as a winner
Great ending to an interview...lol...
Are the social distancing...Keanu and Lynch?
The best directors shoot on film!
Robert, if it's not good after 3 shoots, it will never work well. Guy Bodart! Digital kills films and the 7thArt! I stay with film like a lot of great directors!
***** I am not an idiot! Steven Spielbeg , Tarantino etc are not idiots either.Alexa or Epic are the same crap. Flat picture that cannot take a direct sunlight like the film does. Digital has a dead picture compared to film.Jim Cameron WAS good, but Avatar is not a film ,it's a computer technology (He lost the Oscar against a S16 movie). Gravity is boring, Skyfall is really bad! (Story, acting and pictures) The next Bond will be on film. I hope they will take another actor than Daniel Craig!! Yes, all those movies suck! All the theatres suck since they project digital.If I want to watch digital, I watch the TV. But digital killed the 7th Art...The cinema. If you cannot see the diference between digital and film, you need an eyes exam! By the way, film is picking up! Call Fotokem and Kodak.Digital is not FILM making. They do not use film, so, respect film camera and call you Alexa or red camera by digital making.Digital help film and good for commercial. Riddley Scott made some very good movie like Gladiator (On Film!). I can see the diference between film and digital! I am a DP for 40 years!
GuyBodart Totally Agree with it's not good after 3 shoots. After three shoots the actor almost is forcing it. Of coarse you could bring up Stanley Kubrick's style but I like a more one and done pace myself.
But Stanley is a good director with great actors!
GuyBodart you are full of shit digital all day ever day better then crap film. such a bullshit excuses you have
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
Reeves with the best husband tak ada yang tidak bisa di download di sini untuk melihat dengan mata yang tidak dapat digunakan untuk umum
"I was gonna go punk-rock"... "You should!!!". Hah! That interviewer had no clue what "punk-rock" is. That said, I think Keanu's much smarter than he gives himself credit for.
2019 and I still prefer FILM !
Digital doesnt have life in it.
All these people crying and complaining about Digital cinema needs to suck it up and get over it. That's life. Film-making is evolving and if you don't go with it, you'll be left behind. Yes FILM looks great but so does Alexa and Red Epic / Dragon. AT this point, all you die hard film guys, can you even tell the difference when looking at both film and digital image side to side?? I think not...that's how close digital is to film now. In the next 3-5 years, you can't tell the freaking difference what's shot on what. So you cry babies need to shut up and go with technology because there's no stopping it.
So:
1- Film is not going anywhere, studios made a huge deal with Kodak recently for their film supply for the next decades.
2- No, Red looks like shit, when you say it looks "great" you're not showing much knowledge on the subject. Alexa is the best digital camera and is still not there.
3- Yes, I can tell the difference between film and digital, not only that, I can tell the difference between digital different cameras and different film stock.
4- You're right, there's no stoping technology, but we can stop digital snobs who only want to see the death of a wonderful media like film just to prove a point and for profit.
5- Film went away for a while because of economic reasons, studios wanted to save money and they cut it from the worse place possible, now fat cats in Hollywood are saving 4 billions dollars a year on film, but they are going back to film because digital is not yet standarized (and probably never will) and their digitally shot movies are staying behind with technology as time passes by, while movies shot on film you can scan them again and put them on the next HD media in the market.
So, the best thing to do is shoot on film, go to digital intermediate and show your movie on DCP, so you wont compromise the look of your movie and still save money on the delivery, but we all know film is about a good story, right?
Atheist Ateo Listen, no one is saying film is not a great tool to use for capturing motion picture. What I'm saying is, things evolve. Think of when cell phones started. Remember those brick phones?? HOw would you feel about using a brick phone in 2015?? Things and technology has changed. Even for editors and animators. Is either you role with it or you get out of the way. It's that simple. 80% of theaters world wide are now Digital projectors. Key word being digital. You can't deny it no matter how much you hate it or are against it. A lot of hollywood heavy weight directors are now in love with digital filmmaking. I mean, once you are in theaters, the normal eye can't tell what's shot with what. You have to really look to tell the difference. I'm a cinematographer with over 16 years experience, sometimes I have to look twice to know what format a film was shot in. I've shot music videos on film and digital, film is richer , no doubt but damn it, digital is right there on it's ass.
At the end of the day, what matters is the story. A lot of movies that were shot on film still ended up sucking major dick and was flops at the box office while on the other hand, a lot of the movies shot digitally are mega box office hits. So it's all about the story to me not just what format you shoot in. That was the point I was making.
But film cameras are not brick phones! They have evolved enormously, in weight and body, lenses, film stock, but the basic process of capturing image is the same as it was 120 hears ago because it is perfect, it has not needed to change.
Of course, I told you at the end of my post that i'm all for digital delivery. The problem is, digital is hardly an artistic choice, unless you're shooting a movie that is documentary alike like District 9 or filled with special effects (which by the way, film takes perfectly). I have shot all formats of film and digital too and it comes to your need and possibilities. I shoot digital all the time, is what I have at hand and I don't fight against it, I do the same as I do with film cameras, make the best out of it.
What I personally resent is that some people seem to be happy that film is going away and most of them have never held a film camera on their hands. And they want it to go away for all the wrong reasons!
Digital needs to come a long way before being an industry standard (i'm talking movies wise, still photography is more settled in digital nowadays) not only aesthetically but functionally. We have dozens of brands putting out models and technology every single day and none is compatible with the other (or at least they try for us to marry with them all the way of the workflow) and it sucks big time. At least with film you could take a fuji or kodak or afga roll and stick in an arri, bolex or panavision camera and it would work, the same with post production.
If people don't like film, well, don't use it! Let the old romantic fools shoot on it and be unpractical, that's our problem, you can shoot all the digital you want, why root for it's disappearance? That's not only foolish but is deeply unartistic (if that word even exists).
Please forgive my bad English, it is not my main language. Sorry if I sounded a little harsh on my original comment.
That's right Statuskuo75 recently I had this same argument with a guy and I told him to take UA-cam's example, videos uploaded at 144p look like shit now that the player is 1080+ and he could not see it, he told me I was crazy. Well, it translates to movie cameras, the digital resolution you captured your movie digitally is going to stay like that forever unless someone comes with a software that enhances the resolution or something like that. A lot of great movies shot digitally are going to disappear eventually unless the creators saved them on film... oh the irony.
What actually bothers me is the attitude of some of the digital guys, that "you're an old fart" and "you're outdated" attitude, when I trained some of them to use these very same digital cameras we are talking about! They actually believe that using a RED camera is making their movie better, not look better, but actually a better movie! and that worries me a bit. Fortunately film is making a small comeback these days and that's positive, I believe we need all capturing media possible so we can choose which we will use for our project, that's all.
Statuskuo75 Listen to what you just said. I mean, it's like saying just because an old Mercedes is considered classic and expensive that there should not be another luxury vehicle. Horses has been mankind's means of transportation since the beginning of time but guess what? Technology created cars, airplanes, trains, ships and so forth. The point I am making is this, not every fucking body can afford to shoot on film for Christ sake, so what the fuck is the big ass problem for indie guys to use the tools they can afford to tell their story? What pisses me off is how you film guys look down on digital filmmakers like what we do is a joke. That's so fucking insulting. I've shot film and digital and frankly I prefer digital because the work flow is easier, less expensive and faster. You see right then and there what you are shooting not praying and hoping you've got the shot while waiting on dailies. What I'm saying is...what ever tool you have available to you, fucking use it and tell your God damn story!! Yes the entire world gets it! Film is the shit, I never said it wasn't. What I said was, technology is getting better and better to where a director can tell his story without having to depend on Major studios to give him money. And the picture quality is fucking fantastic!!! As long as the movie is good, the fucking audience don't give a fuck what it was shot on. That's why 70% of Hollywood name directors have all switched to digital. That a lone is saying something so again, suck it up and get with the program and stop looking down on directors that shoot digital. I'm done with debate because you will never change my mind just as I will never change yours.
they got lynch too
oh no not lynch too
Интересно побывать в прошлом....
20 лет назад і я так розуміла
Peter Travers? I'm outta here.
BLAH
lol keanu worst actor ever
First, Keanu Reeves has nothing to become a good director!He is not even a great actor. So, I do not pay attention about what he says. Quentin Tarantino is a genius. He also brings something new in his stories.
GuyBodart keanu rives and on fo the best actors,, Tarantino is just psycho,all he could do is shit kill bill. bullshit movies
Janissary m Keanu a great actor? Are you kidding me! He is just an OK actor. I watch a movie with him yesterday and felt asleep. That guy has no expression at all. Quentin is a genius. Maybe you do not understand his movies. But I can assure you he is great about story and directing.He comes with original ideas in his movies. What Keanu brought me? A poor role in the very good movie from Francis 'Dracula' He did not mane any progress since.. One question please? Are you a director or are you a pro actor? Tu judge you must know very who you are.
GuyBodart its not important I am actor, or director,, actors act for movies, people,directors shoot movies or average people, average people decide who is good actor or director, did you just compare Keanu with Psycho Tarantino..Tarantino has some fans as I said some,. but keanu well loved actor. means his opinion for people more important then yours or Tarantino's.Tarantino movies are crap.
average people knows more then you would know,otherwise how great actors getting great?people knows who can act who is not.if average people do not know your name as much as keanu's it means you behind him,
Janissary m Sorry, you are wrong. Actors are the choice of directors. No directors = no job for actors. People who go to cinema want to see something and do not judge actors etc...If you say Steven Spielberg, everybody know that Steven made the right choice. Francis who made Dracula ( love it) was not really happy with Keanu.I have nothing against Keanu.But you are free to say your opinion.