brbo
Well-known
?! Where did I say ALL images and cine look the same?!
I was asking about the images from The Master where you said:
I can't tell them apart. I was just wondering if you could be so kind to tell me which are digital and how do you know.
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Ah I see you misunderstood. I wasn't talking about the master just generally "the difference' was supposed to be slightly ironic as they all looked like screen shots of the same film to me.
We need an irony icon.
We need an irony icon.
brbo
Well-known
Ah, I was hoping he was shooting cine film (like CineStill). I can see now that this is probably not what he meant.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
How about a fountain pen that can write on a tablet. Do you think that people will say that they can tell the difference between text written with the fountain pen and text written with a finger?
Photo_Smith
Well-known
Yes of course we will; just as we'll get people who say they can't tell the difference between writing on a tablet with a finger and ink on a page written with a fountain pen.
Some people will then go on to suggest they can see the difference between a fountain pen and a Biro, the ones that can't tell the difference will deride them and call them 'quill sharpeners'
David_Manning
Well-known
Lots of opinions from people here who don't make the decisions as to WHY.
For indie filmmakers, it's about cost of production. For established filmmakers, it's a matter of shooting what they're familiar with (which is why the Alexa is popular...it operates like film Arriflex cameras). Some directors like the visceral feel of film, and their name can command their method of choice. When it comes to financing production, big companies manage by bottom lines. ALL films for distribution from major studios end up digital...they are either shot with chipped cameras, or each frame is scanned and digitized for DI--digital intermediate--because in either case they get color-timed, and edited on computers (nobody edits raw film anymore). Then, they get output to either film for release, or SSDs for digital projection.
Digital acquisition takes the enormous costs of film stock, processing, and scanning/digitizing out of the equation. The bean counters love that, the stock goes up, executives get their bonuses, etc.
Many digitally-acquired features add film grain to give the same organic look that our eyes are accustomed to...the same reason many of us add grain to our still images (I do, unapologetically).
And...some big-names shoot film for Hollywood "street cred." Believe it or not, people in Hollywood care a LOT about being seen as artists, and using an "old-school" method for their picture can mean something to some people.
This is all trickle-up and trickle-down economy. I'd be shooting film happily all day long if my personal budget would allow for it...but it doesn't, so I generally shoot digital (production). My film ends up being scanned anyway, in order to edit/color correct/share (digital distribution). The occasional image gets printed onto *gasp* paper, but it's printed digitally (I haven't wet-printed in about 18 months). I add grain so it "looks" like a photo to me.
I don't mean to rant, but those of us here on RFF get caught up in the technical minutae as usual...but it's all about the story, as they say. If it's a good movie, it's a good movie. Usually about sixty seconds into a good movie I stop looking at the focal length, pace of editing, and color, and start thinking about the characters.
For indie filmmakers, it's about cost of production. For established filmmakers, it's a matter of shooting what they're familiar with (which is why the Alexa is popular...it operates like film Arriflex cameras). Some directors like the visceral feel of film, and their name can command their method of choice. When it comes to financing production, big companies manage by bottom lines. ALL films for distribution from major studios end up digital...they are either shot with chipped cameras, or each frame is scanned and digitized for DI--digital intermediate--because in either case they get color-timed, and edited on computers (nobody edits raw film anymore). Then, they get output to either film for release, or SSDs for digital projection.
Digital acquisition takes the enormous costs of film stock, processing, and scanning/digitizing out of the equation. The bean counters love that, the stock goes up, executives get their bonuses, etc.
Many digitally-acquired features add film grain to give the same organic look that our eyes are accustomed to...the same reason many of us add grain to our still images (I do, unapologetically).
And...some big-names shoot film for Hollywood "street cred." Believe it or not, people in Hollywood care a LOT about being seen as artists, and using an "old-school" method for their picture can mean something to some people.
This is all trickle-up and trickle-down economy. I'd be shooting film happily all day long if my personal budget would allow for it...but it doesn't, so I generally shoot digital (production). My film ends up being scanned anyway, in order to edit/color correct/share (digital distribution). The occasional image gets printed onto *gasp* paper, but it's printed digitally (I haven't wet-printed in about 18 months). I add grain so it "looks" like a photo to me.
I don't mean to rant, but those of us here on RFF get caught up in the technical minutae as usual...but it's all about the story, as they say. If it's a good movie, it's a good movie. Usually about sixty seconds into a good movie I stop looking at the focal length, pace of editing, and color, and start thinking about the characters.
David_Manning
Well-known
Of course, what the hell do I know? Just another opinion, I guess 
DominikDUK
Well-known
David you forgot the illegal copies that are prevented by going digital. This honestly was one of the reasons given for the switch to digital projection. Nobody ever told them that it is just as easy to make an illegal copy of digital file as it is to make an illegal copy of film.
Today we have one of the best of times for Filmmakers we have a choice of media and the DI the latter is a Godsend and a work of the devil it lead to the evil "we'll fix it in post" how about doing it right instead of trying to fix it in post. On the other hand DI are a great tool for cinematographer and to a certain extent the Director. The costs of shooting film is not that much the real costs are in making copies for cinemas and that's as David said is one of the big reasons to go digital from a distributors point of view. One of my pet peeves though is that most movies only do a 2K DI even for big Budget Anamorphics shots, they should do at least a 4K one but that costs a little more and advertisement is more important than all other things in Filmmaking so no money for that.
Also ever seen a movie shot in B/W and printed onto B/W release stock there is no comparison digital B/W sucks big time so does desaturated color stock.
Regarding the identification of digital vs film it's easy just look at the hightlights even the Alexa can't retain the same amount of highlight details as film in short look for clipped highlights.
For some stories digital is the better medium for some others film is better imo. And even low budget productions can use film and go the DI way. Both media should be supported and both medias are great for filmmakers Go Digital go Film go DI screw Beancounters
Today we have one of the best of times for Filmmakers we have a choice of media and the DI the latter is a Godsend and a work of the devil it lead to the evil "we'll fix it in post" how about doing it right instead of trying to fix it in post. On the other hand DI are a great tool for cinematographer and to a certain extent the Director. The costs of shooting film is not that much the real costs are in making copies for cinemas and that's as David said is one of the big reasons to go digital from a distributors point of view. One of my pet peeves though is that most movies only do a 2K DI even for big Budget Anamorphics shots, they should do at least a 4K one but that costs a little more and advertisement is more important than all other things in Filmmaking so no money for that.
Also ever seen a movie shot in B/W and printed onto B/W release stock there is no comparison digital B/W sucks big time so does desaturated color stock.
Regarding the identification of digital vs film it's easy just look at the hightlights even the Alexa can't retain the same amount of highlight details as film in short look for clipped highlights.
For some stories digital is the better medium for some others film is better imo. And even low budget productions can use film and go the DI way. Both media should be supported and both medias are great for filmmakers Go Digital go Film go DI screw Beancounters
Sejanus.Aelianus
Veteran
Quite right. That's the big divide, between those of us who are polite enough to admit that we're just spouting our opinions and those who wish to be thought of as the cathedra that all statements are ex. :angel:
P.S. I agree with your analysis.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Nearly everything in a discussion is an opinion. Not even the pope is infallible anymore and just voices his opinion.
DominikDUK
Well-known
Just saw this press release by Kodak "In the 86-year history of the Academy Awards[FONT=calibri, sans-serif]®[/FONT], no best picture winner has ever been made without motion picture film technology - a streak that continued with 12 Years a Slave winning the 2014 Oscar[FONT=calibri, sans-serif]®[/FONT]."
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=62792
I have to ad the best cinematography award was received by Emmanuel"Chivo"Lubezki for Gravity who used Arri Alexas for this movie
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=62792
I have to ad the best cinematography award was received by Emmanuel"Chivo"Lubezki for Gravity who used Arri Alexas for this movie
Ranchu
Veteran
My fault about the last few screenshots being digital, there were none. By digital bla bla bla at the end I meant all that codec crap which is really not relevant to how it looks, and rightly so.
Also, when you look at those stills it makes me laugh people can say 'He shot film because he just wanted to be different' or 'The story is all that matters except to geeks (who don't matter, it's implied)', because it's just plain gorgeous looking.
AND THAT MATTERS!
Also, when you look at those stills it makes me laugh people can say 'He shot film because he just wanted to be different' or 'The story is all that matters except to geeks (who don't matter, it's implied)', because it's just plain gorgeous looking.
AND THAT MATTERS!
Ranchu
Veteran
"While Hollywood is shifting more and more towards digital filmmaking, "
I figured out they mean porn. Duh.
I figured out they mean porn. Duh.
__jc
Well-known
Bolded part at least is simply not true. Please read the reference to The Master I posted earlier. Intermediate post production was all film-based.
lcpr
Well-known
I have to ad the best cinematography award was received by Emmanuel"Chivo"Lubezki for Gravity who used Arri Alexas for this movie
With a bit of 65mm thrown in too! Can't remember which bits it was for though. I saw 12 Years a Slave yesterday, I could immediately tell it was shot on film even if it was projected digitally.
JPSuisse
Well-known
That's it! We better go all watch some porn to make sure we can recognize digital cinematic techniques!
But seriously, the same was true with the DVD, it was porn that gave it the big break through. When Sony announced that Blu-ray would not be licensed for porn they ended up having to back track...