Keanu Reeves on film vs digital
- Thread starter porktaco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 40
- Views 7K
btgc
Veteran
Better Neo would start saving film from Smiths.
dexdog
Veteran
all i can say is "whoa"
dogberryjr
[Pithy phrase]
I came to say this.
David_Manning
Well-known
He's feeling nostalgia. And, the pressure from the finance guys about burning film.
I DO agree, however, with printing. Even a disorganized shoebox full of 4x6s is a surprising pleasure to browse. Even if negatives are lost or destroyed, the image remains physically, in print. Honestly, I don't think I have my wedding negatives from 23 years ago, but we have some framed prints and a book of 4x6s which we cherish as fine art.
I think the highest form of our "art" (still photography) is the printed image. It's unfinished until that point...and it doesn't matter how the image was made.
I DO agree, however, with printing. Even a disorganized shoebox full of 4x6s is a surprising pleasure to browse. Even if negatives are lost or destroyed, the image remains physically, in print. Honestly, I don't think I have my wedding negatives from 23 years ago, but we have some framed prints and a book of 4x6s which we cherish as fine art.
I think the highest form of our "art" (still photography) is the printed image. It's unfinished until that point...and it doesn't matter how the image was made.
umcelinho
Marcelo
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Well ... 'Canoe's' stature in the movie industry is similar to peanut butter's importance to the culinary arts IMO!
Steve M.
Veteran
I agree 100%. It's sad seeing digital replacing film for movies. When you see a movie like Barry Lyndon, which had large portions filmed w/ just candles and natural light, you see how beautiful and wondrous film stock is in the hands of an artist. Sucky colors, blown highlights, no shadow detail, lack of tonal quality...I refuse to watch digital movies. Just can't tolerate the "new technology" I guess. Well, we all have our standards.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
It's always the spirit behind the skin of things that matters.
Not the object, but the intent an object is imbued with.
Not the object, but the intent an object is imbued with.
David_Manning
Well-known
Film doesn't "bloom" like digital does in the highlights, which I think gives it a much more organic look...one that I like.
BUT...I see older movies which were scanned for bluray...and they look terrible. HD digital movies have an incredible sharpness to them, which is a feast for my eyes on a home-theater screen.
My favorite to view is new-technology movies, filmed on film stock, and then ARRI-laser-scanned. They are sharp, and you get to enjoy the grain too.
BUT...I see older movies which were scanned for bluray...and they look terrible. HD digital movies have an incredible sharpness to them, which is a feast for my eyes on a home-theater screen.
My favorite to view is new-technology movies, filmed on film stock, and then ARRI-laser-scanned. They are sharp, and you get to enjoy the grain too.
Griffin
Grampa's cameras user
I think It's nicely put by mr Reeves. Especially the mass thing.
More longing and yearning for the days of old...
Sparrow
Veteran
Mmmm ... peanut butter, with a nice orvieto ... just to stop it sticking to the roof of ones' mouth you understand
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
That's a bit more profound than what I expected when I read the title of this thread 🙂
He uses the word 'photochemical' not 'analog' or 'film' ... I just though that's interesting.
"Whoa" indeed...
He uses the word 'photochemical' not 'analog' or 'film' ... I just though that's interesting.
"Whoa" indeed...
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Or a reminder that the latest and greatest is not necessarily those for everything.
Paul Luscher
Well-known
'Course, the diff is, we're shooting still instead of motion pics, so some of what he says is not applicable...
Well, I shoot both film and digital,and each has its good points. I do like digital for low light work--it seems to do a much better job of picking up shadow detail than film ever did. Also, at an average cost of $15 for each roll of film shot (Purchase of film and processing price), digital doesn't do that kind of damage to my back account --after you get over the initial costs.
Plus, there's the advantage of not having to haul along a load of filters. And I love that fact you can change ISOs on you camera to reflect whatever shooting situation you're in, rather than having to change out film in your camera, or carry multiple camera holding different ISO film.
But I admit there's still something special about shooting film--probably 'cause that's how I started out. Shooting film always has a more tactile feel to me, for lack of a better word. Also, 36 frames on a roll slows you down a bit when shooting, and makes you think a bit more carefully before you hit the button. Actually. that can make shooting a bit more relaxing. Digital makes it way too easy to shoot and the whole thing can sometimes feel more like a race than a pleasant excursion. And then, instead of being able to quickly pick out 5 or 6 good ones off a sheet of 36, you may have to wade through 200 or 300 images, which can lead to burnout...
Well, I shoot both film and digital,and each has its good points. I do like digital for low light work--it seems to do a much better job of picking up shadow detail than film ever did. Also, at an average cost of $15 for each roll of film shot (Purchase of film and processing price), digital doesn't do that kind of damage to my back account --after you get over the initial costs.
Plus, there's the advantage of not having to haul along a load of filters. And I love that fact you can change ISOs on you camera to reflect whatever shooting situation you're in, rather than having to change out film in your camera, or carry multiple camera holding different ISO film.
But I admit there's still something special about shooting film--probably 'cause that's how I started out. Shooting film always has a more tactile feel to me, for lack of a better word. Also, 36 frames on a roll slows you down a bit when shooting, and makes you think a bit more carefully before you hit the button. Actually. that can make shooting a bit more relaxing. Digital makes it way too easy to shoot and the whole thing can sometimes feel more like a race than a pleasant excursion. And then, instead of being able to quickly pick out 5 or 6 good ones off a sheet of 36, you may have to wade through 200 or 300 images, which can lead to burnout...
Of course, but you have to weigh the pros and cons...
Gary Sandhu
Well-known
Some others' thoughts here (originally, I was trying to find out who really wrote that- I admit I was surprised Reeves really did)
http://m.guardian.co.uk/artanddesig...rsese-celluloid?cat=artanddesign&type=article
http://m.guardian.co.uk/artanddesig...rsese-celluloid?cat=artanddesign&type=article
paulfish4570
Veteran
i think keanu did a fine job. this thoughtful item is not what i expected from his movie persona. he clearly is much brighter than i previously thought.
timor
Well-known
So right you are.
Usage of film in making movies, romantic or not, will lose in one major department: digital is cheaper. And that's all what for Hollywood movies makers counts most. We will see more and more digitally sharp movies with fuzzy of flat ideas directed at unsophisticated mass market. The only interesting thing about them is how far creators imagination can go with all this computer generated special effects. As for now each next movie is more graphic and more impossible than the previous one.