Jump to content


Photo

Movies Ruined By digital


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#61 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1224 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 05 December 2017 - 04:31 PM

Salve! Giacomo and Fatih, I think you can both relate to the frustration one feels when attempting to communicate in a second language on the internet. I think Fatih feels passionately about film and he knows exactly how different it is from video, but his words are not being entirely understood due to the language barrier. This can be very frustrating and lead to misunderstandings. I think with patience we can understand each other.


  • 1

#62 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 20247 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 December 2017 - 05:33 PM

He keeps making the same point and we all replied the first few times... so why would our answers be any different now? Ive said everything I can think of to say on the topic already.
  • 4

#63 fatih yıkar

fatih yıkar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 88 posts
  • Other
  • Turkey

Posted 06 December 2017 - 07:39 AM

If you have enough time please read all the things not just one part i hope people understand what i mean now  :unsure: 

In summary as i know every decade movies looking and cinematography changes 60s,70s,80s,90s movies looking different than each other... and all that time we got an average,specific look of movies…

 

In 90s movies shot on film (exr and first visions) and photochemically done as result we got average 90s film look with different styles

In 00's movies shot on film(generally vision2/3) with digital grading especially after the 2005 and first digital cameras come out as the result we got average 00s look with different styles

In 2010's movies shot  digitally with digital grading or shot (vision3) with generally digital grading as the result we got average 2010's look with different styles

These are the things that i learn, i can make mistakes

 

Finally for me i'm thinking that the average look of 90s we got, looking much better,beautiful,filmic, cinematic than the average look of 00s and 2010s..I’m not talking about the movies quality like scprit directing acting etc…

 

That's why i write all the time even a independent,low budget or just regular hollywood movie from 90s look better than nowadays best looking movies for example oscar nominees like best cinematography (Arrival,Moonlight,Silence,Lion,La la land) maybe la la land can be exception or last years movies,  I’m choosing movies randomly (Reservoir Dogs,Swingers,Bottle Rocket,Bad Lieutenant,Dazed and Confused,True Romance,Office Space etc.) looking more filmic, pleasant,cinematic for me and these are not a really stylized,attentive movies.

What i meant is that average look of movies quality is down.... this is i try to explain.... how can i be so brutal for example even the ‘’scary movie (2000)’’ looking more cinematic,filmic than (birdman,gone girl or the revenant)  i know it’s a odd just making conclusion about the cinematography from movies look and not see the lighting or camera work but that’s i feel it….

 

When someone responding to me there are different lighting,different grading,different stylistic choice between 90s and nowadays movies

I thinking well movies in 90s also has different ligting styles like the big lebowski,usual suspects,fight club has 

or different grading like saving private ryan,se7en,minority report,the crow,sleepy hollow has

or different stylistic choice like scream,goodfellas,matrix,jacob's Ladder,lost highway,eyes wide shut has

and none of the different grading, choices,ligting not create or destroy that movies cinematic look that people love, they still has unique filmic look…

 

That’s why i’m insist lighting or stylistic choice not the problem that i see, because same dps same directors movies visually changed so much after digital revolution if they got the same style they will keep maintain…

For example is anybody remember how David Cronenberg movies looking awesome in 80s and 90s like (videodrome,the fly,dead ringers,naked lunch, eXistenZ) and he generally  works with same dp ‘’Peter Suschitzky’’ and his latest movies (A Dangerous Method- Cosmopolis- Maps to the Stars) looking different (for me not cinematic) nowadays.So what happend his dp or he changes his style or ’Peter Suschitzky’’ changing his lighting techniques when the  age of 70, of course none of them happened…

 

I don’t believe tastes are change.If the tastes changed when new si-fi movies come out like (passengers, the life, Alien:Covenant,blade runner 2049) people must be saying this’’ 2001,original blade runner,alien,’’ are much better movies but cinematographically i like the new movies’’ but they never say something like that they just say cgi and special effects are better nowadays.Even the most digital lovers accept original movies looking much better. We got 5 different ‘’alien’’ movies and i never saw a alien fan saying this ‘’well fincher’s alien looking bad or cameron’s looking terrible’’  visually no discussion happen like that because all the alien movies has that filmic look even with all that different styles Ridley,Cameron,Fincher,Jeunet has.

That tastes look like changed because of big studios,companies,producers change the movies look by force(because ıt’s more cheaper and easier) and saying you’re gonna like it that digital look there is no big difference between film and digital there is no way another but i’m not a accepting this…

 

I know that in 90s only 3 rgb lights exists but so many movie from that area has different looking they don't looking similar each other because of texture but now every movie coming from alexa has same texture no matter what how you grade,shot or use different lighting,lenses i still see the only one alexa image/texture that doesn't change…

I don't know how to film has so much different diversity or creating different texture every time but it was happening more until the digital grading.I’m still amazed by Saving private ryan, Fifth element, American Pie shot on same stock and all of them has different look,texture but when i saw movies like Hacksaw Ridge, Arrival,Whiplash all the time i see same texture that alexa and digital gives and it’s not change by how different you grade or shot movie…

 

Now when the people say film and digital has no difference i can't blame them because that's kind a true but if the movies still look like 90s movies people can't say there is no difference between film and digital. I think movies start to look digital before digital cameras come out with digital grading and modern stocks help them. These things became a transition period to digital cameras and people start to get use to that digital look and for me we lost the sense of how the movies should be look like the Roger Ebert said and people like me never like it new movies cinematography beacuse they don't look like movies that we know.

 

In my opinion 90s movies has some kind of cinematic look that we forgot, they really has different texture,colors like more similar to organic colors that movies has in 40s,50s,60s,70s 80s skin tones always right, movies look more deep,has more texture,look more dimensional, they has intense looking that we can't have nowadays.That look can't change unless they making to much digital grading for blu-rays. I can only describe with these words because i’m not so knowledge with technical stuffs…..

 

At now i’m bet when the new lotr series come out people still saying peter jackson’s are looking much better or new jumanji movie come out in 2 weeks and ıt’s looking much worse than original ‘jumanji’’ movie..

 If you want to see that changes i noticing all time just start to watch harry potter movies or  x-men movies. Just pick up 5 different movie from 90s and  5 different movie from 2010s watch them compare them…

 

 

 

 

 

 


  • 0

#64 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 06 December 2017 - 01:30 PM

I do not believe in the least that digital has 'killed/ruined/degraded/etc' movies.

 

What digital has done is allowed me to view pristine images, in a crappy theater, in the middle of nowhere, or, absent a actual theater, given LTE coverate... on my iPhone.

 

The first film I ever saw in a theater was "The Ten Commandments"(1956) (when it was new in theaters...), but most of my 'movie viewing' was by means of a crappy very old/used/donated to us 12 inch B&W TV (so I never saw most of the films films that were broadcastd in full blazing color until the BETA/VHS era)

 

The point being, I have never fetishized the in-theater experience. The digital age has allowed for the potential of many more individual's visions, as well as high quality images being delivered everywhere, not just to a few luxury theaters in the LA area or NYC. I even disagree with Tarantino about the 'olden days' of the Video store. Tarantino during his prefame days was an exception of being film savy while working in such a store. Again outside of the LA area, most video rental stores were staffed by people who had almost zero interest in film as an art form, and would just sound out the lead movies that were being promoted at the moment.

 

I did still photography for a number of years, and the wife maintained a wedding business. We did Film film and our own B&W processing, until about 2000-2001. At that point we switched to digital 35mm for the 'candids' and Film film, and 3 years later, we realized we had not used the Hasselblad for over a year, with digital 35mm covering all aspects of the wedding. The switch also allowed my wife to do destination wedding and not need to pay extra for a container full of film and camera equipment.

 

The customers did not complain about the change in the least.

 

I think this is true for the film making world. The customers do not complain, and given that the image seen in places were in older times, they would be viewing well worn physical prints, digital, scratchless, no pops in the sound track, no breaks and a blinding flash of blank screen, and in my wife's case, almost always closed captioned for mega released films(*)... it would be hard to find a complaint.

 

*We recently ran into a low budget art film that was not captioned and the wife had been anticipating seeing the film for over a year. "Loving Vincent", needless to say, she was disappointed in a major way.

 

Of course if one is wealthy enough, one can afford a film vault, perhaps even buy an aging theater in a major metro area, and show Film film movies.

 

As for 'sameness' of films. In each era there have been styles. The fuzzy look of the late 70s/80s was replicated everywhere, whether it made thematic sense or not, using areal haze, fuzzy lenses, or lighting, etc. Personally I hated most of it. The 'realism' of the late 60's/70's often due to shooting with minimal light, and increasing development to compensate. It was everywhere... again whether the material required or not. More recent over used techniques include bleach by pass, or similar.

 

The problem of the sentimental looking back, is one remembers the 'great' films, and not the 100s churned out Drive-in fodder that used similar techniques, on top of a crappy story, with less than star quality talent.

 

Some of those cheap quick productions turned into industry classics, such as Sergio Leone's The Man With No Name series... Those were shown to the point of shredding in their initial release, in crappy theaters, filled with drunks, hookers, and the homeless looking for a place out of the rain (even in rainless So. Cal...) and not in the big ticket theaters. Image quality was not a particularly valued attribute of the audience in general.


  • 0

#65 Giacomo Girolamo

Giacomo Girolamo
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 140 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Venezia

Posted 06 December 2017 - 02:17 PM


I even disagree with Tarantino about the 'olden days' of the Video store. Tarantino during his prefame days was an exception of being film savy while working in such a store. Again outside of the LA area, most video rental stores were staffed by people who had almost zero interest in film as an art form, and would just sound out the lead movies that were being promoted at the moment.

 

 
 
 
 
This is totally true about the owners of the stores, but was a incredible and untransference experience just go to the video club and "swim" in the ocean of movies, sitting on the floor and read the back of those boxes. I'm not saying netflix is a bad thing, but is like experience childhood without a cellphone. You can tell a kid about that, but he never truly understand about that.

Edited by Giacomo Girolamo, 06 December 2017 - 02:18 PM.

  • 0

#66 Vince Sweeney

Vince Sweeney
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Other
  • LA

Posted 06 December 2017 - 03:18 PM

Education: https://www.kodak.co...ntId=4295004980


  • 0

#67 Samuel Berger

Samuel Berger
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1224 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Seattle

Posted 06 December 2017 - 03:58 PM

Of course if one is wealthy enough, one can afford a film vault, perhaps even buy an aging theater in a major metro area, and show Film film movies.

Where you can watch Film film movies such as THE FLIM FLAM MAN and FAME.


The problem of the sentimental looking back, is one remembers the 'great' films, and not the 100s churned out Drive-in fodder that used similar techniques, on top of a crappy story, with less than star quality talent.


Some of the best stuff ever. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD, HALLOWEEN, AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK, CHOPPING MALL, METALSTORM, NIGHT OF THE COMET, CRITTERS, NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, the list goes on forever...and I remember them very well, on Film film movie film Film.
  • 0

#68 John E Clark

John E Clark
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Other
  • San Diego

Posted 06 December 2017 - 05:48 PM

Where you can watch Film film movies such as THE FLIM FLAM MAN and FAME.
 

 

Well, in the typical commute time from my house to the New Beverly I can watch both on a mobile device, provided I'm not driving (ok perhaps 1 and 1/2 of the next...). Last week it took me 3 hours to get from Glendale to my office, leaving Glendale about 5 pm.

 

At each technological advancement of motion pictures, there have been a set of viewers who have claimed 'film is dead'. Sound ended not only local employment for sound effects, some acting careers(*), but was also targeted as a degradation of the 'art'. Color, widescreen, etc. all were killing off the previous 'art' quality.

 

I don't see the transition from a physical medium to an electronic on to be any different and somehow going to 'kill off' artistic expression even when using the term 'film' to describe the digital medium.

 

*In the silent era there was quite a bit of cross pollination between say German Film and Hollywood, since the intertitles 'said it all', and the actors need not have any form of English or German correspondingly, speaking capability. (and for that matter, the deaf had no problem with silent film either in any audience... well provided they did learn to read.)


  • 0

#69 Jon O'Brien

Jon O'Brien
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 480 posts
  • Other
  • Brisbane

Posted 15 December 2017 - 05:56 PM

It all comes down to money. If you want to see real film, go out of your way to see real film at a theatre that shows it. And shoot it yourself and watch it on a projector at home if you can. Do people still sell charcoal sticks in art shops? Yep. Because some artists still use it.


  • 0

#70 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1660 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 18 December 2017 - 02:43 AM

I don't want to open this topic because of so many film vs digital discussions but i don't want to ruin other topics with my screenshots. Occasionally i will share some screenshots from movies under this topic.

 

I love these Roger Ebert words

He said these things for digital projectors but every time when i watch a new movie, these words comes to my mind.

https://www.rogerebe...ng-of-the-light

 

 

İ watched the trainspotting 2, aka T2,  i think movie is good (directing,script,acting etc.) except for one thing movie's look. I'm not going to write a lot of stuff that i wrote before about color,texture,depness. I'm just sharing screenshots from previous movie and new one.

 

 

 

 

If the content is good enough, then I tend to ignore some of the visuals.  Not always, but I do cut some films slack if the story and presentation is strong and rich enough.  

 

.... I want to say that eventually electronic engineering will be able to emulate and present imagery as well as the photo-chemical process, but I think improvements in stock will continue as well, so much that sharper photo-imagery may outdo electronic engineering, but whether audience eyes will notice or appreciate it to the point of keeping up demand for film, to me, is an unknown.  

 

There are some films that have content or image quality that makes me wish they were shot with a better stock.  Rarely do I ever conclude or desire a video image for anything I've seen.  

 

In the end it's all what's appealing, and no amount of nostalgia factor is going to sway any market for a long term trend in an industry.  

 

just my two bits.  

 

I really need to get off my ass and shoot something myself.


  • 0

#71 George Ebersole

George Ebersole
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1660 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • San Francisco Bay Area

Posted 18 December 2017 - 09:36 PM

I think I'd like to add that when I used to see documentaries shot on 16 in either 70s or 80s there was a sense and filtration process that what you saw was what you were getting.  16 was extremely grainy at the time, but even so, if the information was accurate or if the drama was compelling enough, then you cut the film some slack.  

 

Anybody as old as I am will remember the old National Geographic specials that used to air on indy TV stations.  All shot on 16, and the images were grainy, but this was before drones or body cams, so it was pretty rare that you saw anything from the top of Mount Everest or the ocean environment with Jacques Cousteau.  

 

The flip side is that now we can go deeper into the oceans, and send drones to get shots that would be ultra expensive with a helicopter.  I think what we've "lost" is that filtration mechanism that used to exist where you really had to be good at what you did in order to keep getting calls back for more work.  Now everyone can upload their "masterpieces".  Whatever.


  • 0

#72 Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos

Alexandros Angelopoulos Apostolos
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 471 posts
  • Student
  • Athens

Posted 20 December 2017 - 07:05 AM

Seeing this thread, I’m almost sorry I didn’t keep banging on about colour correction in and the look of Midnight in ParisTo Rome With Love, and Magic in the Moonlight. :lol:  :ph34r: I know everybody loved when I was doing that. I should have opened at least a few other threads – I might have got a recipe in the end.  :D Or got the great Joe Gawler himself to register as a member here and write about what he did in those movies. Yeah, I wish. I can dream.

 

So I understand where Fatih is coming from, and I expect that after a while he will realize what has been said in all those threads so far.  :) And that things won’t change when it comes to looks of films they he would like to.

 

I was hoping that the mention of how colour correction had a lot to do with look in that other thread would explain a lot to Fatih.


  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

The Slider

CineLab

CineTape

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Metropolis Post

FJS International, LLC

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

The Slider

Abel Cine

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape