a "spin off" of this thread (http://www.movie-list.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2785) :P

Should movies forever be shot on film (35mm) or they should be shot on full digital (HD digital example: SW EP2) ?

IMO, like I said in the other thread, I want it on film (35 mm, 2.35:1), film simply gives more life to a movie by giving it this distinctive look only film can do....

Well, they can do so much more with digital nowadays.

And sooner or later everything will be Digitaly done. Even your food... ;) :butt: :evil:

digital, ppl like lucas is great for advancing the technology, just look at special effects and THX, the movie biz ows much to him. We are still at the birth of digital filming, no doubt it will become better and better, but only of ppl like lucas takes a chance and goes for it.

Digital... cose like everyone says.. digital can do the same thing as 35mm and more!

I can't believe i am the only real movie fan who think movies are called "Films" because they are shot on "film" and not to a tape or harddrive...

I guess movies in the future should be called.. Best "Bit,Byte" for the year... what the hell happened to the artistic feeling of movie making which can only be seen in real "film" and not on fake computer data... :(

anything is possible with digital!!

Originally posted by tisoy
I can't believe i am the only real movie fan who think movies are called "Films" because they are shot on "film" and not to a tape or harddrive...

I guess movies in the future should be called.. Best "Bit,Byte" for the year... what the hell happened to the artistic feeling of movie making which can only be seen in real "film" and not on fake computer data... :(

The artistic aspect is not lost. It's just everything is handled different. It's not better - it's different.

Digital gives directors almost full control over every aspect of the footage. It's the next wave in quality. I'm sure there will be directors that film on film but it will have to be transfered to digital to be shown anyway.

OMG...... i am the only person in this forum who thinks movies are a form of art which is dependent on the "film" as an artistic medium and not on some software compression algorithm or computer data that gives movie makers god like powers?.....

Think of a painting, do u prefer a hand made painting using OIL or water color or done with photoshop and printed with your 6 color Canon printer?.....


C`mon film is much better..... !!!!!

:evil:

When DVDs first came out, the image looked too sharp and when you watched a movie, you lost all the "artistic aspect" of the movie. I actually thought VHS looked better. Now DVDs look better than before. The image is less sharp and the colors are more realistic. When you look at a digital film, the image is so detailed that it looses it's realism. Movies shot in film and transferred on DVD look great. In fact, I don't think they could look better. So Digital film doesn't do much good. Even though, in the other thread, I was surprised tisoy said he preferred movies shot in film, my vote goes to film.

I prefer movies shot in film. I don't think digitally shot movies are the future. However, I do think films being shot on 35mm and then transferred to digital right away is the future. That way you get the realism and natural look of film, but the same digital freedoms as if it was shot on digital. That's what George Lucas should've done, and that is what they are doing for the two Matrix sequels, and the video quality in the teaser looks GREAT but unbelievably natural, unlike Star Wars. Movies are supposed to look real, not fake, which is what digital looks like.

Originally posted by tisoy
OMG...... i am the only person in this forum who thinks movies are a form of art which is dependent on the "film" as an artistic medium and not on some software compression algorithm or computer data that gives movie makers god like powers?.....

Think of a painting, do u prefer a hand made painting using OIL or water color or done with photoshop and printed with your 6 color Canon printer?.....


C`mon film is much better..... !!!!!

:evil:

most movies today.
first shot on Film. Then into a computer. then back to film.
So dont have any odd ideas of the purity of film.

digital today.
shot digital. then to film.
But thats not the fair way to view it, a movie like attack of the clones should be viewed in a digital cinema.

Digital cameras may not today have the capacaty to capture as many colors and as high dpi which a film does, but as long as we scan the film and run it though a computer we lose that anyway.

besides, a movie like attack of the clones is not a fair movie to look at the things u have talked about. Remember, almost every shot got bluescreens and special effects. Its not really an "artistic movie".

You lose color and dpi in the camera, not the computer. Example - if I watch a movie on my computer, or encode a trailer that was shot on film, it still has that realism. Just going through a computer doesn't take that away... being shot on digital and being processed or stored in a computer are two very different things. Did you know that when you watch a DVD those are computer files on the DVD? Like I said before, it should be shot on film, then immediately transferred to digital, just like the next two Matrix films.

Originally posted by Mark Strube
You lose color and dpi in the camera, not the computer.
no, you lose in the transfer.


Originally posted by Mark Strube
Did you know that when you watch a DVD those are computer files on the DVD?
really? damn i always thought it was Santas elfs that drew pictues on my monitor.

What transfer? I'm talking about 100% digital movies.
Originally posted by Gaumont
really? damn i always thought it was Santas elfs that drew pictues on my monitor.
Real mature.

Originally posted by tisoy
Think of a painting, do u prefer a hand made painting using OIL or water color or done with photoshop and printed with your 6 color Canon printer?.....

It depends on the talent of the artist, really. Anyone can create pure crap with either medium but they both need a master to create something unique and beautiful.

Same thing goes with movies - anyone can "make a movie". Someone with some skill can make a decent movie and it takes something more to create a good movie. Film and digital are two different ways of doing it. Just because your movie is digital though, doesn't mean you have it easy.

The thing is, from an industry pov, film is so bloody expensive these days. And such a fragile medium it is: Can't scratch it. Have to be store in appropriate temperatured, dust and dirt free enviornment. Colour may fade over the years, (despite longer-lasting film stocks being made in recent year.)

Therefore making movies nowadays is not a cheap exercise, not as cheap as 20-30 years ago at least. Only people who can afford the film stocks in the first place can even think of tempering with the medium. Therefore people with sh*t ideas but who have the dope can churn out crap and be shown on the big screen. Seems that the money factor is pulling the nose of the quality factor.

Sure you can film your indie movie on video, but how many "Blair Witches" out there can really pull off a big one? "Blair Witch" is a fluke anyway!

IMO Going digital maybe, and just maybe, a way to lower costs and open the door of film-making industry to more people, more talented average Jow Blow with no dope. And the products can probably last a bit longer with less preservation costs.

Who knows? I could be wrong.

do u know how much those Sony HD Digital cameras G. Lucas used for SW EP2? Last time I heard they cost $2M for each camera...:P

just *alittle* off topic. I have the amplifier that Lucas used to make SW1. Oh yeah....

*rubs the lucas symbol!!!*

here....... to prove my point that FILM "grain" rules and digital sucks like a Saturday Morning Cartoon show......

here are some screens(I took these screen captures myself) from recent DVDs I got ... Minority Report, which has this distinctive look only Film can give and the other is SW EP2, it is soo squeaky clean and “fake” that completely makes it look like a Toy Story from a galaxy far far away… and comlpetely detached from the SW EP4,5,6...

http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample1.jpg
http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample2.jpg

u see how the background of Tom looks like... it is called film grain and I love it that way, it gives character and motion to still images...

http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample3.jpg
http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample4.jpg

now look at the blue sky, it looks so perfectly clean it looks sooo fake, (and this scene was shot in Africa and not on stage) if film was used in this movie the sky would have a life and character by it self... but no DIGITAL makes it look like a still image... =P

http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample5.jpg
http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample6.jpg


and also remember the reason G. Lucas wants digital is to make FX easier to do,.... well movies are not made for FX and certainly not made for DVD but made for the big screen theatre...


sorry for being such an *** on details like this, I love movies and I am such great fanatic... are u also or just a passive movie goer?.....
Tell me what your obsession is and I can show u how u are also so detailed in that :P

My $0.02.

Mix it!

IMHO film it on film (errr ... :freak:) and then transfer it with super-duper hi-rez to the digital medium of yr choice. Anyone had a look at the "Digtial Grading" featurette on the 4disc FotR DVD? Great stuff. Imagine the possibilites.

And does anyone remember the AOTC love scenes on Naboo. When Ani and Nat had this annoying chat about love and whatever? Man this scene looks bad ... like I had filmed it with my Sony Mini-DV. The black was not black, it was ... eh ... someone has a screenshot?

Should we also mention that Minority Report is 10 times the movie AOTC is? Hehe :P In picture quality AND plot AND acting AND intrigue.

I disagree with Tisoy cose with digital u can ADD grain effects. Its not too hard. So therefore with digital you can have the best of both worlds. Any problems?
As I said before... look @ Final Fantasy. Fully digital but it has the grain effect in some scenes to make it look more real.

Mischa idea works but the costs would have to double there using both forwards and perhaps... double the camera or editting crews since its different technology.. if not knowledgable in both techniquies

With Minority Report looking grain like, I believe thats the style in making the movie feel like a dream hence why all the bright lights are glared. Minority Report at the grain effect as well (using film) and leaving the major grain effect IMO was to make a perfect clean looking society be alittle dirty. Feels like not everyone is perfect.

Hmm... had to add this. The human eye is like 100x digital.. even 1000 times so a digital shot would look more real if we were @ the shot looking upon the scene. We are just so used to film/grain effect that we like it. Its hard to kick old crappy looking habbits.
Hell... another group would agree that colour sucks and black & white is more lively. Lets not go into that :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Mischa

And does anyone remember the AOTC love scenes on Naboo. When Ani and Nat had this annoying chat about love and whatever? Man this scene looks bad ... like I had filmed it with my Sony Mini-DV. The black was not black, it was ... eh ... someone has a screenshot?

wait once i arrive home I will post that scene, I actually already took a screenshot of that bad scene....

and Knthrak I have the Final Fantasy DVD and there is so grainy effect in that movie...

even If u say u can add filters in digital it is still fake and is more expensive...

Final Fantasy does have grain effect. Watch the movie again. Its not expensive to place grain... just one hit of a button or twist of the nobs. The only resource is time which is very quick and small amounts of computer process power.

Get a digital clip.. for example SW2 and add grain to it yourself. Its very easy!

http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample6.jpg
<IMG SRC="http://www.movie-list.com/forum/attachment.php?s=&postid=23733">

there.... a digital shot with grain. 2 sec job. Compare with original from above. I'm no pro.. only a amatuer but a pro could make that digital shot look like a film shot.

OK, let ZUBi says some words about that:

me not quite decided yet, but I like to 'go with the future', but make some 'oldies' too (!)...
:D ;) :cool:

It's a real shot of Anakin holding is mother on Tatooine No? Thery were on in tunesia for 3 weeks to shoot exterior scene like this. Pretty sure it's a real scene

Kn'thrak, that is exactly why I am against Digital. Film is a language and art form by itself. The camera is also a language and art form. It is a tool "film"makers use to show or express their interpretation of the movie or a story. The moment you use digital and make those filters you make this barrier or wall between the creator and the audience through the use of the computer. It hinders in a way the real "language of film making" by making everything too easy to make.

Look at what G Lucas has done with the Star Wars movies, because he has too mcuh freedom with digital technology he has modified his movies so many times, even the latest SW EP2 is diff in DVD and in the theatre version... he made last minute changes to correct his mistakes:evil:.. I mean that is part of film making or part of real life.

You can not keep on redoing or re-edit the smile of the Mona Lisa.. right? It should be presented the way it was done and originally meant to be and film does this to movies, it presents movies the moment light exposes the chemicals on the film and permanently burns the image on film.... thats the power of Celluloid, that is the art of movie making...

now look at the blue sky, it looks so perfectly clean it looks sooo fake,

That’s because you stilled the frame. When Digital film is shot and then stilled it gives the appearance of the whitened blue lines. But when in motion it is fluid and clean.

Now you have to remember that like 95% of EP2 was shot on a blue screen. Of cores its gona look fake, because it is. But instead look at another movie shot in the real world. :)

I'm sorry but I have to disagree with everyone here. I like good picture quality, and when I grade a DVD it get's higher marks for good picture, and lower marks for too much grain.

What needs to be remembered is that very few films are actually art, most are simply entertainment. 99% of the time film makers do what the audience wants. There will always be a director who decides to be different and produce 'HIS VISION' on film instead of digital. You know what it'll make it special, instead of average, and I will also aplaud him/her for it.

Like Minority Report having a lot of scenes bleached blue, I thought it was an excellant technique in that film because it gave Minority Report a unique look, and fitted in with the films style. I would not like to see that technique used too often though, because the fact remains that it would become annoying if every film was blue and grainy.

Same if film goes digital, sure the occasional daring film film would be good, but I'd still prefer most pf my films to have the digital film picture quality. Especially FX movies like Star Wars damn it.

another reason why FILM is better ..... David Fincher ... and he makes good use of film grain which I love very much...

these scenes can never be black as black if it was shot in digital...

http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample7.jpg

http://home.t-online.de/home/520096932703-0001/images/filmgrain/sample8.jpg

Originally posted by tisoy
another reason why FILM is better ..... David Fincher ... and he makes good use of film grain which I love very much...

these scenes can never be black as black if it was shot in digital...



Yup. Exactly what I am rooting for. Mixes the best of both worlds. Check the collectors edition DVD of 'Se7en' . Fincher and his cutters go into detail, how they create the typical 'Fincher-look'. 1st: film yr stuff with 35mm HQ film stock ... then transfer it to a digital medium ... then manipulate it till yr a** hurts.
Lucas is doin a very good job to push digital filming but IMHO there are still too many flaws in this technology. Perhaps ILM is doin their jobs TOO good ... in the end they are overexciting the media.

Another thing I wanna mention: one famed cinematogrpaher (forgot his name) once stated, that it took the technology more than 30 years to make cameras 'free', which means ... no wiring, no cables etc. A whole new level of camera work! (steadycams and the likes for instance). But with DV camers you have to go one step BACKWARDS ... all the disadvantages from ages ago keep poppin up again.

i take it back, i think Digital photography and movie making will be the future, or will have a bigger role. Look at The Matrix Reloaded , it was shot in film but was directly transfered to digital and edited in digital, thats why we have the great quality trailers from them and the movie will also "look" clean and great.

But movie makers can always opt for film and make overly saturated/grainy movie like the recent Minority Report..:D

I agree with ur last comment. I too like film because of the way it looks but digital is clearer, sharper, the sound is better and film quality degrades. I like fil but I think digital will overcome it like DVDs overcame VHS

i say "Digital". yes there is a certain artistic feel to film that can only get by film. the grain effect ,when using digital, is still at best, only an effect. yes, you also have higher dpi when using film as opposed to digital. i think it will take a few more years before the digital world can cath up to the dpi of film. you will also have die-hard directors, like speilburg, who openly oppose using the digital medium. but the discussion is on the medium itself, not the content of movies.... a good movie is not based on the medium but the director. the director has the heart and the eye for a movie. the film or digital is just a tool to get that across.

the reason i say digital is this one reason.
today, there isn't a movie that doesn't have some type of CG in it. (except maybe the low budget B movies or indies)... when you take a film and transfer it to the PC to add your cg and output it back to film, it looks like crap. take a look at the CG Gollum from the Two Towers or even Jar-Jar from Episode 1. you can see a distinct difference between what is real and what is CG. the CG is much more clearer and cleaner than the rest of the movie and makes it stand out like a sore thumb. however, if you look at Episode 2, where the entire movie was done using 100% digital, there is not one CG element that stands out. because the CG and the movie itself was digital. there is no halo around the CG, there is no sharpness around the cg as opposed to the film. therefore, the movie itself looks better, it looks cleaner and sharper.

i am not opposed to film. i just prefer digital. it is the future.

That's some good reasoning but I think we should still use film. Look at The Matrix Reloaded... pretty hard to point out what's CGI and what's just a shot effect in that trailer eh? They made the whole movie on film and then transferred their dalies to digital video... so it's shot on film, but immediately transferred to digital, which is what I wish Lucas would've done for Star Wars.

i think it is time for Digital