Movies : FILM or go DIGITAL?

[editman]

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.

[trailergod]

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...

[Kn'thrak]

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

*rubs the lucas symbol!!!*

[trailergod]

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...




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...




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





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 ass 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

[Mischa]

My $0.02.

Mix it!

IMHO film it on film (errr ... ) 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?

[Shrubz]

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

[Kn'thrak]

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

[trailergod]

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...

[Kn'thrak]

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!

[Kn'thrak]

<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.

[ZUBi]

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 (!)...

[Jedi Master]

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

[trailergod]

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.. 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...

[Movie Wizard]

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.

[carl]

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.