Thread 215170359

Is he right?

>>215170359 (OP)
Yes.

Yes. the best thing Nolan and Tarantino are doing right now is showing people how muhc better film is. Digital film is genuinely disgusting once you notice.

Fucking Blacula looks better than any of the dogshit in Gunn's Superman

>>215170456
lol not so much in Nolan's case his movies still look shit even on film

>>215170472
I guess that's why Oppenheimer won the Oscars for best director and cinematography

>>215170496
awards are primarily given for political reasons and not artistic

also I hated that movie it gave me a headache

>>215170359 (OP)
Yes. Digital can make movies look like daytime television but without the bright lighting seen in daytime soap operas. It looks cheap because it is.

>>215170496
>just because it's black and white doesn't mean it's good
Add this to the list
>just because it has a lense flair doesn't mean it's good

>>215170359 (OP)
he's right for the wrong reason. There's nothing wrong with digital inherently, but the pipeline of digital is the problem. The shortcuts taken with lighting because they shoot on log and just cheat in post, the near infinite options you have in post as far as color grading goes requiring talent and time that just isn't there.

Digital looks either bland or like shit specifically because of this pipeline, not because of the format itself.

>>215170585
Go jack off to Blade Runner 2049

LED lighting is more damaging than digital.

>>215170496
Rewards lost all meaning post 1980. Oppenheimer was just fine, 6/10. Good technical work, sure, but people only watched it out of FOMO

>>215170609
I think alot of the dogshit awarded in recent years was mostly because the competition was just as dogshit

>>215170359 (OP)
>It's TV in public
what does that mean?

>>215170595
Even TV shows from the 80's and 90's, when properly restored, look way better than most digital movies released today. It also helps they used real sets.

digital has more advantages than disadvantages and what disadvantages it has have been getting less and less relevant over the past decades

none of you have the knowledge or experience to even have an opinion on this topic, you don't even understand the basics of it

>>215170595
>There's nothing wrong with digital inherently
>because they shoot on log and just cheat in post

You're wrong. Only reason your sample looks like film is that it was shot on log. You can make digital look like film, but it takes a lot of effort, and you won't be able to match it across different scenes. This is the main reason why you see piss filters. It's impossible to keep the footage coherent on digital, so slapping on piss filter is the only way to make something.

>>215170359 (OP)
>I can't stand digital filmmaking
>welp, time to listen to some music

Tarantino is such a fucking snobby boomer. Fagits whine about everything while the world marches on to bigger and better things. Digital film can be made to look like analog film stock of any age, and it can be made to look like anything the artist wants it to look like. Tarantino can fuck right off.

>>215170359 (OP)
what does that even mean

Michael Mann, David Fincher and James Cameron are better filmmakers than Tarantino will ever be.

>>215170496
Ugly, bloated, miserable, boring movie that is far too sympathetic to the communist infiltration that was happening in Hollywood at the time. I don't think many people actually liked Oppenheimer it was just hype for a big blockbuster that wasn't about Superheroes (although it tries to portray Oppenheimer as a poor suffering martyr)

>>215170359 (OP)
Uno farto is an obnoxious autistic zionist but he's usually right about most things

>>215170710
>digital has more advantages than disadvantages and what disadvantages it has have been getting less and less relevant over the past decades
this all sounds nice in theory but it doesn't really mean much when movies look worse than they did 30 years ago

>>215170496
oppenheimer won because it made the film industry and movie theaters tons of money in a time when people werent really going to theaters at all.

>>215170640
It's as bad as a transvestite leaving the house.

>>215170823
It won because it was the one of the only real films made that year (Holdovers was solid)

>>215170359 (OP)
Im glad he is only making 10 films because he has the mind of a boomer. Its all downhill from here.

Yes. Not that his movies since Grindhouse look significantly better.

>>215170710
Aaah yes, that's why movies have been getting better and better over the last decades.

Name one movie shot on digital with legit good cinematography. With good lighting, good shadows and colors just saturated enough that they enhance the scene. It's not a challenge. I legit can't think of one.

>>215170595
Why does the 35mm still look more crisp than the 6k digital camera?

>>215170762
vinyl unironically sounds better tho

>>215171077
The future is digital, not film.

as some have pointed out in this thread it probably comes down to expertise, or the lack of it, more so than the technology itself, there are plenty of good looking digital movies

Analog still photography is experiencing a resurgence too. Kodak is going to start selling new Kodacolor film in stores soon and they're actually expanding their production capacity to keep up with demand. Who knows if it will last though.

>>215170359 (OP)
He's just being a hipster. Like people who buy vinyl records.

>>215170595
at this point, grain just looks like shitty compression of digital streaming video. That's the reason zoomies hate film now. It looks like shit.

>>215171115
>hisssssssss
No.

>>215171058
Name one movie shot on film in the last 20 years with legit good cinematography.
I like the idea of film, but I don't think that's the problem. It looks like kino cinematography lighting and post-production are lost arts.

>>215171252
>>hisssssssss
its so warm!!!!

>>215171252
>hisssSSSSSsssssssssSSSSSSssssss*POP*ssssssSSSSSS
SOVL

Digitalfags be like:

>NOOOO, please wait another 20 years, it will look just like film!!

>>215171331
Django Unchained comes to mind. Good lighting in every scene, lots of contrast but but never excessive, colorful but never cartoonishly popping.

>>215171386
>piss filter

>>215170788
>mediocre has-beens
Their careers died in the mid 2000's when they decided to switch to digital.

Cameron only makes blue cat shit since the turn of the century

Lynch said digital is better. I trust David more more than someone filming jewish revenge stories.

>>215171156
Name ten. You'll be surprised how many modern movies are still shot on film. Digital is relegated to films that are heavy on CGI, and budget flicks.

>>215171424
He was wrong, his digital work looks shit and has aged worse than his early work shot on film.

>film is better when you have acess to vintage 60s stock that goes for $1000 per meter of roll
lol, LMAO

>>215171424
Lynch walked that back somewhat. He fell back in love with film while remastering Twin Peaks. He acknowledged the strengths of both.

>>215171480
This. The only reason Lynch switched to digital was so he could improvise and shoot more and it was cheaper.

>>215171481
And? painters never use cheap paint, engineers never use cheap materials.

Film still looks better than digital, why not use it?

>>215171384
>it will look just like film
It can but you need a damn good digital effects artist and vfx editor to fix it in post but they never do.

>>215171251
Zoomers are the ones driving demand for film/vinyl/etc.

>>215170640
He's not talking just about making the moving but also how it's watched. He's against theaters using digital projectors.

>>215171546
>just give 50 million for film bro it's just a small indie movie!
lol

>>215171424
Lynch also said he was pro-AI during his last year.

I thought digital was supposed to lead to a new renaissance of moviemaking because it would open the market to all those creatives who couldn't afford to shoot on expensive film cameras chewing through filmstock.

>>215172994
It kind of did in the 00s but then people got lazy and just used it to cut corners

>>215170595
>it's not that digital looks like shit
>it's just that it's really easy to make digital look like shit and everyone does it and you have to put in effort to make it not look like shit

>>215170359 (OP)
Hack fraud. Malick, Sorrentino and Mann do it digitally.

>>215171058
All About Lily Chou-Chou

>>215171546
The beauty of art is that you can create something meaningful using quite literally anything. Depends what you want to make.

>>215170496
That shot of the hat and pipe is videogame-worthy

>>215173252
Yes, but that's not an excuse for Hollywood production with massive $100m+ budgets looking like shit

>>215171058
Miami Vice
Public Enemies
Blackhat
Ferrari

Youth
Loro
The Hand of God
Parthenope

Knight of Cups
A Hidden Life

>>215170359 (OP)
Take as pedestrian as his flicks.

Jurassic World Rebirth is on film and still manages to look like CGI slop.

>>215170359 (OP)
Nobody cares what this pretentious cum guzzling jew thinks

>>215171058
Rust and Bone

>>215170359 (OP)
Lynch was for digital, the zionist foot fetishist is for film. Gee, I wonder who should I listen to.

Danny Boyle mogs Tarantino even with an iPhone.

>>215171411
No better than the sewer/blue-green filter that was used in a lot of movies in the 90's/2000's.
>>215171711
It was there since the 2010's. It's just hipster culture becoming more mainstream.

>>215170456
Here's your cinema bro

>>215170595
You're wrong. You point to something that shows why digital is inherently bad, as huge amount of post processing took place to unfuck digital.

>>215173612
this dumb /pol/tard doesnt even know that lunch backtracked after his initial retarded take on digital

>>215170788
>Michael Mann, David Fincher and James Cameron
Their best movies were all shot on film.

>>215171424
LMAAOOOOOO

>>215174187
Nope.

>>215174264
>Heat
>Seven
>Terminator

>>215170359 (OP)
hes currently hiding/retired in israel so he doesnt get tried for pedophilia. just those weird things people do.

>>215173439
Ferrari was horribly shot, couldn't even tell that it was a Mann film which would have at least been the one redeeming thing about it, sure as hell hope Heat 2 won't be like that.

>>215170550
You can hate a movie and still appreciate the cinematography. I thought Dunkirk was a meandering mess that could barely string a story together, but the cinematography was top notch

>>215170640
I wouldn't expect a civilian to understand

>>215173513
Tarantinoakes movies on vintage film stock. He never made a movie on modern high quality film that doesn't have the low ISO and graininess of old stock that he sees as magical.

>>215171132
The future is AI, not archaic "cameras"

I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey in the theater some years ago and was blown away by the visual quality.
Absolutely nothing compares to the crisp imagary I saw then.

Did anyone tell him you can add film grain effects to digital in post?

>>215175070
And it looks like shit, what's your point

>>215175070
You can also put make up on a pig.

JUST

>>215170496
>>215170472
Nolan older movies look better despite the fact all his movies are shot on film
Memento looks better than Oppenheimer

What people don't realize is that the limitations of the format requiring higher effort in certain areas is why a lot of the old stuff looks better.

Digital may theoretically be able to replicate film, but it has been used to cut corners, save costs, and make everything easier every single time because all that effort and cost to make things look better is insane to the financiers and the worker bees if you don't have to do it.

This is unironically how animation is universally worse now than it was in the 90s, which in turn is worse compared to many 40s and 50s works. There is no such thing as eternal progress. Regression is always a factor.

>>215176121
This is also why AI won't save anything.

>>215175112
Dishonest comparison. New movie does look worse but whoever made that comparison grabbed a random screenshot from google that had its brightness boosted and contrast lowered, probably to read better as an article header.

>>215176164
Yeah I was gonna say, reading through some of this stuff like >>215172994 and >>215173022 sounds almost exactly like the AI situation.

>>215173045
>>215174157
It's not that it's a huge amount of work, it's that it's any work at all like >>215176121
says, they have every excuse NOT to spend money and time on it so they don't. With film there is a process you cannot ignore, you cannot speed through so generally it ends up looking good.

But digital in the hands of somebody that cares and is in a position to say "THIS much money of the budget is going to be put into post and we are going to be given the time to do it right" can and will look good. But yes the reality is that a lot of slop will look worse due to this pipeline. A cheap comedy now will never have stunning color grading, but a cheap shit comedy for kids shot on film in the 90s will always look good.

>>215170710

I would imagine that tarantino does and what he said is pretty much what what everybody else here seems to as well.

>>215175070

> nick fury green screen.webm

Digital is so shit. At least in the way current film makers are using it. Makes everything look cheap and shitty like a commercial or youtube video.

>>215170496
dayum, Nolan won some Oscars. He must be the best filmmaker in history. I'm gonna watch all his films tonight.

>>215173045
It's the exact same thing for analog vs digital music

I have Fuji film pictures from my grandfather taken in the early 50s and they look clearer than yesterday. Film can’t be beat in fidelity because it’s a microscopic chemical.

>>215170359 (OP)
why does /tv/ worship this communist hack so much?

>>215170496
The Oscars are voted by majority retarded actors

>>215170762
Vinyl sounds better than digital music too though and it’s objectively known. You’re just a brainlet zoomer that can’t tell the difference.