Film vs Digital filming

So what is everyone prefered choice in film making and why?

The older I get, the more I think film is the way to go. Oddly enough, it was the Star Wars prequels that convinced me of that.

Putting aside the prevailing opinion of the films, The Phantom Menace will be adaptable to whatever home video format is The Thing now or ten years from now, twenty years from now, fifty, etc. It was shot on good ol' 35mm film. As film is theoretically infinitely scannable, all you'll ever really need to do is scan the original image.

However, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith... they are "locked". They're at the current HD standard. They can be made into less but nothing can up-convert them into a higher resolution. At least, not yet. It may some day be possible but, then, you'd be "adding" resolution that isn't there in the original image. Essentially you're just "blowing up" the original image. Unless some technological (and probably expensive) break through comes along, any digital film will be stuck at whatever resolution it was shot at.

And even 35mm films will have to be tweaked at least somewhat because of the need to upgrade the resolution of the CG effects to match the new resolution.

Compare this to Raiders of the Lost Ark, where you'll only ever have to scan the film and be done with it. It's not like remastering it in that way is a cheap process but it's a hell of a lot cheaper than what you'll have to do to make remastered editions of, say, Sin City or Spy Kids or something into commercially-feasible releases for future home video formats.

It's ironic. Digital technology was supposed to be a fast, easy and cheap way to do cinema. However, protecting it for future home video formats and such will be harder and cost a shitload more money (assuming it EVER becomes possible) than old school "all film" features.

Ya for me to it has to be film. Now i am not knocking digital cause there is wonderful things you can do with that and i enjoyed films i seen on digital formats. But since i worked on a few films which all were shot on film. I do feel the afinity towards it, and know that its a good standard. I do hope it doesnt totally die out.

I just think digital filming exposes a lot of the "flaws" in choices directors make in their movies. Whether it's color, staging a scene, or costume design. With some films, these things stick out like a sore thumb.

Also, if not filmed right, the film can turn out looking like it was shot for TV. Like in 'Serenity'. I saw it on tv a few months back, and it looks like it was a Sy-Fy movie or something.

Apologist Puncher wrote:I just think digital filming exposes a lot of the "flaws" in choices directors make in their movies. Whether it's color, staging a scene, or costume design. With some films, these things stick out like a sore thumb.

Also, if not filmed right, the film can turn out looking like it was shot for TV. Like in 'Serenity'. I saw it on tv a few months back, and it looks like it was a Sy-Fy movie or something.

Shooting digital didn't do Singerman any favors either. Not sure how true it is but supposedly the Genesis system Singer ran with was barely beyond prototype before he committed to using it. I read rumors that the platform's designers damn near had nervous breakdowns trying to get the system up and ready in time for production and, by their own admission, never really finished the job.

The way technology has seemed to progress over the years, it seems like there's this insinuation that somehow analog is bad & that digital is good. Just look at the music industry for proof of this. But I've said this before even here, I still prefer vinyl on records for music. Even though I own hundreds of CDs & cassettes, etc., I still do not own an Ipod! That's not saying I never will but it also doesn't seem like a pressing issue either. I prefer CDs for the car of course but records at home. Even music experts agree that vinyl does sound better than digital. Besides that you get the 'experience' of an album like you had back in the day, not a 'microwave' version.

What's that got to do with films? Well I guess the same principles apply. There was nothing wrong with film but they try to replace it. Look at how cameras have gone digital. Ditto for films. But what happens if all this 'tech' ever crashes? Are we back to the Stone Age? One point is, I sure lived without digital probably most of my life. That's not saying I'd want to completely go back to that way of life. I love duh Internets too much for that! But in some cases the old saying 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' sometimes does indeed ring true. Especially with albums.

The picture is only as good as how the person uses it. In the early 2000s I was pretty anti-digital because the resolution was no better than a HDTV like with the Star Wars prequels. That's unacceptable. However as the technology improved I gotta say that I'm much more content with the format and as long as its used well I really have no complaint.

One thing that was a real shame about SUPERMAN RETURNS wasn't really the digital format. In fact, I thought they really made some great shots. Say what you want of Singer, but the guy knows how to use a camera and on that end he really did a great job with framing composition. BUT, what ruins it all is the desaturated look. I dunno if it was because of the camera or it was something done in post, but whatever the cause the result is really ugly. A Superman film should have bright vibrant colors. This is not just because Donner did it, it's because it reflects on the character and the optimism these films should bring. Which is why I'm very cautious of Snyder's take. If that official image of Cavill's Superman is a true representation of the film's look, I'll be pretty damn upset. The dark and gritty look of Batman does not apply to Superman.

During the mid 80s Tom Mankiewicz was hired by WB to write for the Batman flick, he was only hired because of his work on Superman. When he finally submitted his script the producers were shocked by how dark it turned out and asked why he didn't write it like the Superman films. Mankiewicz explained to them that Batman should be its own animal, that giving it the same tone as Superman would ruin the integrity of the film. I do hope the first still and talk of making Superman "dark and gritty" is a false indicator of what Snyder's MAN OF STEEL will really be like. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

First off, welcome. Great way to start off, with a well-spoken first post raising some good questions.

Stockslivevan wrote:The picture is only as good as how the person uses it. In the early 2000s I was pretty anti-digital because the resolution was no better than a HDTV like with the Star Wars prequels. That's unacceptable. However as the technology improved I gotta say that I'm much more content with the format and as long as its used well I really have no complaint.

I think movie theaters need to improve their screens in order to handle good digital films. When I saw 'The Avengers' the first time, the whole ending battle looked like it was happening in the rain. Why? Shitty screen it was projected on.

Seriously, I kept looking at what appeared to be rain, and wondering why no one was getting wet??

One thing that was a real shame about SUPERMAN RETURNS wasn't really the digital format.

One of many.

In fact, I thought they really made some great shots. Say what you want of Singer, but the guy knows how to use a camera and on that end he really did a great job with framing composition.

Unfortunately, many of them went for naught because:

A. They were misplaced.

Or:

B. Made no sense in the long run.

Like the scene of him tossing the perfectly FINE shuttle out into space, and watching it go while the hundred or so people are being tossed around like rag-dolls in the incapacitated 747. I mean, he SITS THERE watching it go, then slowly spins around and says "Uh, oh yeah! All those people are falling. Duh.".

BUT, what ruins it all is the desaturated look. I dunno if it was because of the camera or it was something done in post, but whatever the cause the result is really ugly. A Superman film should have bright vibrant colors. This is not just because Donner did it, it's because it reflects on the character and the optimism these films should bring. Which is why I'm very cautious of Snyder's take. If that official image of Cavill's Superman is a true representation of the film's look, I'll be pretty damn upset. The dark and gritty look of Batman does not apply to Superman.

Singer did it in post. He WANTED a washed out look like that.

Singerman's burgundy & mustard color palette is proof enough of this.

As for 'Man Of Steel', we really don't know what way they are going. But like I said in one of the threads there, I see WB trying to "fun-up" the film after the way Avengers has dominated.

During the mid 80s Tom Mankiewicz was hired by WB to write for the Batman flick, he was only hired because of his work on Superman. When he finally submitted his script the producers were shocked by how dark it turned out and asked why he didn't write it like the Superman films. Mankiewicz explained to them that Batman should be its own animal, that giving it the same tone as Superman would ruin the integrity of the film. I do hope the first still and talk of making Superman "dark and gritty" is a false indicator of what Snyder's MAN OF STEEL will really be like. We'll just have to wait and see I guess.

And Mankiewicz was right.

Yeah that baffles me. He's a huge fan of Donner's flick but he went for a washedout out murky look. He was off his rocker. I consider myself a fan of Singer's flicks (USUAL SUSPECTS and X2 are aces) , but fuck, he dropped the ball on SR. I think that shows that Singer is only good when he's collaborating with someone, while with SUPERMAN RETURNS it was pretty much a one man show with Singer, he didn't have a partner telling him "I think we're going too far with this, let's reevaluate."

Of course he went straight back to film format (I recall a lab fuck up exposing all of his footage forced him to reshoot sequences), I take it he wasn't entirely happy with his experiment on digital. VALKYRIE was a much better looking flick as it looked more palpable on old film, had the same murky look but far more appropriate for a WWII plot about a doomed operation, not for what's supposed to be a great shining idol like Superman.

I too wanted to welcome you to the board stock. Hope you have a good time here and bring some good dicsussions for we all to talk on.

Stockslivevan wrote:I consider myself a fan of Singer's flicks (USUAL SUSPECTS and X2 are aces) , but fuck, he dropped the ball on SR.

X2 is okay but I find that Usual Suspects mostly works because of the cast. The plot and the majority of the execution are pretty typical crime movie tropes, excepting an admittedly pretty good twist ending. The actors bouncing off one another is mostly what makes the movie play for me.

In fact, by way of comparison, it kind of blows my mind that Brett Ratner is as reviled as he is among some people given his more successful career at making entertaining (to me at least) films than anything Singer has ever done.

Stockslivevan wrote:(I recall a lab fuck up exposing all of his footage forced him to reshoot sequences)

I'm not sure I ever really bought that. It was a troubled production almost from day one, as I recall. Call it a conspiracy theory if you want but I think the more likely explanation for the reshoots is that the studio just didn't dig what Singer had to show them so they ordered him to take a second pass. For whatever reason, he didn't tell the suits where to stick it. The alternative explanation requires you to believe that professional film processors for a major Hollywood release somehow fucked up the one job they have. Again, call me crazy, but I would think they'd have enough experience in the business to get the job done right.

But that official explanation spares the movie "bad buzz" and lets everybody involved save face. The publicized issues behind Punisher: War Zone don't seem to have helped that movie's business too much.

Remember the cu---er, I mean the 'bullet shot' to the eye? I believe the studio added that too from what I remember.

non_amos wrote:Remember the cu---er, I mean the 'bullet shot' to the eye? I believe the studio added that too from what I remember.

Your memory serves you well. From what I remember, the thing originally cut to something else after Singerman departed from Fivehead's house. It took the studio to suggest that, y'know, maybe [Singerman] could foil a crime after he floats around the atmosphere. That's supposed to be how the bank job scene ever came about.

Ratner's a hack, simple. I saw RED DRAGON right after its three predecessors and it was probably the most embarrassing thing I ever saw. It's like MANHUNTER for retards. I don't blame him for X3 though, he didn't help matters but it was all FOX. Their constant interference is what drove away Singer and Hayter in the first place, besides WB dangling that sugar coated S shield in front of Singer's face. I have yet to watch all of WOLVERINE. What I saw of it reminded me of a bad low budget 80s action flick where a lot of nothing happens, at least THE LAST STAND seemed to go somewhere even if it was stupid.

As much as Singer fucked up on Supes, I don't let it cloud my judgement on all his films. He always strikes me as a guy who actually gives a shit what he's working on, but as seen in SUPERMAN RETURNS it can be his Achilles heel.

thecolorsblend wrote:

non_amos wrote:Remember the cu---er, I mean the 'bullet shot' to the eye? I believe the studio added that too from what I remember.

Your memory serves you well. From what I remember, the thing originally cut to something else after Singerman departed from Fivehead's house. It took the studio to suggest that, y'know, maybe [Singerman] could foil a crime after he floats around the atmosphere. That's supposed to be how the bank job scene ever came about.

Don't forget that he filmed much more than the broken glass and falling Globe after Spacey-Luthor shot the crystal into the water.

He showed it to "friends and family", and they said "it to muck stiff hapening n kina scarrrry". So they took it all out.

Stockslivevan wrote:Ratner's a hack, simple. I saw RED DRAGON right after its three predecessors and it was probably the most embarrassing thing I ever saw. It's like MANHUNTER for retards. I don't blame him for X3 though, he didn't help matters but it was all FOX. Their constant interference is what drove away Singer and Hayter in the first place, besides WB dangling that sugar coated S shield in front of Singer's face. I have yet to watch all of WOLVERINE. What I saw of it reminded me of a bad low budget 80s action flick where a lot of nothing happens, at least THE LAST STAND seemed to go somewhere even if it was stupid.

Actually, the first two 'Rush Hour' films are quite enjoyable. It ran too thin by the third, but for those two alone, I couldn't call him a "hack".

And 'Wolverine' was a waste of time and money. I can't take that movie even SLIGHTLY serious.

Wolverine can't smell the difference between a dead body and a live one? Really??

As much as Singer fucked up on Supes, I don't let it cloud my judgement on all his films. He always strikes me as a guy who actually gives a shit what he's working on, but as seen in SUPERMAN RETURNS it can be his Achilles heel.

I have to say the opposite, at least post-Singerman. I can enjoy his pre-Singerman films just fine.

But won't bother with anything after.

Also didn't singer film with green or orange filters. Which also caused the muted colors? Or am I remembering that wrong?

Apologist Puncher wrote:I have to say the opposite, at least post-Singerman. I can enjoy his pre-Singerman films just fine.

But won't bother with anything after.

I thought VALKYRIE was fine. However, JACK THE GIANT KILLER looks like a dog.

More on digital.

So I was watching Captain America in theaters and I realized during the beginning that the film was shot digitally. From the looks, whatever camera they used must have been similar to the one used for Superman Returns. That kind of thing really bugs me because at times it will look more like a home made flick in certain lighting than a big blockbuster film. I can be pretty picky, especially when only a few weeks earlier Thor came out with a beautiful picture shot on old fashioned 35mm. But I realized something when watching Captain America, I didn't give a shit. I was having too much fun with it despite the bad digital motion, I was able to look past it because the movie was engaging enough. Which isn't the case for Superman Returns.

Besides comic books, the next Bond film Skyfall will be the first film in the series to be shot digitally. However, a much better camera system is being used so it'll look closer to 35 mm film. Also since the cinematographer is Roger Deakins, it should turn out to be a really great looking flick. So I'm pretty excited to see how well Bond works in digital format as it's helmed by Deakins.

Stockslivevan wrote:So I was watching Captain America in theaters and I realized during the beginning that the film was shot digitally. From the looks, whatever camera they used must have been similar to the one used for Superman Returns. That kind of thing really bugs me because at times it will look more like a home made flick in certain lighting than a big blockbuster film. I can be pretty picky, especially when only a few weeks earlier Thor came out with a beautiful picture shot on old fashioned 35mm. But I realized something when watching Captain America, I didn't give a shit. I was having too much fun with it despite the bad digital motion, I was able to look past it because the movie was engaging enough. Which isn't the case for Superman Returns.

This is actually quite true, and HollyWeird is going to face some tough questions moving forward. Mainly, "Do we let the same people we have always used light our films as if they were 35mm and suffer in quality, or do we re-train/hire new blood to do it going forward?". Because you can't light a film the same way you always have, when technology is more than able to pick up on any glaring issues.

Now more than ever.

In the right hands a movie shot digitally can look impressive. David Fincher's work since ZODIAC have all looked great so far. THE AVENGERS also looked great and from what I read SKYFALL is being shot with the same camera too.