If you have no problem with digital, then that's cool for you. I'm just saying, there is a huge difference, it's there, it matters.
I didn't say there wasn't a difference. I just like both formats and care more about the people behind it than just the equipment. There's also more at play than just analog/digital.
Let's not try to derail the thread too much shall we.
In other words, I think that in some six months, we should get our first official look at the Battinson
Perhaps but the difference is huge. This is Batman, it needs film imo, it needs that texture. It also bums me out they switched to digital on Aquaman and Shazam !, so much was lost. Aquaman looks great underwater but otherwise, the clinical, flatness of digital always personally bothered me. Shazam ! is another example, exacerbated by Sandberg not having a great eye. BOP is digital too, WW1984 film, so I hope they don't phase out film completely on the rest of the DCEU. It's a great way to set themselves apart from the MCU.
It's clear also from reading the coverage on Vice and other films that Fraser shot on film that he prefers film over digital.
imo the biggest difference between film and digital is the way you approach shooting. you can make digital look like film. the look of aquaman is a deliberate choice by the dp, they could have shot film if they wanted.
fraser like many other dps is of the 'different tools for different jobs' mindset
