Nolan Fans

and by the way they all forgot about large format and ultra large format photography which they are farther away than imax in terms of size and everything

This discussion is circulating around for over a decade now. Film is still alive.. but theater film experience is almost dead.

I bothers me a little bit, how film buffs disregard digital because it somehow is fake color, and film is real, its nonsense, they are electromagnetic waves of the spectrum our eye and brain can process, they can differ between one and other in tones and other technical aspects, but to call digital colors not real is hilarious to me.

In the documentary side by side they never really show film projection vs digital projection side by side.

So here is a comparison between 15/70 film vs multiple 8K digital projectors. Keep in mind that this was done by Christie, so you can't expect fairness in comparison. For example, the brightness of the film projector seems to be lower than usual (as one of the comments noted). Also, using multiple projectors gives the digital projector the advantage of utilizing multiple light sources, leading to higher brightness.

http://youtu.be/-Ad2syfmMWs?t=202

You can see how the digital projection is not capable of showing night scenes at all. Night scenes look like day scenes, perhaps because digital can't even handle its own brightness.

Anyway, as one would expect, digital looks harsh on the eye. 8K images have a bluish green tint through out the image. You can see that while the brown bear is brown in 15/70 film projection, it is greenish brown in digital.

The yellow light is so nice and natural with film projection but with digital its downright ugly. The green shirt of that guy looks rich, solid and natural on film and digital looks fake and artificial.

Compariing film to digital is like comparing food to food pills. "It essentially has the same Vitamins, carbs, proteins and other nutrients", they'll tell you.

Obviously, taste can't be proven on paper. But it does exist for sure.

Saying digital looks harsh on the eye is reductionist and just plain incorrect, its true that there are some artifacts prone to be present on digital images, but they have to do more with artificial sharpening than actual resolution, you could also make a case agaisnt analog proyection and it having little consistency between copies, wich has been proven to be a pain for DP`s, Roger Deakins mentioned this issue a couple of times.

And in regards to the video, difficult to take it too seriously as we are having to just take the word of the guy.
PD: one last thing is that i see that you yourself are confusing taste with actual technical superiority, saying that a color looks artificial doesnt cut it, remember we are not talking about aesthetical differences.

For a more nuanced comparison between 35mm and Digital (Alexa)
heres Steve Yedlin's great video comparison and mini essay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C3nRlHBpoI
and with that i'll end my side of the discussion, i feel we are side tracking hehe.

Film is better.

This is still a debate?

Angus wrote: ↑

August 18th, 2019, 3:52 pm

Film is better.

This is still a debate?

Film is a tool for storytelling, no better of worse than any other, Roger Deakins himself said that he would shoot on an iphone if it was proper for the story at hand, so saying film is better is just plain bruh hehe.

But what good story deserves to be shot on an iphone? Lol.

yikes


-Vader