- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Topic
-
Hello, so to me, 35mm motion picture film just doesn’t have an aesthetic quality over modern digital cameras as I struggle to tell the difference half the time, unlike with say super 16 which I find does register with me as being filmic, even with grain removed. Like, I have to tell myself as I watch a modern 35mm film that it was shot on film, some examples for me are don’t look up and the northman, and even with films that attempt to emulate older time periods like licorice pizza and once upon a time in Hollywood, I just don’t see the image find it looking like eras they’re emulating, they look modern to me, which is not to say they’re bad, they look great, I just struggle to feel those films as being shot on film despite the fact they were. and whatever textural quality there is to 35mm film, I find is easy to replicate with film emulation, and I even heard of some 35mm productions like hbos winning time using film emulation as the film was too clean on its own so they added grain that would look more like 16mm film and at that point I ask, why not shoot it on 16?
-
Replies
-
I know what you mean and the thing I would compare it to is anamorphic lenses, which seemed to lose some of the ‘character’ that differentiated them from spherical as more and more of their artefacts got ironed out. To me the resolution of the Kodak EXR and Vision stocks from the mid-1990s looks radically different from the movies released even a few years prior to their introduction, to the point where for instance 1992 and 1997 can feel like two completely different eras of filmmaking.
I feel like when we get entangled with this discussion of film / digital, it only compares the sensor block to the film stock while in reality the whole chain has changed.
Scanner sensitivity and modern film development coupled with cleanup software (grain / scratch / dust removal) are so top notch today. Add on that the fact that Lights with the performance of modern LED have completely revolutionize the speed but also the shape of lighting. You can quickly make decision on the fly if the prep doesn’t play out. The fact everyone now has a feedback on set even shooting on film is also a huge step with the makeup artist able to determine if there are imperfection between takes on the fly. What you see less and less are this kind of imperfection in every department. Also film history has been to remove film imperfection (grain, halation) and optimize dynamic range to such a point that what people romanticize with the film look is actually what the film creator were trying to fight and ultimately managed to get rid of !
Not to mention the Finishing suit / Color grading process that even movies shot on film use today.
A lot of the feelings comes from mistakes, I remember Christopher Doyle speaking with Wong Kar Wai saying they shot with a diffusion filter the entire movie because they forgot to remove it the next day. Or they printed the film wrongly or forgot to put the frame for the correct aspect ratio but now people love this film that way and do really think that’s the film look while a lot of time, these were actually mistakes or to say it differently “happy accident” and I feel like the discourse we have today with DP saying “I pushed the stock because I wanted more grain” is something I’ve never heard or maybe in rare cases in the past before the digital era.
The monitors and theatrical projector have also become so good that everything today seems to reach their max sharpness.
In the past I have certainly pushed film to get more grain. I disagree that it is the imperfections that are missing in today’s work. To me there is a lack of risk taking and of pushing the possibilities of film (by which I mean film as opposed to film or digital capture).
In the past I have certainly pushed film to get more grain. I disagree that it is the imperfections that are missing in today’s work. To me there is a lack of risk taking and of pushing the possibilities of film (by which I mean film as opposed to film or digital capture).
Ironic considering with modern technology, you’d think there would be a drive to push limits more often. Also, would you agree that 35mm film stocks don’t really have that layer of unobtainium and aren’t that different from digital cameras once post production comes into question?
Whether film or digital the resulting look depends on the eye behind the work. That is why the ‘film digital’ discussion seems so off the mark to me. If a film is well shot I can’t tell the difference though some, both small and big budget films, look fake to me and that is not a problem with the technology.
Hello Roger,
What did you mean by ‘some, small and big budget films, look fake to me?’
Do you mean that it’s a case of style over substance? Or something that brings you out of the experience when watching a film?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.