How do you feel about digitally shot cinema?

[chickflickdick]

For the most part i think it looks cheap. It just lacks something of what i like about film. I cant really articulate and describe it but its sorta this heightened reality.

Digital video just looks flat.

And the lower the budget is on the film. The worse it looks. Usually. Naturally. But many high budget films still look very cheap and flat.

Its kinda weird how you today can watch an restored italian genre film made for peanuts look absolutely fantastic. And then you look at a mainstream hollywood film and it just looks flat.

Digital has gotten better than it was. And it gets better every year. But many films still suffer. And it seems like digital demands alot more out of the cinematographer.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

I feel like it's an overall positive thing. It has massively helped the indie movement we see now giving us loads more movies to watch. Movies are significantly cheaper to make digitally. Not to mention you can manipulate digital to have aspects of traditional film like adding grain and such. Was it The Nice Guys that added some classic film aspects like a cigarette burn into the movie?

There will always be the directors that hold out and will use traditional film which is awesome, but overall I welcome digital.

[klauswhereareyou]

Like with film it depends on the cinematographer, though I've found that bad digital looks really bad in comparison to bad film.

[NARMAK]

I like there to be a choice and don't forget, post processing can allow filters of grain etc. to emulate traditional film.

I personally don't mind it or take issues with it. A razor sharp digital image with proper HDR applied would be amazing to behold whereas film with grain can sometimes look excessively intruding on the image.

[Michael11]

I agree with klauswhereareyou. Even bad film has character and soul, but bad digital has nothing, it's empty and flat.

I like digital when there is a damn good cinematographer. Otherwise as the OP said, it looks cheap and lifeless.

[Monterey Jack]

Depends on the film...I've seen digitally-shot movies where I didn't once think about it, and others (Public Enemies being a tragic example) where it's a $100 million Hollywood production that looks like it was shot on Michael Mann's cell phone. Hacksaw Ridge also had some pretty ugly slo-mo shots that really gave away that it was shot digitally.

[78deluxe]

It is a tool, no different than film in that respect.

Digital doesn't look flat if the cinematographer knows what he/she is doing and has the proper tools.

35mm film has a lower resolution that what most pros are using on digital today.

Medium or large format film is a different story, but realistically the majority of what you see isn't shot on that.

If your eye likes the extra grain of film, that can be digitally created.

I like both formats, but as someone that has worked with both, I'd rather work with digital most of the time. I put old lenses on my modern digital cameras all the time, most of them the lens is the resolution limit, not the digital sensor.

[Mr. Chaverria]

It's ignorant to devalue what digital is for the industry. Just pure ignorance. Digital is fine when handled properly. When it isn't? It sucks.

All depends on the guys and gals handling the tools.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Monterey Jack

Depends on the film...I've seen digitally-shot movies where I didn't once think about it, and others (Public Enemies being a tragic example) where it's a $100 million Hollywood production that looks like it was shot on Michael Mann's cell phone. Hacksaw Ridge also had some pretty ugly slo-mo shots that really gave away that it was shot digitally.

great example!

[StingingVelvet]

If you treat it right in post-production and make it look like it has depth and texture then I am totally fine with it. If you just release it looking flat and totally clear like a LOT of movies do then I kind of hate it.

The youngins like that flat and clear look though, so we're doomed.

[Al_The_Strange]

I feel fine.

[Buscemi]

The cameras have improved heavily over the past decade. The Alexa and some of the Reds (and the current Sony/Panavision joint ventures) have fixed most of the problems earlier cameras like the Genesis (I don't get why some people, mainly Dean Semler and Adam Sandler, still insist on using this camera) and the Thomson Viper had.

The recent film boom to me really feels like a last gasp at relevance. Sure, it's great that we are seeing movies shot in 65mm again but a lot of vocal people behind the boom just makes you wish that it would go away.

If I have one problem with digital now, it's the whole concept of trying to make films shot on iPhones or iPads happen. It just does not work. Take the worst parts of handheld filmmaking and multiply them by 10.

[JeffTheMovieGuy]

I feel fine about it but it can really make or break a movie.

[Monterey Jack]

Originally Posted by AKORIS

great example!

I could not BELIEVE how bad that movie looked...Mann's digitally-shot Collateral and Miami Vice had their flaws, but at least both of those were contemporary crime thrillers. A lavish Prohibition-era gangster flick should not look like a YouTube video of fat people arguing in line at Wal Mart.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by ArmyOfDarknessAW

I feel like it's an overall positive thing. It has massively helped the indie movement we see now giving us loads more movies to watch. Movies are significantly cheaper to make digitally. Not to mention you can manipulate digital to have aspects of traditional film like adding grain and such. Was it The Nice Guys that added some classic film aspects like a cigarette burn into the movie?

There will always be the directors that hold out and will use traditional film which is awesome, but overall I welcome digital.

[Mystic]

I prefer the "look" of movies shot on film. To me, it's the equivalent of listening to music on vinyl instead of a CD or MP4. As others have said, it might be more cost effective to shot digitally, but it sounds kind of strange to than alter it to give it the "look" of something shot on film. If that's you're intent than shot it on film to begin with

[Roonan]

This is like asking: how do you feel about watercolor paintings as opposed to pastel?

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I care about the art, not the tools of the artist.

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by Mystic

I prefer the "look" of movies shot on film. To me, it's the equivalent of listening to music on vinyl instead of a CD or MP4. As others have said, it might be more cost effective to shot digitally, but it sounds kind of strange to than alter it to give it the "look" of something shot on film. If that's you're intent than shot it on film to begin with

Vinyl is technically inferior to CD in every respect. Dynamic range, distortion, noise, frequency response and reproduction. These are inherent limitations in the format that cannot be over come by even the best pressings and playback equipment.

In terms of reproducing the actual audio that is recorded, CD is a much better format than Vinyl. If you prefer the flaws that vinyl has, that is up to you and your ears to decide what you like.

[L-Rouge]

^ Re Roonan's observation. The deeper analysis would be if said medium of watercolour replaces pastel or vice versa as choice for viewership. To me I have observed in the art industry an over abundance of a popular medium can drive taste back to older traditional values. (over a decade ago airbrush artists notice an increase in interest for commission as photoshop had turned people off lens flares) Is this what could happen to film?.

So I don't know if that analogy is appropriate.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Roonan

This is like asking: how do you feel about watercolor paintings as opposed to pastel?

I have no strong feelings one way or the other. I care about the art, not the tools of the artist.

You're kidding me right?

You don't think The Sistine Chapel would look slightly different if Michelangelo had used watercolors for the paintings?