How do you feel about digitally shot cinema?

[CyberpunkCentral]

Depends which camera they are using. I wish Hollywood would stop using 2K camera. I predicted for years that shooting in 2K will come back to bite them in the ass. And I was right. Because some UHD movies aren't even in real 4K.

[mrr1]

It doesn't matter.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by mrr1

It doesn't matter.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

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.

Well, aren't you the expert

I prefer the warm sound of vinyl records. CDs often sound sterile, and cold. And MP4 sounds compressed.

[MJD64]

I'm a film guy myself, but I have to give Michael Mann credit in one regard; he wants his films to look digital, as opposed to so many filmmakers attempting to make digital look like film.He genuinely wants to exploit the possibilities he sees in the format. It actually worked pretty well in Collateral and parts of Miami Vice. I agree Public Enemies was a mistake, and that nighttime shootout, which should have been the action highlight, was a visual disgrace (and negated any impact it might have had).

I always thought the thinking behind shooting Public Enemies digitally was to give a period piece a visual immediacy and rawness we hadn't seen before. Most period pieces are shot in a sumptuous visual style that looks beautiful but can have a distancing effect overall.It was a brave try by Mann, but a failure nonetheless, at least in my opinion.

[headphones]

As a filmmaker, I think it's great. From the filmmaking standpoint, there are no cons, only pros. You can do things, you could never do before. Or would be incredibly impractical to do. Not to mention extremely difficult and expensive to do. Digital shooting just makes life easier. It's cheaper, and way more practical.

[imsounoriginal]

Depends on the director and DP, there are some that really know how to get the most of out of digital and use the format for reasons other than "digital is cheaper." Film and digital both have their merits, I generally prefer film but I don't think it's automatically better.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Well, aren't you the expert

I prefer the warm sound of vinyl records. CDs often sound sterile, and cold. And MP4 sounds compressed.

180 gram pressing of Jimi Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland" brought the live sound to home in a way I had never heard before. I only heard it a few years ago, it was like being there. Vinyl is terrific IF pressed correctly.

[78deluxe]

Originally Posted by Mystic

Well, aren't you the expert

I prefer the warm sound of vinyl records. CDs often sound sterile, and cold. And MP4 sounds compressed.

I have worked in major studios, so yes, I actually am considered an expert in the field of audio recording.

[testmon1182]

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.

They actually cost roughly around the same.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by testmon1182

They actually cost roughly around the same.

I find it difficult to believe that a scene shot in 20+ takes would cost the same with digital video as it would with 35 mili.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by 78deluxe

I have worked in major studios, so yes, I actually am considered an expert in the field of audio recording.

And I was a roadie for the Jefferson Airplane in the 1960s.

People can say anything on an internet forum. Regardless of your so-called "expertise" (LOL), opinions are subjective. I don't have to have worked in a recording studio to know that vinyl sounds better to my ears!

[Packerfan75]

I feel fine.

[Mystic]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

180 gram pressing of Jimi Hendrix's "Electric Ladyland" brought the live sound to home in a way I had never heard before. I only heard it a few years ago, it was like being there. Vinyl is terrific IF pressed correctly.

Don't let the so-called "experts" on these forums tell you otherwise. I have a 180 gram pressing of "Led Zeppelin II" that sounds amazing with headphones.

[Ray Jackson]

Originally Posted by Mystic

And I was a roadie for the Jefferson Airplane in the 1960s.

People can say anything on an internet forum. Regardless of your so-called "expertise" (LOL), opinions are subjective. I don't have to have worked in a recording studio to know that vinyl sounds better to my ears!

When the truth is found to be lies.

...and all the joy within you dies.

[Steelmaker]

Digital doesn't bother me as much as tdoday's cinematographer's love affair with color filters.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by testmon1182

They actually cost roughly around the same.

No it really isn't. There was a movie called Tangerine that was shot with a darn iPhone. Digital gives the ability to make a movie to just about anyone. Even the task of editing which can be done on a laptop with digital would save money. Of course I'm talking indie stuff here. The big budget Hollywood movies will be the big budget Hollywood movies regardless of using film or digital.

[ThatOneGuy]

If the film looks good, the film looks good. I enjoy the look of dirt grains and scratches on my films as much as I like them being very clean with dynamic colors. One way isn't better then the other, it all depends on who is controlling it.

[chickflickdick]

Im not a huge fan of grains. I think its one of the smaller downsides of film. And i hate scratches and cigarette burns.

I prefer film because it just looks better. And its a look i deeply associated with movies.

Digital just looks flat.

[chickflickdick]

Originally Posted by ArmyOfDarknessAW

No it really isn't. There was a movie called Tangerine that was shot with a darn iPhone. Digital gives the ability to make a movie to just about anyone. Even the task of editing which can be done on a laptop with digital would save money. Of course I'm talking indie stuff here. The big budget Hollywood movies will be the big budget Hollywood movies regardless of using film or digital.

I like films made on a shoestring budget. And good storytelling is storytelling. But the idea of making films with iphones is just a form technical masturbation.

Just because you can does not me you should.

Making movies on shoddy cameras for no money at all isnt really new. Vhs cameras have been available since the early 80s...

Its ****ing sad how many professional film in the 90s and early 00s got ruined with dv cams. Almost unwatchable today. The whole dogma masturbation... Just look at the dogma film festen. Absolutely amazing script, acting etc ruined buy a consumer grade dvcam.


The big thing now. Is that you can actually make semi good looking films with consumer cameras.. like cannon dslr cameras. That is the difference.