How can you tell if a movie has been shot on film or digital?
Is there a way to look it up?
usually just by the look
or if it predates the digital era, which is only the 2000s, obviously
Film grain, but I guess they can digitally add that if they wanted.
>>62690706
by googling
Film generally looks more natural. Though digital is progressing leaps and bounds with every passing year, soon it'll just be pointless to shoot on film.
After watching Gone Girl I can't really understand why anyone would choose film over digital
>>62690880
because not everyone wants their film to look cold and sterile like gone girl
The film's Technical Specifications section on IMDb.
Searching the American Society of Cinematographers archives.
Just watching it in the theatres. If you can see the film grain, it's shot on film. (But, not being able to see the film grain doesn't mean it wasn't shot on film -- they may have done grain removal in the digital intermediate stage.)
>>62690958
agreed i.e. Contagion was a good film and the visuals were awesome, digital reacts to light with much more tenacity. however in blade runner film gave the movie the glow it needed. (if they use digital for the sequel it will look quite different.)
>>62690733
>>62690706
Film: Watch any spielgerg movie
Digital: Watch any George Lucas movie
>>62691222
only episodes 2 and 3 were shot digitally
>>62690706
Well it's getting harder & harder to tell whether a movie has been shot on the actual film or not because the digital footages can be manipulated into the look that a film maker really wants afterwards. This is strictly my opinion but I find there is noticeable difference within the crisp-ness of the dark area. But the thing is you can't really find well equipped theater to start enjoying those differences in many ways possible. I assure that the digitalization of materials isn't going to affect way you enjoy films anyway. It just makes things easier & kinder on the industry side .
>>62690706
final credits
>>62690706
Are digital movies harder to be "restored?" Like what if we have the technology to display 16K movies, we can just scan the films and display them for higher resolution but won't digital movies just look blurry?
>>62692414
That's actually a major problem with digital film.
Celluloid film doesn't really have a resolution, you can rescan it to higher resolutions if you have the right machines and a clean enough film stock.
Digital can't be upgraded, films like 28 Days Later already show their age since they were filmed at a low resolution, and can't be truly upscaled. A digital film done at 1080p will always be 1080p, hence why directors like Fincher do master-rolls at 8K, but release at 2K, for posterity.
good movie: film
crap movie: digital
>>62694600
So everything after 2008
>>62695078
>>62694600
Everything after 2008 was crap
Film is much much higher resolution than digital. Regular 35mm film is about 150 megapixels in digital.
Overall film has higher value range than CMOS or CCD and overall much balanced contrast.
CCD is superior digital sensor but manufacturers did a bid on CMOS because of all the casual shit smartphope cameras and barely make them anymore.
No to mention that with some chemistry film can be made better too.
Casuals are killing cinema.
>>62690706
I don't know but there is so more details with a 35mm film if you're looking at à good source like a blu ray on aa big screen. There is more "texture" to the movies. Digital cannot yet mimic that.
Remember, a good 35mm scan is like 16mpix, the prequels of star wars where only shot in full HD (1080p)
>>62696099
The cameras used for the prequels were almost prototypes. The ones used today (Red weapon, Arri 65, Cinealt 65) are stunning.
Pop Quiz: Go watch Spectre and tell me which shots were done with the Arri 65 and which were shot on 35mm.
>>62690706
just look it up on IMDB under technical specs. there. done.
>>62695906
>Film is much much higher resolution than digital. Regular 35mm film is about 150 megapixels in digital.
this is nonsensical bullshit. a pixel has no physical equivalent. It's determined by whatever technology is available at the time.
You can scan a 5000 megapixel image of a frame of celluloid, down to the molecular level. Still won't mean the quality will be better than a 5000 megapixel CMOS sensor capture.
>>62696381
The actual digital cameras are great but I don't know what changed but if look at a movie shot with film and compare to digital there is something different, colder, more slick. Maybe that's the photography who changed a lot but if you go at a theater who still have a 35mm projector I assure you, you don't have to be a film's nutjob to see the differences.
I will try to post a video even it's hard to find the exact same footage shot with 35mm and digital.
For a strict technical point of view the best digital camera shoot in 8k. As I said a hi rez scan of film is close to 16Mega pixels even if it's hard to compare bananes and oranges
>>62696515
It's not all about megapixels, it's also how much light the sensor picks up and how well the processor is able to differentiate between colours + exposure (dynamic range).
you look at it with your eyes
>>62696381
>Spectre
Haven't seen it yet but I will try do this. The scene shot on 35mm in Gravity was extremely obvious.
>shot on digital
Yes I don't know the dynamic range of a Red epic for exemple.
Here is one of the rare footage I found shot with digital and film.
https://youtu.be/xVAv0Xx6Un8
Raw digital is obviously very neutral (to get the maximum details possible) but once the filter applied it's very hard to tell the differences.
Post more film vs digital of you have.
>>62696618
Is that bill burr?
A digital system simply cannot match the fidelity of a natural process of light interacting with chemicals. We just don't have the miniaturisation yet. It's like cochlear implants, your cochlea in its natural state has thousands of hair cells transducing the sound, the absolute best we can do with artificial transduction is 22 electrodes.
On the other hand you can't match the practical flexibility of digital, in terms of both shooting and post. I'd posit that digital film allows for much more adventurous shooting styles because you don't have to haul around film cases and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of film equipment, instead you have a compact lightweight camera with which you can climb a cliff or hang off a zipline.
>>62690706
Most big films from the last 15 years were shot digitally but it's hard to tell the difference because they were shot on high-end digital cameras.
Should I buy a Canon 5d mark ii, I have a bmpcc, but I don't have the resources to rig it up.
>>62696705
very cool comparison and it's from 2011, which is already ancient in technology terms. The Red One is no longer the most high end camera on their line. They have 3 or 4 6K cameras and will soon be transitioning to 8K.
>>62696715
nah it's just from some street photographer's tumblr. to be fair it's a still camera (Fuji XT-1).
>>62696793
yeah celluloid usually has a green/brown tint and more bleary, non-defined edges. We've been digitally processing film since O Brother Where Art Thou anyway, so the traditional qualities of film have been blurring for decades.
I think that's the more subtle noise of film. It cannot be match. Yet. I'm sure of a guy of ILM worked on digital filter, the differences would be harder and harder to tell.
But the film industry, besides some very few directors who still shot on film, don't care it bother maybe 0,01% of the audience.
>>62696871
some of the ones who stick to film are three of /tv/'s favorite directors Tarantino, Nolan, and Abrams
>>62696962
Christopher Doyle is GOAT. crazy. but GOAT.
![side_by_side[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GjMeouY.jpg "side_by_side[1].jpg")
Side by Side is a good doc if one wants more in-depth talk on this topic. I think it's still on netflix.
Also we're nearly at the point with technology that one can manipulate both formats in post to a point that it's impossible to tell. Digital color grading is especially impressive, imo. It's insane what they can do with it.
https://youtu.be/2xX4kfg5zm8
Found it on YouTube, I will watch it.
Yes the industry will survive..I just miss the "cigarette burns" (funniest explanation, I think still 95% of the public believe this urban legend)
>>62696962
I fucking hate shooting on film so fucking much if I could I'd ban it outside of Europe.
>>62697175
Just look at photography. It's now impossible to tell. Maybe some very big formats (like the moyen format or chambre) are still in the race.
>>62696962
anything by Anthony Dodd Mantle, Doyle's digital equal.
>>62697201
>star trek 09
>shot on digital
pick one
>"Film is the thing I am most comfortable with. If film were to go away - and digital is challenging it - then the standard for the highest, best quality would go away." Abrams chose film for his latest Star Trek instalment in order to match the quality of his previous 2009 debut on the franchise.
>>62696962
reupping the deleted image
>>62697369
What about Deakins or Seale or Bobbit?
>>62697709
apart from Deakins (and until only very recently) they're mostly associated with film. Dodd Mantle is one of the only modern Hollywood cinematographers that uses digital's idiosyncracies to the film's benefit. Lynch and Godard would qualify too.
Everyone else is mostly mimicking film.
Did anyone here watch Project Greenlight this season where Jason(the director) spent an entire episode trying to get his comedy movie(only shown on HBO and in a few very select cinemas) on film instead of digital?
Going to cost an extra $300,000 and it was a comedy so no really vital "film" shots were needed but he autistically argued for a few days and HBO let him make it in film and gave him the extra budget. He thought he was an auteur and was copying the high level directors who only work with film. Fucking amazing to watch that drama unfold.
The final movie was awful, which is typical of that show. Mostly because everyone ignored the problems with the script until it was too late to fix it.
The digital high frame rate of the hobbit (48fps I think) was horrible. It kills the sensation to watch a movie. Looks like an expensive video game.
Or maybe I'm to old for this shit, what does the kids think about this ? Did they prefer this format ?
>>62697819
never saw it but I hear from multiple critics that it's an utter embarrassment. From the sounds of it he was trying to do some sort of Hal Hartly/Whit Stillman thing but failed miserably?
if that's the case check out L For Leisure. It's probably what he was going for:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn7-aLZMSrs
They're becoming more and more similar, in terms of how they look. And that's a terrible thing.
Nobody's using digital as its own thing anymore. The technology has actually regressed.
The last movie that I can really remember using digital in a unique way was fucking Miami Vice, and that was back in 2006.
Film has softer and warmer lighting. Digital looks like shit.
>>62697810
>>62697913
oh yeah, this. completely forgot about motherfucking Mann.
>>62697952
then just push a warmer white point in post processing. Warmness isn't specific to film.
>>62697052
Digital film chips still need some improvement though, if you take every chemical crystal in a 35mm film stock as one pixel, you get a resolution of 12.475 x 12.475 pixels, the best digital chips available today can give you 8.192 x 8.192 pixels
Grain and dynamic range
>>62698125
>dynamic range
what does that mean?
that's a useless meter stick with which to measure progress if those pixels don't capture light the same way as silver halide.
Just tune a sensor to capture more light, more accurately than film and pixel counting will be obsolete.
At 4K digital is already optically sharper (some say too sharp) than film anyway.
>>62698197
was meant for: >>62698094
>>62698197
>tune
What do you mean by that?
>>62690706
Jason Mann?
>>62695906
This is false. A 35mm film print holds somewhere between 2K and 4K of detail. Scanning it any higher wouldn't make sense. And 4K isn't 150 megapixels, more like 9.
Before some autist yells at me: yes, I know you can't quantify film in pixels, but you can give an approximation.
>>62698139
The amount of range you get from your highlights and your shadows. Some digital show shadows as just black space where film actually shows the detail of the shadows and what's under it.
>>62697885
Bridget Regan is in it
Dynamic range in photography describes the ratio between the maximum and minimum measurable light intensities (white and black, respectively). In the real world, one never encounters true white or black — only varying degrees of light source intensity and subject reflectivity. Therefore the concept of dynamic range becomes more complicated, and depends on whether you are describing a capture device (such as a camera or scanner), a display device (such as a print or computer display), or the subject itself.
The human eye can't detect more than 1920x1080 anyway.
It seems to make more of a difference when you watch it on IMAX.
Digital vs 70mm really stands out.
This is assuming you are at a real IMAX theater (8 story tall) and not those silly little digital IMAX screens you find at shopping malls and 16-screen multiplexes. Those are a joke.
>>62698231
wait for technology to improve a sensor's sensitivity + accuracy. It's already happened anyway; most modern cameras have sensors that capure more stops of light than any film camera can ever achieve. The new Sony A7S II can take images with an ISO of 4096001, which means it can practically see colours in the dark.
>>62691237
The difference between 1 and 2 is very noticeable different.
TPM really stands out in the PT.
Analog:
Superior video quality
Collectable
Exists in the corporeal realm
Can be sold
Pleasant psychological effect of owning tapes
Reproduces the actual recorded image rather than an interpretation of it
Better dynamic range
Wider frequency response
Perfectly reproduces the warm noise and flicker that DVD and digital can't capture
Warmth
Isn't sterile and doesn't smell of disinfectant like digital does
Did I mention superior video quality?
Infinite video and sound resolution
Digital = Literally Hitler
It's literally the only way to watch film if you're serious about film and not just a poseur
Objectively superior video quality
>>62698391
IMAX 70mm is completely different from normal 70mm tho
>>62698434
please be bait
>>62698368
Don't doubt that our future Robot Overlords will be angered if our films aren't up to their optical standards.
>>62698368
then just buy new eye monitors
>>62698368
>The human eye can't detect more than 1920x1080 anyway.
Nonsense. DPI is what matters.
1920x1080 on a 10" tablet will look fantastic.
1920x1080 on a 75" TV is passable, but a 4k will be notably superior
1920x1080 on a fuckhuge movie screen looks like shit.
>>62698492
>DPI
The human eye doesn't work in Imperial units
>>62698434
>Superior video quality
>VHS
>>62690706
To answer properly, it's merely impossible unless the film ages enough to be so deteriorated we can notice it on the screen.
Also an information, the quality of the last generation of film is considered equal to ~8K digital resolution so, you see it's not something the human eyes can witness easily. Experiences were made, believe me humans doesn't notice the difference.
>>62698436
Oh I know, it is a night and day difference.
I'm just saying that hollywood imax movies only use IMAX 70mm cameras to film a handful of scenes (like 20 minutes of the movie, or 100 minutes in the case of interstellar). The rest is often just digital cameras.
Watching on a full sized IMAX screen you can obviously tell which scenes were filmed on which cameras.
>>62696618
quite obviously with the awful film grain filter.
You can just looking at it for one second.
Digital looks so shit, holy fuck its not even funny or memey anymore.
Colors are shit, saturation is shit, blacks are shit, no grain. And most importantly, they always use fucking steadycams which make scenes look like theyve been filmed by some fucking amateur who thinks a wobbly camera will add needed dynamics.
>>62698605
it literally stands for 'Very High Standard'
>>62698515
wow that's a real stupid thing to say anon
There isn't a whole lot of difference with how they are projected mostly on digital projectors now. Most theaters are filled with digital projectors which means if your film is shot on film then it's being converted digitally losing that quality that made it unique.
>>62698740
Stop looking at RAW footage then
>>62690706
If you pay attention, it's very easy to tell the difference just from looking at it. The further back you go within the digital era, the more obvious it becomes. At this point, I don't think one is inherently better than the other, just different.
>>62690706
I'm not being a snob but it's impossible to replicate the image quality of film using digital, though it's so much easier to use they're at least even in their utility.
>>62690706
How can you tell if a recent movie has been shot in film?
[%]THEY FUCKING TELL YOU[/%]
>>62699488
>[%]
Ctrl + S anon, much easier
>>62699488
>[%]
u wot m8
>>62697873
The HFR fixed the issues I have with 3D. With no motion blur it's smooth as butter.
>>62697873
>The digital high frame rate of the hobbit (48fps I think) was horrible. It kills the sensation to watch a movie.
>Looks like an expensive video game.
Duh, that's because the film itself looks like a video game with its ridiculously over saturated colors and fantasy imagery.
>maybe I'm to old for this shit
If anything you should have gotten better at spotting defects like low frame rates and/or too much blur that covers up said low frame rate.
