David Fincher literally made the Red cameras 🎥 an industry standard when he did the Social network and shoots on his own Custom Red camera built exclusively for him.
Fincher, a director pushing cinematography to the limits. Love his approach to making his movies the best that they can be. The results are plain to see but he’s not finished because he’s taking it to another level in his next movie.
@@Elusive_Pete Bong is a huge fan of Zodiac and Fincher so I guess it's probably the other way around? 🤔 Either way, Fincher and Korean auteurs like Bong and Park Chan Wook make absolutely god like films with really familiar sensiblities.
@@lampad4549 most of filmmakers uses cgi, vfx, sfx incorrectly. You can see that those particular scenes made out of post-production. People like Fincher trying hide that (yeah, you can still see sometimes cg from his movies but there are not that so annoying)
Fincher is one of the very few directors who can make digital match film. Perhaps because his movies are so precisely composed. There's no quick, jerky camera movement to reveal the limitations of digital.
Nothing nothing matches motion picture celluloid. the way colors hit skin tones on film is so natural, organic and realistic, digital pixels can never ever match them. Within 3 mins, I know I'm watching digitally shot movie or motion picture shot film. Fincher can call whatever he wants. Film is just way too natural and organic when it comes to texture, depth of field and colors. watching digital is like printing on ink jet printers and 35mm film is like laser color printer.
@@mohammedkhan5010 I would beg to differ. People celebrate the romanticism of analogue film often, but the truth is, digital has overtaken film in the range it provides. The colours can be emulated. You mention depth of field, but that is to do with lenses, not medium. There was an academic study on how differently people perceive analogue vs film, and the difference isn't actually in the format itself, but how it is projected in the cinema. Digital projection isn't as mechanical and lacks a certain flicker.
@@nickdale6660 only in your thick head has digital taken over celluloid film. what range? care to elaborate. digital's pastal colors are hugely inferior to celluloids inky colors. digital faces looked washed out with light barely penetrating skintones. Just go look at celluloid how inky and refractive it looks. People have also developed digital fatigue. no wonder people only go to superhero films as they do not represent reality. as much as you want to deny the fact, we will never be pixelated beings, we are chemical beings and celluloid is photochemical process and our eyes have evolved over millions of years to recognize this only. any pixelated will eventually becoming boring like digital as we are not yet robots.
@@mohammedkhan5010 Yes, celluloid has characteristic colors, but they can be replicated. In fact, even films made with celluloid in 2022 use digital post production and color grading. There hasn't been a purely analog photochemical workflow in decades. Also, no need to get abusive, just because you disagree
@@mohammedkhan5010 You sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Here's some facts for you: 1) The dynamic range of celluloid film is lower than that of modern day digital cinema cameras. 2) The colour data that celluloid film is able to capture is less than that of modern day cinema cameras. 3) Well shot digital cinema footage can be manipulated with such complexity today that it becomes indistinguishable from film. If you'd like to educate yourself on the people who are achieving high fidelity digital film emulation I suggest you look at the work of Steve Yedlin and his Display Prep Demo video that he has on his website. After that we'll see if you can come back here and tell me you can see the difference between digital and film.
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
That's so interesting. I felt my brain become smarter by reading your comment. I love the idea that new technology can help film look as accurate as possible. I think a lot if people forget that film (the art form) is still very much a physical medium.
one thing tho, is the disadvantage of digital is its restricted to its resolution. so if you shoot in 1080p it will not upgrade as well as film. also the upgrade of digital gets really artificial and many artifacting, but i guess with ai filling, (ray tracing like technology) that can help solve it.
@@npcimknot958 That's why people shoot in higher resolutions these days. Film is only as sharp and detailed as it can be. We will (kind of already have) surpass it no doubt.
It's from the documentary 'Side by Side' about the transition in filmmaking of shooting with film reels to digital camera. It's also hosted by Keanu Reeves.
Both film and digital have a place in the movie making world, and the discussion on whether or not one is better is really up to personal preferences. There are absolutely amazing films shot digitally like the recent Dune movies and their are movies shot on Film that look like actual hog wash like Battlefield Earth. Ultimately its not about the equipment, but how you use it that really counts.
What I like about Fincher is he's just as passionate and committed to his vision as other auteur directors but he doesn't have a sentimental bone in his body. I laughed out loud watching this documentary when they cut from another person talking about how "magical" dailies are to him just outright saying "fuck dailies!"
Fucking A, whenever people try to sell me on film cameras being better than digital, I roll my eyes immediately. They’re not. You’ve been conditioned to think that way because older, established and highly funded directors like them, since they started out with them back in the day and just didn’t want to move on.
@@NotAloneStudios Sure thing, yeah. The guy is an idol, don’t get me wrong, he’s one of my favorites, but he loves film because that’s what he has grown comfortable with. There’s no way you can convince me that Blade Runner 2049 looks worse than any Tarantino film in terms of quality or color range. I get that his opinion is a product of his time, but young people who worship film despite not even using it themselves to see the difference, simply do so because Tarantino or successful people like him said it, not because it’s actually what they believe or what is accurate.
Digital can look good if they actually put effort into it, most directors don't, that's why it often looks like a cheap TV flick and not real movie. There's no better comparison than horror films, all old horror films shot on film look much better than most horror films shot on digital, it's just a fact.
@@kdscool1536 That has more to do with the overall direction, shot composition, editing, and general care than the camera it was shot on. The grainy footage can just make it look a bit “scarier” for lack of a better word, but one can very easily emulate that with digital.
@@alexman378 I think it's more than grain, it's also lighting, colors and overall aesthetic of its time (like gritty tone, a lot of dirt and smoke), film emulation on digital still feels like emulation. They actually had to put effort into lighting because they shot on film, even if it's very low budget production. You can also compare Walter Hill's The Warriors which was shot on film and which was greatly elevated by its style/visuals with Hill's most recent Dead For A Dollar shot on digital, the difference is huge, like it was done by 2 completely different directors, Dead For A Dollar looks like youtube video, not a movie. I think film forced even low budget directors put extra effort even if they didn't want to, a lot of modern low budget directors don't put the same effort on digital.
I love how this comment section is divided on digital vs film. But I think it depends on your project. David Fincher knows how to use film really well (he used to work making prints for film I think). Movies like Seven or Mank prove it, but that goes to show that he knows in which projects to use digital or film. I personally can't imagine Gone Girl in film because the polished, smooth look of a digital camera works better aesthetically for it than high contrast or resolution. That's specially true for a movie like the Social Network where technology is one of the main aspects of the film. In some projects, thematically and aesthetically one tool can work better than the other. I like both, but only when a filmmaker knows when to use each with prudence.
I know he’s in love with digital and has obviously had his fair share of problems to be put off by film but if you were to ask me what are the best looking Fincher films I will say without any hesitation Se7en and Fight Club are truly some of the most exceptional examples of cinematography in film history, so honestly even though film has its problems I just don’t think Finchers films that are shot on digital even compare to those shot on film, Zodiac looks pretty good but other than that it just looks to sterile to me.
Sorry but Nolan and Tarantino's movies look so much better than Finchers movies and any other hack who shoots on digital. Tarantino is right about these overstated hacks, they're just lazy to shoot on film. Nothing looks better than film, especially 70mm IMAX which is the GOAT.
@@Phil_Mitchell I wouldn't say that. Zodiac and the Social Network are both movies I really enjoy looking at, but all this is subjective for sure. A bit of a change of topic, but the first word in your comment made me think of it: What did you think of the cinematography in 'Nope'? I think it looks great.
@@SJ-dx9cp He doesn't mention anything about The Social Network's cinematography. Rather, he's most likely praising it for its overall direction, script and performances. The Social Network still looks like crap and none of Fincher's recent movies look anywhere near as good as Se7en or Fight Club.
Fincher is a filmmaker with the personality of a punk rocker. And I'm totally here for it.
you r?
@@TheLiveMusicGroup we all r
You can he's calm to intense, no real middle-ground. Has times where he in "no nonsense mode"
He often strikes me as a bit of a douche. Great director but as a person, he rubs me the wrong way.
It's so refreshing when someone lives up to their reputation. Fincher is so scientific and proffesional with filmmaking, I love it!
I've watched this clip like a 100 times. This is one of the funniest videos I've ever seen in my life.
Lanthimum Lastname “WHAT...THE FUCK.”
wow
what a freak
You don't watch enough funny videos then
I agree
David Fincher literally made the Red cameras 🎥 an industry standard when he did the Social network and shoots on his own Custom Red camera built exclusively for him.
Damn son, Soderbergh did not lug these shits up a Bolivian mountain to be ERASED like this ;)
He and his team did build a camera. It wasn’t something super special though, they just made a body of the camera out of carbon fiber.
yes we watched the video
Didn't expect David Fincher wearing Converse
You can tell Fincher’s been burned more times than not just by the way he says “voodoo of it”. Lol.
Haha! So many great lines in this one clip.
Fincher, a director pushing cinematography to the limits.
Love his approach to making his movies the best that they can be. The results are plain to see but he’s not finished because he’s taking it to another level in his next movie.
I watched Parasite and the work seemed so familiar. I just noticed that Fincher is the American incarnate of Korean cinema.
@@Elusive_Pete Bong is a huge fan of Zodiac and Fincher so I guess it's probably the other way around?
🤔
Either way, Fincher and Korean auteurs like Bong and Park Chan Wook make absolutely god like films with really familiar sensiblities.
@@Elusive_Petelol bong is inspired from scorcese and fincher
@@nobad6843 just because I said incarnate doesn't mean I meant he came after
Nice to see a filmmaker who isn't stuck in the past.
Most people wish filmmakers use less cgi
@@lampad4549 most of filmmakers uses cgi, vfx, sfx incorrectly. You can see that those particular scenes made out of post-production. People like Fincher trying hide that (yeah, you can still see sometimes cg from his movies but there are not that so annoying)
I am deeply in love with this man
It’s like Sorkin wrote him this little monologue:)
Rockin the converses
Fincher is one of the very few directors who can make digital match film. Perhaps because his movies are so precisely composed. There's no quick, jerky camera movement to reveal the limitations of digital.
Nothing nothing matches motion picture celluloid. the way colors hit skin tones on film is so natural, organic and realistic, digital pixels can never ever match them. Within 3 mins, I know I'm watching digitally shot movie or motion picture shot film. Fincher can call whatever he wants. Film is just way too natural and organic when it comes to texture, depth of field and colors. watching digital is like printing on ink jet printers and 35mm film is like laser color printer.
@@mohammedkhan5010 I would beg to differ. People celebrate the romanticism of analogue film often, but the truth is, digital has overtaken film in the range it provides. The colours can be emulated. You mention depth of field, but that is to do with lenses, not medium. There was an academic study on how differently people perceive analogue vs film, and the difference isn't actually in the format itself, but how it is projected in the cinema. Digital projection isn't as mechanical and lacks a certain flicker.
@@nickdale6660 only in your thick head has digital taken over celluloid film. what range? care to elaborate. digital's pastal colors are hugely inferior to celluloids inky colors. digital faces looked washed out with light barely penetrating skintones. Just go look at celluloid how inky and refractive it looks. People have also developed digital fatigue. no wonder people only go to superhero films as they do not represent reality. as much as you want to deny the fact, we will never be pixelated beings, we are chemical beings and celluloid is photochemical process and our eyes have evolved over millions of years to recognize this only. any pixelated will eventually becoming boring like digital as we are not yet robots.
@@mohammedkhan5010 Yes, celluloid has characteristic colors, but they can be replicated. In fact, even films made with celluloid in 2022 use digital post production and color grading. There hasn't been a purely analog photochemical workflow in decades.
Also, no need to get abusive, just because you disagree
@@mohammedkhan5010 You sound like you don't know what you're talking about.
Here's some facts for you:
1) The dynamic range of celluloid film is lower than that of modern day digital cinema cameras.
2) The colour data that celluloid film is able to capture is less than that of modern day cinema cameras.
3) Well shot digital cinema footage can be manipulated with such complexity today that it becomes indistinguishable from film.
If you'd like to educate yourself on the people who are achieving high fidelity digital film emulation I suggest you look at the work of Steve Yedlin and his Display Prep Demo video that he has on his website. After that we'll see if you can come back here and tell me you can see the difference between digital and film.
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
That's so interesting. I felt my brain become smarter by reading your comment. I love the idea that new technology can help film look as accurate as possible. I think a lot if people forget that film (the art form) is still very much a physical medium.
@@Mariana16562 Thanks for your comment!
one thing tho, is the disadvantage of digital is its restricted to its resolution. so if you shoot in 1080p it will not upgrade as well as film. also the upgrade of digital gets really artificial and many artifacting, but i guess with ai filling, (ray tracing like technology) that can help solve it.
Bloody good comment. Agreed on all counts.
@@npcimknot958 That's why people shoot in higher resolutions these days. Film is only as sharp and detailed as it can be. We will (kind of already have) surpass it no doubt.
Where did you find this footage?
It's from the documentary 'Side by Side' about the transition in filmmaking of shooting with film reels to digital camera. It's also hosted by Keanu Reeves.
Any fool can make a film
Any fool can make a good film
Not any fool can make a masterpiece!
To make a film, a fool has to be surrounded by people smarter than him.
Any fool can make a good film? lol what
not any fool can make a good film
"There's an equal amount of times when you look at it and go.... what the fuck?"
Tradition kills progression, so jot that down.
@Careful Icarus most people will be too dumb to really understand the value of what youre saying
Unless looking back helps you to move forward.
0:35 I love this guy 😂
Both film and digital have a place in the movie making world, and the discussion on whether or not one is better is really up to personal preferences. There are absolutely amazing films shot digitally like the recent Dune movies and their are movies shot on Film that look like actual hog wash like Battlefield Earth. Ultimately its not about the equipment, but how you use it that really counts.
He looks alot like an older version of Edward Norton. Same head shape and the same beard like Edward has in American History X.
What I like about Fincher is he's just as passionate and committed to his vision as other auteur directors but he doesn't have a sentimental bone in his body.
I laughed out loud watching this documentary when they cut from another person talking about how "magical" dailies are to him just outright saying "fuck dailies!"
When can I have it by?
It’s on my desk! 😃
So the first digital cameras he used were built just like film cameras.
Fucking A, whenever people try to sell me on film cameras being better than digital, I roll my eyes immediately. They’re not. You’ve been conditioned to think that way because older, established and highly funded directors like them, since they started out with them back in the day and just didn’t want to move on.
*cough QuentinTarantino*
I love the guy but he is too stubborn when it comes to film vs digital.
@@NotAloneStudios Sure thing, yeah. The guy is an idol, don’t get me wrong, he’s one of my favorites, but he loves film because that’s what he has grown comfortable with. There’s no way you can convince me that Blade Runner 2049 looks worse than any Tarantino film in terms of quality or color range. I get that his opinion is a product of his time, but young people who worship film despite not even using it themselves to see the difference, simply do so because Tarantino or successful people like him said it, not because it’s actually what they believe or what is accurate.
Digital can look good if they actually put effort into it, most directors don't, that's why it often looks like a cheap TV flick and not real movie. There's no better comparison than horror films, all old horror films shot on film look much better than most horror films shot on digital, it's just a fact.
@@kdscool1536 That has more to do with the overall direction, shot composition, editing, and general care than the camera it was shot on. The grainy footage can just make it look a bit “scarier” for lack of a better word, but one can very easily emulate that with digital.
@@alexman378 I think it's more than grain, it's also lighting, colors and overall aesthetic of its time (like gritty tone, a lot of dirt and smoke), film emulation on digital still feels like emulation. They actually had to put effort into lighting because they shot on film, even if it's very low budget production. You can also compare Walter Hill's The Warriors which was shot on film and which was greatly elevated by its style/visuals with Hill's most recent Dead For A Dollar shot on digital, the difference is huge, like it was done by 2 completely different directors, Dead For A Dollar looks like youtube video, not a movie. I think film forced even low budget directors put extra effort even if they didn't want to, a lot of modern low budget directors don't put the same effort on digital.
I love how this comment section is divided on digital vs film. But I think it depends on your project. David Fincher knows how to use film really well (he used to work making prints for film I think). Movies like Seven or Mank prove it, but that goes to show that he knows in which projects to use digital or film. I personally can't imagine Gone Girl in film because the polished, smooth look of a digital camera works better aesthetically for it than high contrast or resolution. That's specially true for a movie like the Social Network where technology is one of the main aspects of the film. In some projects, thematically and aesthetically one tool can work better than the other.
I like both, but only when a filmmaker knows when to use each with prudence.
Mank was shot on digital. Fincher hasn't shot on film since Panic Room.
@@horysmokes3339 Zodiac was his the first movie he used digital.Jake Gylenhaal said it in a video.
@@blomkwist145 I know, that's what I said.
0:46 scared the shit out of me
The dude literally sounds exactly like Christopher Nolan
Bro wtf. So true
Barely. Slightly similar voice but completely different accent.
I thought the same.
I know he’s in love with digital and has obviously had his fair share of problems to be put off by film but if you were to ask me what are the best looking Fincher films I will say without any hesitation Se7en and Fight Club are truly some of the most exceptional examples of cinematography in film history, so honestly even though film has its problems I just don’t think Finchers films that are shot on digital even compare to those shot on film, Zodiac looks pretty good but other than that it just looks to sterile to me.
What interview is this??
It’s from the documentary Side by Side hosted by Keanu Reeves.
where is this footage taken from?
Boom
☑️✅
Can i get @0:31 on a shirt?
Film or digital, if your directing is shit and the shots look like shit then its shit either way lmao
Amen! Simple as that.
i wish his ALIEN 3 could I've been better 😢
I hear you, David. But your film work still looks way better than your digital stuff. That’s my honest take.
Same here. There is something missing in digital.
@@prashanthb6521 I heavily disagree, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo looks fantastic imo
The kayak scene looked green screen anyways
It was specifically made to look like it was captured using tilt-shifted lenses. Look up "Invisible VFX of David Fincher"
Digital is junk.
any fool can use digital,only real filmmakers use film.
any fool can use film,only real filmmakers use polaroid.
any fool can use polaroid, only real filmmakers use obscura
@@Victor-tu8ft Any fool can use all of these, only a mastermind uses those old detachable webcam spheres from the mid-2000s
David Lynch likes digital, bordering camcorder style. It's so practical, light and instant, and can look a lot like old films
Any fool can use a camera, only real filmmakers astral project images to audiences.
Sorry but Nolan and Tarantino's movies look so much better than Finchers movies and any other hack who shoots on digital. Tarantino is right about these overstated hacks, they're just lazy to shoot on film. Nothing looks better than film, especially 70mm IMAX which is the GOAT.
Yeah, Roger Deakins is such a lazy, overrated hack! His digital photography looks like shit compared to real filmmakers like Nolan
You sound like you just learned what IMAX is
@@allofthepoints9636 Nope, I've been a fan of IMAX since 2008 with TDK. A million times better looking movie than any digital movie Fincher shot.
@@Phil_Mitchell I wouldn't say that. Zodiac and the Social Network are both movies I really enjoy looking at, but all this is subjective for sure.
A bit of a change of topic, but the first word in your comment made me think of it:
What did you think of the cinematography in 'Nope'? I think it looks great.
@@SJ-dx9cp He doesn't mention anything about The Social Network's cinematography. Rather, he's most likely praising it for its overall direction, script and performances. The Social Network still looks like crap and none of Fincher's recent movies look anywhere near as good as Se7en or Fight Club.