The Medium Is The Message: Film Vs. Digital
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 05. 2024
- The way films are presented, through their medium of choice, is inextricably linked to the message or story of the film, and affects how the audience interprets the movie on a subconscious level. I’ll go over the basic differences between film and digital technology and show how these different mediums have different cinematic effects.
MERCH:
Official IDC Merch: www.indepthcine.shop/
SOCIALS:
Instagram: / indepthcine
Patreon: / indepthcine
IDC Website: www.indepthcine.com/
My Website: www.graykotze.com/
Discord: / discord
GEAR:
Music I Use: bit.ly/3qCRt7u
CZcams Gear I Use: kit.co/InDepthCine/youtube-gear
Editing Software I Use: bit.ly/2LZ60Lo
List Of Films Featured
L'arrivée D'un Train En Gare De La Ciotat (1896)
Goodfellas (1990)
The Wrestler (2008)
Moonrise Kingdom (2012)
Nightcrawler (2014)
The Hateful Eight (2015)
Ex Machina (2015)
Tangerine (2015)
The Beguiled (2017)
Dunkirk (2017)
Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)
Phantom Thread (2017)
Blackkklansman (2018)
Joker (2019)
0:00 Introduction
0:41 Background
01:38 What Is Film?
03:29 Differences: Film vs. Digital
06:02 Creative Applications
08:13 Conclusion
Music
The Tides - ‘Seclusion’
Jesse Gallagher - ‘Spenta Mainyu’
Jesse Gallagher - ‘The Sleeping Prophet’
Jesse Gallagher - ‘Tratak’ - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Hope you guys enjoy this new video looking at the basics of film and digital capture and some of the different effects which shooting in different mediums has on an audience.
As always any engagement in the comments section is appreciated!
This put into words what I have thought about film vs. digital for years. Now I can actually explain to people what I mean. Thanks so much and great job
You call a film a movie but you call a cinema a cinema and nkt a "movie theater" what are you speaking? British English or American English?
Hey man, I liked your video but I think you are misrepresenting some key components of McLuhan's ideas.
What you describe as differences in medium (film vs digital) and the emotional impact that they can have on audiences would actually be considered components of the message by McLuhan. I agree with your thesis (the choice to use film or digital can have an emotional impact on the viewer), but I think you are misrepresenting what McLuhan was trying to say in his famous quote.
McLuhan would regard movies themselves as the 'medium', and content of the individual movies as superfluous. When he said 'the medium is the message' he meant that the medium of the cinema itself has a much broader societal impact than any individual movie, and in fact the messaging encoded in individual films is secondary to the social and psychological consequences of film itself (moving images on a screen structured and arranged into visually driven stories).
Thank you so much for this video @indepthcine . It gives clarity and considerations for early filmmakers who are investigating what medium fits best for their films. ❤🎬📽
It's crazy how the opinion of filmmakers wildly varies in this topic, i remember watching the Hollywood's Reporter cinematographers roundtable in 2018 and how Robert Elswit said that shooting digital was to clinical, but Deakins didn't care if he shot something on a iPhone if he got to tell a story he likes. In the end i think it's essential part of the message what you choose to shot your movie with, even if the audience can't tell the difference i like to think they feel it in some way.
Exactly! Agree with you.
I had a similar opinion after watching the interview
With post processing techniques these days you can make any aesthetic you like to be honest. People who deeply analyse it may notice but the raw majority of people would not even know if a film is shot on digital or film. Most people concentrate on the story, the shots themselves and colour grading all get noticed but colour grading is done on film as well as digital. Im not a film maker but a photographer I have been shooting on a medium format film camera for years and love the look but recently sold it for a high megapixel digital camera. I just found that once I got good enough at post processing the cost and hassle of film was no longer worth it and I got better results in digital with more freedom. In saying that I really do enjoy shooting black and white film and working in the darkroom but it is more a craft like woodcarving. I wont kid myself to think its better its just funner. I don't think the same could be said for films, I would say shooting film would be a total pain in the rear.
The audience can’t tell and doesn’t care.
Well it will definitely influence the creative process
It’s worth mention the notion of film as romantic and nostalgic only really became a thing in the 2010s with the whole “vintage” aesthetic becoming popular then
True, because before then shooting on 35mm colour negative film was the standard. At that time black and white was a more nostalgic, romantic format. Now that digital has become the standard, film has become a more nostalgic and romantic medium.
Picking different film stocks and processing still could be used for the same psychological effect as different mediums today. Saving Private Ryan used bleach bypass and McCabe and Mrs. Miller flashed the negative, both to create different nostalgic looks.
@@MoonSafariFilms Good examples. Also with increased colour science and grading there is now the opportunity to create many different looks for a movie shot digitally in post production.
There's actually a great Brian Eno quote that I think sums up this whole dynamic/psychological complex pretty well. “Whatever you now find weird, ugly, uncomfortable and nasty about a new medium will surely become its signature. CD distortion, the jitteriness of digital video, the crap sound of 8-bit - all of these will be cherished and emulated as soon as they can be avoided. It’s the sound of failure: so much modern art is the sound of things going out of control, of a medium pushing to its limits and breaking apart. The distorted guitar sound is the sound of something too loud for the medium supposed to carry it. The blues singer with the cracked voice is the sound of an emotional cry too powerful for the throat that releases it. The excitement of grainy film, of bleached-out black and white, is the excitement of witnessing events too momentous for the medium assigned to record them.” ―
@@MoonSafariFilms They did the desaturated look with 1917. Film as romance has less to do with the impacting the audience and more to do with satisfying the idea of whoever is making the film thinks the audience needs.
David Lynch noted that the thing about film vs digital would be that, with film tech--the slight blurriness and fuzzy texture of that medium allowed him extra more room to dream, while watching a film (not verbatim).
Directors like Tarantino and Nolan, who are diehard fans of film, have the clout to get the best chemical processing for their films (which are most likely transferred to digital for post production anyway). For the rest of us I think shooting film is too cumbersome expensive and unpredictable. Lens choice is, in my opinion, a much more powerful and accessible option for modern filmakers to give character ( vintage/clean etc) to their movies and have a greater aesthetic impact on the audience. Film grain and grading can be simulated in post. I will say that film could be a good choice for projection and excellent for archiving movies since digital projectors need to be calibrated properly (many are not) and codecs become obsolete.
Interesting perspective, as someone who's a huge fan of films but not familiar with the technical stuff, all I can do is judge the final product. The reality is that a lot of digital films look horrible in 4K, don't know if it's the lens choices or not but they feel more like live TV productions of plays or musicals, than films.
@@EscapeCondition Do you think that could be because there's an over emphasis on showcasing the clarity of 4k and being carried away with the technology instead of concentrating on great film making? Which is great story telling first, the technology is the delivery vehicle.
What was said in this video about when directors shoot film they do less reshoots made me think of "influencers" on youtube who get a film camera and think they've discovered a new way of shooting because they now have to pay to get film developed. They say they shoot less and look more for what makes a good photo. That's not a revelation. What stops them from shooting more specifically regardless of what they shoot with? You look at all the bad photos that didn't need to be taken and you learn to eliminate those before taking a picture. They get lost in the technology without developing the craft because the technology allowed not having to learn parts of the craft. As well as they didn't develop any craft because all they thought they needed was the technology.
Absolutely agree. The lens choice is the real secret to the cinematic image!
@@EscapeCondition Hi! If you are watching at home on TV, it is possible your picture settings may be making your viewing experience worse than it needs to be. Additional sharpening, colour saturation, contrast etc, can ruin the filmaker's original intention for the picture. Not to mention streaming formats are highly compressed. If your experience is in the movie theatre then it is more likely the stylistic choice of the film you don't like.
@@photokanellos I tune my TV precisely, and have a pretty robust video and sound setup. It's not that, my blurays of Ben Hur restored for example look incredible. The 4K "look" legitimately cheapens the aesthetic in many cases.
There are exceptions: Hereditary and some other recent movies look great in 4k
If you look up Steve Yedlin, he has a whole website on how the Film vs Digital discussion is null and void when you take into account that digital can be changed to look like anything. For movies like Knives Out and The Last Jedi, he created custom LUTS that replicated exactly the effects and artiacts of film (like haloing and film grain), making the difference between them negligible. They even swapped back and forth between digital and film while making the movies, and in the final product, they're 100% indistinguishable.
He argues that Film negative itself doesn't have an inherent look, but the look is given by the chemicals and processes used to develop it (in essence, color grading).
Digital is more practical and can be made to look like film, so to me, it's the most effective medium.
Hoping this gets more attention. Greatly appreciate Steve Yedlin for compiling those videos for both Film vs Digital and Resolution as well. Definitely highly recommend every serious cinematographer and filmmaker look at the stuff on his site.
i had written a coment about Steve and then i read this haha, i second this, anyone who is interested on cinematography should absolutely go read all of Steve`s documents on the matter, its absolutely necessary for us to understand how we can really be authors of our own work.
Nicolas Labra aw snap
100% Agree
@@clarenced.8369 Thanks for introducing Steve Yedlin's website 👍
It's great source of info for Cinematography.
Love
There was a time when I could say if it was digital or film just looking at an image. Now I can´t, most of the time. But I think the greatest difference is in the process of making the film, not watching it. Guys like Steven Spielberg, Scorsese, Paul Thomas Anderson and Tarantino still like to use film because the mindset is different. On the other hand, a director like David Fincher is even more meticulous but he uses digital because he likes to shoot many, many, many takes.
I'm studying Cinematography now and these videos have been such a tremendous help. Eye-Opening and beautifully put together! Thanks for the videos!
Happy to hear that! Thanks for watching! If you haven't checked out CookeOpticsTV on CZcams you should. They make some really valuable content, which is also great if you're studying cinematography.
I remember seeing something about shooting digital for Joker because they knew Joaquin had a improvisational style and didn’t want to be limited. Like the bathroom scene after he kills was partly* improvised
I heard that they had wanted to shoot on film originally to keep it’s 1980s New York feel but Warner Bros wasn’t willing to throw them any more money.
It's not so much the texture I love about film. It's that chemical color where everything in a film frame feels tangible. Real. Without being to saturated. The image is sharp but not made of lines. it's pure organics.
@@thegercast4794 the first generation blackmagic cameras come the closest for me
@Pete Melon you can call it hipster. I believe you feel that way. but the description is accurate and its where digital pales in comparison as everyones first tutorial when buying a digital camera is "how to get the film look"
Joker was suppose to be shot on 65mm film but Warner Bros denied Todd Philips this creative decision. However, 70mm theatrical release prints were still made of Joker. So movies shot digitally will eventually wind up on celluloid anyway for archiving and preservation.
It's important to remember that there are film & digital capture methods and also film & digital display methods. You can mix the two. It happens all the time in modern film productions. A film might have been captured digitally but can be printed back to film to give it film texture at a more affordable cost. And films that are captured on emulsion ultimately get displayed digitally. So the two are mixed all the time. Neither is better than the other, and neither has an inherent look. It's largely about how it was captured and how it is prepared for display.
as an analog photographer it’s so interesting to see how film stocks are used in films. i can’t imagine how expensive that is, though, since just buying and scanning a roll of 35mm is sometimes close to 30$
This was an intriguing and well thought out video. I also think that neither format is better than the other. Both have pros and cons that a director or DoP have to consider. But I think if digital is used wrong, it can look … too clean, too sterile, too digital. For example, Netflix's Enola Holmes falls into this category. Just pause in any exterior scene to see what I mean. Joker on the other hand, is a great example of doing digital right, in my opinion. Before watching this video I didn't even notice that it was shot digitally. It looks great, almost like film!
To be fair, Joker’s budget was high enough that they could do extensive post-production work to make it look filmic.
The main problem with digital is that it becomes a toy for filmmakers who spend hours and hours toying with camera settings and color correction and completely forget that there is a film to finish, and then the whole thing turns out to have these fake lights and fake colours and fake shadows and nothing looks motivated or makes any sense. Film has the advantage of you needing to think about what you are going to do instead of just shooting a bunch of raw images and spend years in post while producers, clients and whoever, wait for you to deliver.
Someone should be constantly shouting at filmmakers: digital tools are tools, they are not called digital toys.
Totally agree with you
but is an artist not allowed to play
What are some examples of digital movies looking ugly because of all the settings? Is what you're saying all hypothetical?
@@visualsforyou7120 No, it's not hypothetical. I have friends who are filmmakers who spent more hours tweaking the colours than writing or editing the film. But if you want some examples of ugly digital cinematography you can check Public Enemies and Miami Vice by Michael Mann.
You're talking about The Joker? With over cinematography?
I stopped reading newsprint after it went digital. I still remember the musky whiff of the newsprint, when I opened it up, the coarse texture, the simple layout and fonts was so pleasing. Retired folks used to clutch it in their armpits and took it wherever they went and would find a spot in a park, cafe, market or even a bus to read it. They would go through classifieds even when they were not looking for a job or something to buy. They were able to spend their whole day with it without needing anybody's company or even when they were with their friends or in their home with family, it was never a hindrance to communication, you only had to peek behind your page to talk...
phones operate the same way, i hope you realize that. more engrossing and pervasive though. i miss the world before social media too.
Ok boomer
You know they still make those right
Joshua Galvez I work for a newspaper lol, they still make them and they make digital copies
@@RamiroEloy1997 that ain't cool bruh.
Food for thought - I'll need to watch this more than once to learn. Thank you.
I only recently discovered your channel but you make some of the most insightful and fascinating videos about cinematography I’ve seen. I’ve been looking for this kind of channel (video essay-style discussions strictly about cinema) for a long time. Keep it up!
Even the high end digital cameras like Arri or Red don't have that dreamy look that film has. High end digital cameras still look like Soap operas or home made video or like a best buy Canon cameras.
It is what it is. Digital will never replace celluloid.
I've actually been seeing a convergence on the film vs digital. Film over the years used to have color looks often specific to a time period. Overall film emulsions have greatly decreased grain for a given asa/iso and more unbiased color reproduction. And even movies shot on film are rarely posted photochemicaly. A lot of that large and teal and other color grading ironically can turn a movie shot on celluloid into pseudo digital. Movies on film these days are moving towards 65mm sized format to compete and get a cleaner crisper look.
Digitals color gamut and resolution increased greatly the last 15-20 years and on top of that grading and post still push it towards looking like print stock.
Film will largely dissapear, but it's look is victorious and it and digital have come together on a general look and feel of what constitutes cinematic.
Agreed, thanks for your observations!
I think that a lot of the 35mm stocks becoming super fine grain is part of the reason why Kodak's 500T is probably the most popular contemporary film stock (as it still has some nice, visible film grain).
I like your conclusion, it's true. Although film may disappear it'll leave behind a legacy of a look which will be copied by many colourists/become the base of the digital cinematic standard.
One of the best videos I've watched , great storytelling with good educational insights, great job
5:35 I'd like to correct this misconceptions. Digital sensors have only 1 sensitivity (unless it's a dual gain sensor).
Changing the gain, literally changes the gain on the ADC, the sensitivity of sensor is still the same.
ISO/ASA is commonly referred to as "sensitivity" or "light sensitivity"
With film, you have a fixed response to light. The tonality and colour response is fixed for that particular film type. With digital it is up to you to define those. Same with texture etc.
I use this video as a teaching tool! Great video. Your calm, clean and clear approach is very much appreciated.
I couldn't agree more. As you've said in the video, a lot of period films use film, but the 2015 retelling of Macbeth used digital, and made abstract adjustments to the color grading of the film, effectively delivering the surreal nature of the story.
Great content! This channel is already one of my favorites, can't wait to see where it'll go in the future!
10 years ago I was pretty adamant about Hollywood shooting on film, and I still am, but the quality of digital has gotten pretty damn close. 10-12 years ago, I could easily spot the difference. Today, I really have to look at the image closely to tell the difference due to how post-production elements really bring out that nostalgic/romantic look with digital images. Film is still the most accurate medium out there in my opinion, but movies like The Joker really highlight the pros of digital. I think both have their uses. And as you stated, it just really depends on the director and the story they’re trying to tell. Great video!
I have a 6x7cm film camera and a brand new mirrorless camera...I use the digital far more as its quick and easy and I can download the pictures on my phone immediately, but when I make prints in the darkroom from my film it’s not even close to digital there’s a tremendous difference that you would overlook without being the one to take the photographs
It is interesting that you picked Joker for this video since even if it was shot on digital, it was processed in post to look like film
I really love the content of your channel. So in-depth and driven for cinema as a whole. Keep it up!
Man, I’m watching everything you’ve made right now and I want to personally thank you for this knowledge. Film makers everywhere appreciate you bro. 🙏🏾🙏🏾🙏🏾
Appreciate it. Glad you enjoy the content!
So now at 01 AM, it's like I've just found another good yet underrated channel on filmmaking! I like this kinda soothing voice with clear pronunciation and I love exactly this type of caring narration.
Interesting video! Thank you👌
I personally don’t necessarily think anymore, that the story dictates the medium/camera anymore.
You can always find things in the story to explain why good filmmakers masterfully chose that specific medium for that specific movie.
But it’s also easy to turn it around: for example, if Nolan shot Tenet on a digital camera, we would strongly agree that this is a very scientific/futuristic story and therefore you would use a digital camera.
But he shot it with film, now we might say: it’s a story about time travel and therefore analog fits the story better because it gives the modern viewer a sense of a different time... or whatever.
But in the end, Film is just what Nolan shoots on, because that’s what he likes.
Intuitively most of us would probably have chosen digital, (not that I don’t like the look... god! are those images wonderful🤤) but I think if Nolan chose digital, the choice of medium could have harmed the story, in the way that Nolan didn’t have the medium he is comfortable working with and then the movie wouldn’t have turned out as great as it did now. Because shooting on film also affects how Nolan works with actors and so on...
Similar with Joker. If it was shot on Film, we would have strongly agreed that it was the right choice of medium, because it’s a very dark and gritty story and everything about it is very nostalgic/vintage, so therefore it’s an obvious choice to use Film...
But it was shot digitally and we definitely find reasons that this was the right choice.
I personally don’t think there’s a right or wrong medium for the story.
I just think there’s maybe a choice that completely aligns with the story and therefore maybe makes you feel more comfortable as a viewer, but choosing the opposite medium/camera/style, makes it more interesting, because it doesn’t quite match up in the head of the viewer. And it shows the story in the different way, not in a right or wrong way.
Another example, house of cards... that very clean smooth look and feel makes a lot of sense, it’s a political and very serious story. But I often thought about, what if it was told in a more documentary kind of way, maybe from the perspective of a reporter, or from Toms perspective who actually IS documenting Franks life in the series...
So therefore it would maybe be shot mostly handheld, less dynamic range, well maybe it would even be shot on an iPhone, because that’s just what Tom is using, maybe even in portrait...
That would be a Genius the decision! From a perspective never seen in a political show/movie before!!! (We would say)
... well but it was shot in a completely different way and it’s just as genius as the other way(maybe could have been).
(But probably, if it was shot on an iPhone, it wouldn’t have resonated with a lot of people or maybe with even more, nobody knows...)
I still think story is king. The medium is just one part of the way you can tell a story, I think some ways are more interesting, less intuitive, more provoking than the others and sometimes “the way the story is told” is not what it’s about, sometimes you don’t even want the viewer to think about it or feel it...
Bottom line:
If it’s a good story, the viewers mind will always find reasons, why it was “the right way” to shoot it and the viewer will be immersed. That’s what it’s about.
(I don’t wanna say that gear doesn’t matter! I think it matters a lot! And “story is king” shouldn’t be the excuse to shoot everything in a documentary, trashy way. Cause I certainly wouldn’t enjoy Cinema a lot, if everything was shot that way)
Sorry, I started rambling a bit, probably because writing this text was also a way for me of trying to understand this complex topic.
I guess my reply leaves a lot of open questions... so ask them, I’m very happy to have interesting conversations to learn from 😊
(I think one question that is very important is, how do we define the word “story”, where does it end and where does it start? Sometimes a story is great as a book, but not as a movie. Are there stories that are just great by themselves? Are there stories, that are only great because the writer/director told them in a certain way, or was the idea of the story, what actually sold the story? Are these two things even separable? Does a story inevitably bring a storyteller and does a storyteller inevitably bring a certain way the story is told. Is there a “neutral” way to communicate a story?)
So many questions 😄
And additionally I think it’s very important what the viewers are used to. Maybe while for older viewers Film might feel like the “neutral” medium and if you have mostly seen digital moving picture your whole life, digital might feel more “neutral”.
So for some Film might be “nothing special about that, that’s what I know”, for other’s it’s “wow! How nostalgic! What a nice style”
If you know what I mean...
@Josua
You rightly said. Story is a King.
Every story raises many 'why' questions to all creative contributors, who become collaborators in this journey to create an experience through that story...
Story Writer, Director, Cinematographer, Actor, Musicians, Editor...
Willingness & enthusiasm to explore answers by these collaborators works as a value addition for creating an appropriate body for the soul of story. The result makes audience to visualise & feel that story as experience.
This is all an organic process, which gives best results when collaborators go with the flow of story's need - core element. 👍
This is such an underrated channel! Great content! You should make a podcast! Very soothing to listen to!
The question to which one to use is simple : How Roger Deakins would film this? .” There is your answer .
Oh man, what a great channel! 😍 thanks for putting in all the work for us to enjoy!
great video! for some reason the thought of how crazy it is that we can capture an image has been in the back of my mind for a long time. never looked up how it's actually possible though... but now, thanks to this video, I fiinally found out. thanks mate!
Great stuff as always. Please keep making these videos.
I am learning Cinematography and this channel has been a huge help! Thank you ❤
Love your page. As a lover of film, I can say this has truly helped me learn a lot
You are absolutely right that film vs digital is fundamentally an artistic question. The only real difference to the overall workflow is the first step, what does the director want. Everyone works in digital once the film is scanned it is the same thing as a digital image.
My new favorite channel. Thank you for making these!
From a practical standpoint, I'd say there are precious few filmmakers who even have the option; certainly not lower budget or beginners. If it's a matter of asking the audience which they like, then your arguments are absolutely on point!
This is my new favorite channel on CZcams. Keep doing great work man
Thank you for this video! I’m really glad I stumble upon your channel. For years now people have been arguing over film vs digital and many have just starting adopting vocabulary they heard into the side of the argument they fall on.
As you mention, the tool you use will affect the viewer subconsciously and all of that is part of the storytelling. And if you’re not considering this when selecting a lens or recording medium, I think you’re missing a large part of the equation of visual story telling.
Many (but not all) people enter the argument thinking it’s a “technical/skill” debate. Shooting on film makes you a better photographer or something. How many times have we heard someone say “I only shoot film”..... nothing wrong if that’s the medium you only want to work with for the rest of your life. Maybe that’s just how you want to story tell. but we live in a world where so much is available to us. When we free ourselves to dream and to be storytellers, then why not use other mediums that’s could be at your disposal that can better put on display your vision.
Film or digital are just 'looks', much like different color grades. It affects the tone and mood. Which in turn can help tell the story.
I’m personally more of a digital guy but I can definitely see why people love film.
Perfectly agree. The medium is just a tool. If the film is crap, it doesn't matter what format was chosen.
love this channel, keep up the good work, subbed!
Im curious about your opinion on directors only using one format. I was watching a video on David Fincher only shooting on digital, and how that impacted the filming of Mank. He wanted the film feel, but didn't want to shoot on film, so had to 'hack it' and add the film effects in post.
Studying these videos alongside my screenwriting training, they’re incredibly helpful but also beautifully made! Cheers and more of the same please :)
Watch metal concerts from the 80s then watch concerts from now. It’s a night a day difference. The modern is too clear. The film gives a more mystique and cinematic look
Film is closer to the human experience of reality in my view. As humans we don't experience the world and our own memories in crystal clear 4K vision, and this is why digital can feel cold and clinical.
@@benwoodward5273 I agree looking back at old films even shot on the same camera and film type generate a uniqueness to each film because of the film grain.
@@benwoodward5273 exactly, we have very flawed and imperfect senses
Very true, but at the same time you can still achieve that look wit digital.
Dude your videos are so fucking awesome and deserve way more recognition. Keep it up man.
GREAT WORK, very informative thanks!
Both are great mediums but film is true cinema 24fps and grain it’s magic
The point of this video is that it depends on the story being told.
There's no point trying to find out which one is "better"
Also, the plural of medium is media.
I really enjoyed this video.
One reason I would choose film over digital not mentioned is linear tone vs logarithmic tone capture. The tonality and dynamic range is rendered and spreads differently between the two capture mediums, and as discussed as with other visual elements, it too creates a different look and feel.
I emulate the linear tone look and feel when using digital by lifting shadows and controlling highlights, and that helps. But there is a difference between the two, even if it's a 10% difference after skilful grading/processing, sometimes that's enough to change the subconscious feelings and emotions.
But budget and practicality are also main medium deciding factors for enthusiasts.
Oh and I read an interview with Ex Machina director revealing that it was a low budget production. I think most of the budget went to camera rental. They have to be very clever with where they were going to spend the little money they had to achieve their desired look and feel. And they went camera over big set design. Oh and maybe the other half of the budget was spent on the android CG post.
P.P.S now I want to re watch the Wrestler and Ex Machina!
I think one unique film that stands out in this conversation is Public Enemies. Most criticize Michael Mann for shooting digital and noisy for a Great Depression period piece. But I felt like I was being taken back in time and seeing the era more authentically than any other period movie like it. And I think it's because it was clear that modern technology was capturing the period production/costume design.
That was a great breakdown and introduced some new concepts to me I hadn't considered when viewing film. You're absolutely right about the medium being the message. That's actually very profound, brother. Well done.
Man this video is golden! As someone who didnt really know much about the differences this video really explains it well
Superb. Great presentation. Thank you.
Your channel giving more information than some master classes out there.. Appreciate it so much .....
This is a lot like how it felt weird watching the Hobbit in 60fps - in theory, more information per second should always be better, but I find it so interesting how much we depend on tradition in media. Feels like it's even most pronounced with films, but I've certainly experienced it with books games and music too.
Very cool! Thank you for making this
Great Content! Thank you for sharing!
Beautiful interpretation. Thank you for this point of view. I really enjoyed it!
very informative!! Thank you!!
Your explanations shit on all the classes I took in film school. Good job man
Excellent video, both informative and interesting.
Good stuff man!! Super interesting
Your videos are so great! I learn so much haha
Portrait of A Lady On Fire - a period piece shot in 4K digital and looked amazing which I think would not have been achieved in same way if the film had been shot on film.
Wow. I learned a bunch. Thank you for explaining in such an accessible manner. :)
Love your videos!! Thank you so much
In my understanding, Marshall Mc Luhan did rather differentiate between "cinema movies" and "TV programmes" as different kinds of media. If he had lived longer he might have included "home VCRs", "Desktop PC Videos" and "mobile videos" as separate media. The analogue or digital method of capturing moving images shurely has an effect on texture/feel of the resulting image. A much greater effect, however, occurs when you produce for a big screen or alternatively for a small mobile screen, watched - for instance - by people on a bus. Some platforms like youtube might even be considered as "multi-media" as the platform hosts videos for different kinds of consumptive situations. There are some videos here for brief diversion on the run (even more on TikTok) and some others like hour-long talks from ivy league university professors which require a different kind of attention / media consumption situation.
So, to sum up: as a medium, cinema goes after the big feelings that a group can collectively experience; a scientific book is meant for critical and slow reading in solitude; Facebook-Videos are for brief consumtion and sharing. Cross-Overs are possible: a public reading of a book, a consumption of a movie made for the big screen on your Ipad etc. But some things work better in certain media then others.
Brilliant! Thanks for sharing.
Your videos are amazing!! Thank you sir!!
I was stunned when Iearned Joker was shot primarily on digital. They did an excellent job with the color grading and post-work to make it look as if it was made in the early 80's. I think more directors who use digital should learn from it.
Wonderful! Thank you!
Great presentation! Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I love the look of film!
Another excellent video, congrats!
With film everything is organic the movie is breathing.
Digital gives you the opportunity to unfold your story and vision with less budget but still has that cold crystal look.
I wish more movies captured in film!
wishes don't pay the bills lol, plenty of big budget movies shoot in film. it's indies that can't afford it.
@@CamJames If you want to pay your bills, do TV or commercials!
Cinema is art!
Also just to have an idea about the film use in the movie industry :
The official tally of films shot, in whole or part, on 35mm for calendar year 2019 is 27, the total shot solely on 35mm is 18!!!
As I said before I wish more movies shot in film nowadays.
Teo Babouris they're all art. You just don't appreciate the other mediums.
Thank you so much for such a good sharing! 😬
It will also be good to consider when the film was made, every audience has different standards, what was crystal clear 20 years ago it has to much texture today, sometimes we want to recreate what was seeing in older periods but it's wrong as the time it was made the audience didn't saw it as we see it today, to us looks vintage, textured and special for them was high tech.
Nice work. Thank you
Loved the way you explained!
with it
very true.I am also think that - same with grading...aspect ratio - nothing is better or worse - it is always about the thing youwant to convey
That was a masterpiece explanation/inspiration.
Thank you
Only us gear nerds can tell the difference in the final product (movie).
Bullshit. Im not a gear nerd and I can tell the difference like 95% of the time.
Love this exploration of mediums.
We are learning great conceptual learning through you....keep going
I always wonder how Tarantino or Scorsese films look like the way they look, and now i got the answer. Thank you.
I have been learning film with a couple classes and CZcams as my guide. I'm 6 months into this journey I've watched 100's of videos at this point. I just want to say that I really appreciate, hpw this video was put together. Also this is my first comment on any CZcams video EVER(as a millennial).
great explanation and perspective...
Great video dude 👌🏽
Love your videos man keep it up! :D
Thanks, will do!
This makes sense... I couldn’t work out why el Camino looked so different from breaking bad.
I’m not sure what it is but film just has this “magicalness” about it that almost make it connect differently to our consciousness. Like it interacts with our brain in a different way than digital. Almost like it “fantasizes” the event so you get to “slip into it” or something like that. I think film has a sort psychological effect because of how it looks vs digital.
Great content, bro!
Informative and interesting take on it! Great video... thanks!
God bless you man for creating these in depth essay about cinemas🙏 thank you