6 ms·

Do you disagree that film looks better than digital?

jmondi 4y ago
This is a completely subjective opinion though. One person could prefer film, and another digital. What does this prove?
- jcelerier 4y ago
  Maybe it's subjective, but if you ask X million random people and, say, 51% prefer film, then film is better than digital in the only metric that matters (which is, "people liking it"). In practice I'd guess it'd be more 70/80%...
  - detaro 4y ago
    It's the same as with audio: Many people like the effects of common limitations of non-digital tech. Digital processes can choose to add these effects if the creators agree - but they don't have to. And just because something can be done with digital doesn't mean doing it is better (e.g. in audio, mastering for vinyl vs brickwall-masterings for CD releases)
  - wpietri 4y ago
    That sort of false binarization doesn't help anything. If it's 51-49, there are lots of good questions to ask, like "who feels which way" and "what do they like about it" and "what things do they see as in each bucket"? The notion that there's just one "film" and just one "digital" is another false binarization. There are many, many components to each, with notable changes over the years, as with most technologies. And there are cultural aspects to each as well, further confusing the picture. The way forward isn't in zero-sum arguments over false binaries. It's finding the next step via the sort of careful examination and experimentation that got us the many previous steps.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
stickfigure 4y ago
I'm not sure this is a fair question. An awful lot of people seem to think that instagram filters look "better" than simple photos. Style and clarity are not necessarily congruent. You could just as easily watch Casablanca and proclaim "black and white produces a much better overall look than color".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
Arainach 4y ago
I do. The talk of dynamic range, etc. is nonsense. That may have been true in 2008, but sensor technology has improved incredibly,
miohtama 4y ago
There is nothing film can do that digital photography cannot do today. Any claims of film superiority must be based on subjective interpretation and existing familiarity with film like look. Digital cinema can 100% emulate film like look if they wish to add rendering artifacts.
- ulizzle 4y ago
  Why is digital trying to look more like film instead of the other way around?
  - kqr 4y ago
    Basically all of film innovation history has been about constantly trying to look more like digital.
  - royjacobs 4y ago
    Because sometimes digital footage has to be matched to film. Alternatively, some directors enjoy film artifacts just like some people enjoy analog distortion artefacts in audio. Additionally, you seem to be asking a lot of leading questions but not volunteering any opinions of your own. Is there something you'd like to share?
  - iconosynclast 4y ago
    Because film has a color grade built in to some extent ewhile digital does not. The "look" people built into the film back in the day because they couldn't just do it in post can still be a great look today and is pretty orthogonal to objective quality of the information captured.
  - cogman10 4y ago
    Because people are funny. It's the same reason you'll still find scenes and photos shot in sepia tone and black and white. People prefer the way film looks even though it's less true what was actually shot. People like typewriters, vacuum tube amplifiers, and Vinyl records; Not because they are better than their more modern counterparts, but because of nostalgia and a preference for the "feel" of these things. But, it just so happens that it's easy enough to recreate film effects that actual film ends up being just a masochistic activity.
MengerSponge 4y ago
Film was a lot more expensive, so there's a selection bias. Digital is newer, so we haven't yet benefited from survivor bias. In the hands of a sufficiently talented team, film does not look better than digital, because digital can be made to look just like film: https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-de...
- jameshart 4y ago
  This should not be overlooked. A film that exists is better than one that never gets made. Digital reduces the cost required to get certain shots; makes certain shots possible that would be impossible with film; integrates more directly into cheaper digital production workflows that make it possible to pull of effects that would be impossible on film… Much as we may nostalgically enjoy the aesthetic of the optical compositing of original Star Wars special effects, they were incredibly expensive and - compared to what can be done today for a fraction of the cost with all-digital workflows (eg in the Disney plus Star Wars shows), objectively not as good.
  - kinkrtyavimoodh 4y ago
    > A film that exists is better than one that never gets made. Some might disagree. The democratization of content creation that happened with the internet and social media was in general a good thing, but it can't be denied that it also resulted in a massive reduction of the Signal to Noise ratio in content quality. The reason the Google search result page is much worse today is precisely because there exits tons of content today that should never have been made.
    - jameshart 4y ago
      Sturgeon's law applies - 90% of everything is crap. 90% of movies shot on film were terrible too. Everything in the direct-to-video bargain bin in Blockbuster in the 80s and 90s was shot on film, and trust me, they were not all Tremors II. So when more stuff gets made, more crap gets made. But the 10% that's good gets bigger too. You want a world that contains Everything Everywhere All At Once? You have to also accept The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies as well. Sorry.
detaro 4y ago
If a movie production wants a digitally produced thing to look like film, they can do that, to a degree that you can't tell the difference. So no, film doesn't look better than digital.
hgsgm 4y ago
Film looks better because it shows less information, not more information. Gandalf's makeup and nose pores taught that to the moviegoing public. Motion blur is a more common example.
jameshart 4y ago
What part of the process of light coming through a lens, being focused onto film, the film being developed, and then light shone through the film onto a sensor to capture a digital copy of the frame, versus the light from the lens being focused onto a sensor and digitized directly, makes the film based image ‘look better’? Because the frames are going to be digitized, right? Nobody’s arguing that optical printing and editing by splicing reels of film together produces better looking results than digital workflows, surely?
Godel_unicode 4y ago
Emphatically. Film looks bland. People like film for the same reason they like vinyl; it’s psychosomatic.

This is a completely subjective opinion though. One person could prefer film, and another digital. What does this prove?

jcelerier 4y ago
Maybe it's subjective, but if you ask X million random people and, say, 51% prefer film, then film is better than digital in the only metric that matters (which is, "people liking it"). In practice I'd guess it'd be more 70/80%...
- detaro 4y ago
  It's the same as with audio: Many people like the effects of common limitations of non-digital tech. Digital processes can choose to add these effects if the creators agree - but they don't have to. And just because something can be done with digital doesn't mean doing it is better (e.g. in audio, mastering for vinyl vs brickwall-masterings for CD releases)
- wpietri 4y ago
  That sort of false binarization doesn't help anything. If it's 51-49, there are lots of good questions to ask, like "who feels which way" and "what do they like about it" and "what things do they see as in each bucket"? The notion that there's just one "film" and just one "digital" is another false binarization. There are many, many components to each, with notable changes over the years, as with most technologies. And there are cultural aspects to each as well, further confusing the picture. The way forward isn't in zero-sum arguments over false binaries. It's finding the next step via the sort of careful examination and experimentation that got us the many previous steps.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

stickfigure 4y ago

I'm not sure this is a fair question. An awful lot of people seem to think that instagram filters look "better" than simple photos. Style and clarity are not necessarily congruent. You could just as easily watch Casablanca and proclaim "black and white produces a much better overall look than color".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Arainach 4y ago

I do. The talk of dynamic range, etc. is nonsense. That may have been true in 2008, but sensor technology has improved incredibly,

miohtama 4y ago

There is nothing film can do that digital photography cannot do today. Any claims of film superiority must be based on subjective interpretation and existing familiarity with film like look. Digital cinema can 100% emulate film like look if they wish to add rendering artifacts.

ulizzle 4y ago
Why is digital trying to look more like film instead of the other way around?
- kqr 4y ago
  Basically all of film innovation history has been about constantly trying to look more like digital.
- royjacobs 4y ago
  Because sometimes digital footage has to be matched to film. Alternatively, some directors enjoy film artifacts just like some people enjoy analog distortion artefacts in audio. Additionally, you seem to be asking a lot of leading questions but not volunteering any opinions of your own. Is there something you'd like to share?
- iconosynclast 4y ago
  Because film has a color grade built in to some extent ewhile digital does not. The "look" people built into the film back in the day because they couldn't just do it in post can still be a great look today and is pretty orthogonal to objective quality of the information captured.
- cogman10 4y ago
  Because people are funny. It's the same reason you'll still find scenes and photos shot in sepia tone and black and white. People prefer the way film looks even though it's less true what was actually shot. People like typewriters, vacuum tube amplifiers, and Vinyl records; Not because they are better than their more modern counterparts, but because of nostalgia and a preference for the "feel" of these things. But, it just so happens that it's easy enough to recreate film effects that actual film ends up being just a masochistic activity.

MengerSponge 4y ago

Film was a lot more expensive, so there's a selection bias. Digital is newer, so we haven't yet benefited from survivor bias. In the hands of a sufficiently talented team, film does not look better than digital, because digital can be made to look just like film: https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-debate-movies-cinematography https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-de...

jameshart 4y ago
This should not be overlooked. A film that exists is better than one that never gets made. Digital reduces the cost required to get certain shots; makes certain shots possible that would be impossible with film; integrates more directly into cheaper digital production workflows that make it possible to pull of effects that would be impossible on film… Much as we may nostalgically enjoy the aesthetic of the optical compositing of original Star Wars special effects, they were incredibly expensive and - compared to what can be done today for a fraction of the cost with all-digital workflows (eg in the Disney plus Star Wars shows), objectively not as good.
- kinkrtyavimoodh 4y ago
  > A film that exists is better than one that never gets made. Some might disagree. The democratization of content creation that happened with the internet and social media was in general a good thing, but it can't be denied that it also resulted in a massive reduction of the Signal to Noise ratio in content quality. The reason the Google search result page is much worse today is precisely because there exits tons of content today that should never have been made.
  - jameshart 4y ago
    Sturgeon's law applies - 90% of everything is crap. 90% of movies shot on film were terrible too. Everything in the direct-to-video bargain bin in Blockbuster in the 80s and 90s was shot on film, and trust me, they were not all Tremors II. So when more stuff gets made, more crap gets made. But the 10% that's good gets bigger too. You want a world that contains Everything Everywhere All At Once? You have to also accept The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies as well. Sorry.

detaro 4y ago

If a movie production wants a digitally produced thing to look like film, they can do that, to a degree that you can't tell the difference. So no, film doesn't look better than digital.

hgsgm 4y ago

Film looks better because it shows less information, not more information. Gandalf's makeup and nose pores taught that to the moviegoing public. Motion blur is a more common example.

jameshart 4y ago

What part of the process of light coming through a lens, being focused onto film, the film being developed, and then light shone through the film onto a sensor to capture a digital copy of the frame, versus the light from the lens being focused onto a sensor and digitized directly, makes the film based image ‘look better’? Because the frames are going to be digitized, right? Nobody’s arguing that optical printing and editing by splicing reels of film together produces better looking results than digital workflows, surely?

Godel_unicode 4y ago

Emphatically. Film looks bland. People like film for the same reason they like vinyl; it’s psychosomatic.