Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 16.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • AC1

    2033

  • Jay

    1991

  • #SnowyVernalSpringsEternal

    1873

  • Quintus

    1141

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I could have killed more...

Toy Story 3 was pretty weak but Pixar's latest films are far worse.  Not hopeful for 4.  

You don't _play_ something as transcendental as a David Cage _experience_ (the childish term "game" cannot suffice here), moron. You should go back to your generic, non-immersive Zeldas and Maddens.

Of course I have, but image sharpness is not directly related to imagine resolution at all, which is what you seem to be implying.

 

There's no one on way way to directly compare film and digital without taking a lot of other important factors into account. For example the type and quality of film stock, and the type of camera and lenses used to shot the comparing images.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Have you not heard of image sharpness?

 

maxresdefault.jpg

 

"If sharpness is all you care about, then that's what you'll receive with digital film."

 

 

Princess Leia is right! Digital is sharper than film.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. 35mm film might have a higher resolution then digital, but it also has certain properties that work against image sharpness and clarity.

I saw the "unrestored" 2001 in the cinema last year, taken straight from the original negative and it looked a bit unsharp. 

 

You could also say digital tends to look too sharp, too clear and too bright and colourful though these days. But that probably also has more to do with trends in digital grading. Everything gets tuned too 11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

 I saw the "unrestored" 2001 in the cinema last year, taken straight from the original negative and it looked a bit unsharp. 

 

And that's 70mm!

 

I can get purism in film criticism with regard to use of practical effects, but I don't get it when the same is applied to the kind of camera being used. Certainly, filmstock has its merits and if you choose to shoot on film, good on ya'. But, likewise, many digital films look absolutely gorgeous. Skyfall is a great example.

 

And it is catching up rapidly with the resolution of filmstock, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Toll made the switch, too, with Billy Lynn. Now there's a man who knows a thing or two about photography.

 

Dean Semler, as well, used digital to mesmerizing effect in Apocalypto. Its beautiful.

 

And, if you're the kind of filmmaker that does lots of takes and/or does long takes, digital is much, much more practical for you; which is to say nothing of shooting at night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zack is back!!!

 

zack_snyder-getty-h_2019.jpg

 

 

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/zack-snyder-returns-movies-zombie-pic-army-dead-1178979

 

 

And, best thing of all, Netflix is giving him 100% freedom. 

 

 

Quote

Zack Snyder: “When the movie gets super big, you get pushed away from the camera," he notes. "And in the last few years, I’ve had a reconnection with photography. This movie will be a chance to get the camera in hand."

 

That's what I want to hear! Zack is back. On Netflix. In HDR.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Zack Snyder has his strengths and weaknesses but he's one of the great visualists of our time and James Cameron agrees with me. He's not a great all-rounder though. His writing is terrible so I hope he'll work with a very good writer for his upcoming Netflix movie(s). Oh my, Zack Snyder and Netflix ... finally together! I know you modern movie theatre lovers think that Netflix is exactly where he should be ... and you know what? I agree. Zack shouldn't be doing superhero and big franchise movies for the mob. He needs to make the movies he wants to make. And these days Netflix seems to be the place where that is possible. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John said:

 

Is he though? Most of his movies are very visually desaturated and have the color palette of mud ...

 

So if I oversaturate the colors of my film, it's a clear sign of my greatness? Interesting! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John said:

 

... and his style of staging action tends to be incomprehensible. 

 

Not in his first movies (which were more 'actiony' in nature than full-blown action movies) where the action is presented very strong and clearly, with beautiful blocking.

 

2 hours ago, John said:

 I just think his movies are ugly, that’s all. 

 

Seems you and Joe have more in common that I thought! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a success from multiple fronts: adaptationally, it knew what indulgent details for hyperfans to keep for the 4-hour cut (Tales of the Black Freighter), and also knew what to change that would be completely ridiculous onscreen (Ozzy's plan).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

 Zack shouldn't be doing superhero and big franchise movies for the mob.

 

1 minute ago, Alexcremers said:

I often think adapting graphic novels is all he should do.

 

There aren't THAT many graphic novels that aren't about superheroes...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...