General > General Technical Chat
Film colour reproduction is way better than digital
<< < (3/4) > >>
Domagoj T:
The article you link is a one man circlejerk of non sequitur and gate keeping drivel that has no relevance to the topic other than the proclamation "film good, digital bad".

I. Slowing down.
No relevance to technical superiority. Nothing forcing you to rush taking a digital picture.
II. Film photos look better than digital photos.
Entirely subjective, and wholly dependent on chemistry used. Should I even address the fact that the example photos he gives in this paragraph are atrocious? It would never cross my mind to parade these in public, let alone use as an example of some imaginary superiority.
III. Film photography is a better ‘investment’
No relevance to subject matter, and arguably false. His price comparison is ridiculous.
IV. Why I will never buy a new digital Leica
Personal preference, no relevance, noone gives a shit.
V. Looking at photo albums with my grandma.
Print you digitals.
Conclusion
Shit article is shit.
Want a warmer image? Crank those reds.

I shoot digital, but also have a home made medium format camera obscura. I love shooting with it and the photos that come out of it, but trying to claim that they are better than what a cheap DSLR can produce is a stretch.
helius:
"I worked for a guy, Ebenezer Josiah, who was the stagecoach driver for Wyatt Earp, and also did breaking wild mustangs (read about him in Lives of the Teamsters), and what he showed me and what we discussed in his living years, regarding aspects of his work from the 1860s up to around 1911, I'll take as gospel, together with my own experiences.

He'd probably forgotten more about curricles and buggywhips than many ever knew.

It matters not a bit. This is my opinion, just expressing it doesn't make this a tit for tat bickering playground battle. I believe what I believe, I'm not threatened that anyone aligns their views with mine or doesn't. Horses are better, horseless are more convenient. End of story."

Every bit as relevant to the subject (former vis a vis current technologies) as what you wrote. Not meant as a swipe at Peter Whitehead at all: for a time, he was an innovative and influential film maker who could employ the techniques of the abstract avant-garde for sensitive and powerful narrative pictures. Are any of his films available now? The last I saw them was in 2006, and even then, they were only available to archive theatres as digibeta transfers from the BFI; the release prints seemed to be gone.
newbrain:

--- Quote from: eti on August 20, 2020, 03:17:02 am --- PS: What does "troll' mean? Sorry I'm out of touch.

--- End quote ---
For an introductory course, though definitely not from a professional, you might want to look here.
2N3055:
No it is not.
Fact, and I don't need this to be "verified" or "confirmed".
Again, this is fact, as arrogant as it may sound.

Film vs digital is same kind of discussion as vinyl vs digital.
Analog is not better. By any metric, including aesteathical "feel".
It is so inferior, technically, that it has specific sound (or look), it is audibly (visibly) inferior.
It is literally so bad you can hear the difference.

It is only that people are used to hear Beatles sound as it were, and that became part of experience. All else sound wrong.
That is why I generally hate remakes of songs and movies. They just seem wrong, just because they are not originals. Even when made really well. Sometimes even better.

That can be heard with authors that are active for long times, like Stevie Wonder. His old recordings, and new ones have way different sound and mastering. And they all sound perfect for what they are, including newer ones that are fully digital, microphone to loudspeaker...........

Old movie people are just nostalgic about film.

New kids nowadays don't give a f**k about vinyl, or film..


helius:
If I'm honest, I vastly prefer to see movies made and projected on film, if the projectionist is highly skilled. Having movie theatres closed for the better part of a year has been a let down. The few remaining "analog" theatres are typically very well run, but 20 years ago that was not always the case.

So contrary to the claim that film is superior because of physics, I'm convinced it's about economics. I've had the experience of going to a multiplex and the projection cuts off or is horribly jumpy, and because of cost-cutting, the projectionist can't fix it for 45 minutes (because the theatre owners hire one projectionist to run 6 movies at once in 6 different booths). That was before digital projection. With digital projection the results are often consistently bad, because even though the movie runs automatically, the setup was botched and the levels are wrong. Not to mention the cryptic and unhelpful errors that do interrupt digital screenings: "lamp communication failure" etc. With cost savings come compromises.
Navigation
Message Index
Next page
Previous page
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...

Go to full version
Powered by SMFPacks Advanced Attachments Uploader Mod