Is filming digitally lazy?

[CelticPredator]

I never use a cinematographer. I cannot get my head around that. It needs to be MY vision 100%. That's how I feel personally. And it gives me more time to work with the actors when I know what I want.

I dunno....I just dont trust other people with my vision....personal thing.

 

[CelticPredator]

Higher frame rates actually look better, IMO. But that may be cuz I'm an animator by day, and like a nice and smooth look to hand drawn.

They are not to be confused with the "smoothing" effect most TV's have these days. Totally different, technically and visually.

IMO they look like horrible. And I turn a movie off if they look like that. I cannot take that nonsense.

 

[mclay18]

I never use a cinematographer. I cannot get my head around that. It needs to be MY vision 100%. That's how I feel personally.

I can see that with you and some other directors. But for me, if I was shooting digitally or with film, I would get a DOP/cinematographer to help establish the look and feel. Bouncing ideas off one another helps create a more smooth and proficient aesthetic -- if I was both directing and lighting a movie, the multitasking would drive me nuts. I'd rather focus on one task, not several.

And I don't think Tarantino gets that negligible cost of purchasing film stock, developing it and running the dailies. That's a lot of money that can be used in post-production or marketing -- and many budding filmmakers don't have the budget to shoot film. If you can afford film or can shoot quick, great, but not everyone can do it. Time is money.

 

[The Chris]

Personally, I need to have a DP. I love the collaboration, i love the unique ideas and style that they bring to the table. Plus I'm a very spread out director, focusing on every single thing in the production so it's great to have a go to person that you know is talented in that area and will come through. I used a different one in all of my films in school. Not really on purpose, it just had to do with who was available at the time, but it really gave a different feel and visual to each short I made. I shot on dslr for the first time this past october. It was a really great experience, being able to drop your footage on to a laptop and portable drive on the set instead of shooting on a tape like in school and having to log and capture. I was also impressed with the quality of most of the images considering we didn't have any lights. It was all natural lights and reflectors, and I was surprised how well the images came out.

 

[Carnotaur3]

I never use a cinematographer. I cannot get my head around that. It needs to be MY vision 100%. That's how I feel personally. And it gives me more time to work with the actors when I know what I want.

I dunno....I just dont trust other people with my vision....personal thing.

You need to start trusting people, because filmmaking is collaboration 100% of the time in Hollywood.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It's snobbery, that's all it is. Using film was like an exclusive club. Digital filming means everyone can do it.

That's a simplified view of it. Michael Mann's recent digital films are proof that there can be a glaring picture quality difference between the two formats. I don't want big budget movies looking like cheap soap operas. David Fincher has proven that you can shoot digitally and still give the movie a cinematic look, but it requires more effort than the likes of Mann have been willing to put into the process. I think at some point digital cameras will have high enough resolution that a lot of the issues will be resolved.

 

[Passdom]

That's a simplified view of it. Michael Mann's recent digital films are proof that there can be a glaring picture quality difference between the two formats. I don't want big budget movies looking like cheap soap operas. David Fincher has proven that you can shoot digitally and still give the movie a cinematic look, but it requires more effort than the likes of Mann have been willing to put into the process. I think at some point digital cameras will have high enough resolution that a lot of the issues will be resolved.

Collateral and Miami Vice are stunning looking movies.

The downfall of Public Enemies isnt in digital photography, its in Mann's stylistic decisions regarding lighting, makeup, color, etc.

 

[JAK®]

That's a simplified view of it. Michael Mann's recent digital films are proof that there can be a glaring picture quality difference between the two formats. I don't want big budget movies looking like cheap soap operas. David Fincher has proven that you can shoot digitally and still give the movie a cinematic look, but it requires more effort than the likes of Mann have been willing to put into the process. I think at some point digital cameras will have high enough resolution that a lot of the issues will be resolved.

It's a new medium, so there will be some missteps. There are still ugly movies shot with film today. That's kind of the nature of a medium. The results are dependent on who used it.

I mean, look at that quote about Apocalypto. He loved it, until he found out it was shot in digital. That's snobbery.

 

[Valaquen]

I thought Apocalypto was a masterpiece. Then I found out he did it in digital and it lessened the effort for me.

Hmm, sounds like his preferences undermined his initial, honest, unblinkered opinion. Shame when that happens. "I loved it, then I heard..."

 

[redhawk23]

So wait, Tarantino is saying that Zodiac and Apocalyptico, look totally awesome but thinks lesser of them because they're digital? not because they look bad, but because he thinks of it as some kind of cheating?

Mr. Tarantino, how dare you not film in black and white and then paint in the colors by hand!!!!

 

[The Chris]

I just think a director has a right to shoot with whatever they want for their film because it's their film. Things like cheating and trying to be old fashioned shouldn't go into the decision process in my opinion. What works best for the story that you are trying to hell. Which process best visualizes your vision. I like what Danny Boyle does. I like the different looks and visuals he gives each of his movies, whether he shot on film, or video, or digital. I like when these guys experiment.

 

[CelticPredator]

You need to start trusting people, because filmmaking is collaboration 100% of the time in Hollywood.

Oh I trust people, with other things. Not that though. I'm talking stictly the camera's placement, and movement through the scene. I love that collaberating process to much, you get much more stuff out of it.

Unless in the future, if I get heavy into that biz, and I meet a good DP that works, I might just stick with that.

 

[CelticPredator]

So wait, Tarantino is saying that Zodiac and Apocalyptico, look totally awesome but thinks lesser of them because they're digital? not because they look bad, but because he thinks of it as some kind of cheating?

Mr. Tarantino, how dare you not film in black and white and then paint in the colors by hand!!!!

He has a slight point. There's some shots in Apoc that look really flat, and digital. Not as epic as it should be.

 

[JAK®]

He has a slight point. There's some shots in Apoc that look really flat, and digital. Not as epic as it should be.

Except that wasn't his point, he thought it looked great, and changed his mind when he learned it was digital. He never noticed it was digital.

 

[CelticPredator]

Well....that's just whatever then. He can believe what he wants to.

 

[dark_b]

hard to belive that Tarantino didnt notice that Apocalipto was a digital movie. i noticed it very fast. and i am not a pro.

 

[CelticPredator]

Which says something.

I noticed it, and only a few scenes took away from my enjoyment, but that's it really.

 

[Carnotaur3]

Except that wasn't his point, he thought it looked great, and changed his mind when he learned it was digital. He never noticed it was digital.

Which is weird because a lot of the shots in the opening of the film with the pig hunt look obviously digital.

 

[mclay18]

I shot on dslr for the first time this past october. It was a really great experience, being able to drop your footage on to a laptop and portable drive on the set instead of shooting on a tape like in school and having to log and capture. I was also impressed with the quality of most of the images considering we didn't have any lights. It was all natural lights and reflectors, and I was surprised how well the images came out.

Did you use the newer Canon Rebel T2i/700D camera, or a Nikon? I heard the latter gives great results -- and there was a Norwegian short film shot entirely with those cameras. I watched the short on YT, and picture quality was equivalent to a RED camera or 35mm film camera. Very impressive.

 

[The Jester]

I just finished shooting a short on the t2i, and it's an absolutely amazing camera for what you pay for, but there's no way you could compare it to a RED or 35 mm.

 

[The Chris]

Did you use the newer Canon Rebel T2i/700D camera, or a Nikon? I heard the latter gives great results -- and there was a Norwegian short film shot entirely with those cameras. I watched the short on YT, and picture quality was equivalent to a RED camera or 35mm film camera. Very impressive.

we used the canon t2i.

 

[PWN3R]

I just finished shooting a short on the t2i, and it's an absolutely amazing camera for what you pay for, but there's no way you could compare it to a RED or 35 mm.

Not necessarily. While it's true that DSLRs can't touch the RED's picture quality on the big screen or film for that matter, the internet is different.

http://vimeo.com/5981422

Tell me that doesn't hold up. If your project is strictly for web, DSLRs match up incredibly well.