We can by trying to shoot on film, and if you think about costs, there are cheaper film cameras, super 8, super 16 and even 35mm. People are going all crazy on digital mostly for the detail and the hype, but a lot of those people are just following what is In and believe me, if one of their pop stars releases a mainstream as fuck music video shot on film, they'll all be trying to buy a film camera. Now I think you also have those new super 8 cameras with an LCD screen. The idea is to continue to shoot on it and say it in the description and to promote it, but just talking about it, wont be enough. Im planning to buy one too and will be looking forward to shooting some music videos for some local bands. Also, Art is timeless and limitless, you can use any medium that best represents your story, so when people say, "it doesn't matter what medium", they usually say it against film but they never say it against digital, so i think it works both ways, it doesnt matter what medium, but as long as you the artist, makes that choice for what best one is. So if your story is about found footage on a VHS camera, shoot it on VHS and likewise for others. Make a found footage movie on a super 16, with a killer story and that might be a good point to start ideas from.
@@DethronerX Dude, digital is not a fad that's going away, and film is never going to return to it's glory days. There are just too many advantages with digital. Cost, time, preservation, image quality, ease of use, etc. It's not about the medium. It's about the story. Nolan is just an old man yelling at the clouds, a luddite afraid of change.
@@HTHAMMACK1 But film looks better. Digital movies look too clean and fake. Imagine Taxi Driver or French Connection shot on digital. Film has that grit and grime digital is not able to capture.
Like it or not, the future of independent cinema is most likely going to be online and digital. It's just the way it is. Arguably it's more accessible and will mean that more great films can more easily be made, just as much as bad ones. If Nolan made The Following today he'd most likely be making/releasing it this way, and perhaps could have done so more easily. Now, this doesn't mean that things like 35 mm and theatres are going to go completely. I believe Nolan makes films that justifiably should be shown in cinemas (ie. big spectacle, big budget films). But this isn't necessarily the case for all movies, and it's foolish to think that this will have any impact quality of said works.
Mte. I can't believe he's so hellbent on ~preserving film when not even archivists and film restoration workers speak like this. All fil restorations are done digitally now and put back on film.
@@rockingbrowneyedgirl that is not true at all. All film restorations actually prefer to preserve on film. Because movies shot on digital cannot be saved forever. When digital is distributed it is on a USB with a special key. And that USB has a date when it will expire and no longer be used. Meanwhile Film reels can be used any time and only decay if it’s badly treated or burned or any other thing. But if it’s left intact in a special place it can go on forever. So that’s why most film preservation organizations prefer to use film over digital. And plus it objectively looks better
@@damiantirado9616if Roger Deakins himself says he can hardly tell the difference between Film and Digital, I don’t think you can say it’s “objectively” better
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
you can't see grain below 8K in 35mil print and most cinema projectors are 2K with some being 4K moreover they use shit quality lenses and screens. Dune tried to do that and failed miserably, the image looked blurry with no grain in IMAX even with laser projectors.
This obsession over resolution, is misguided, and not at all what its all about. Cinema, is projected film. Its never been about the film negative; what you're missing is that these filmmakers knew how to shoot and light specifically for the release print. You were never meant to see a film negative; so scanning older movies and regrading them for 4k HDR can nearly be akin to colorizing B&W movies; sure, it might be impressive, and arguably "look better" but lets call it what it is; revisionist. You can scan the Mona Lisa at whatever resolution you want, and print it out. But it'll never be the Mona Lisa. Cinema is art, and film is a medium. Respect it, and understand why it matters.
@@ricksterdrummer2170 I honestly don''t care how other people choose to watch movies, or make movies. Do whatever you want, seriously. But what I do mind, is when other people's decisions , or plain ignorance, affect those of us who do give a shit.
Love this, love how he stood for his own film
We need to preserving film format ,, lets work on it pliz
We can by trying to shoot on film, and if you think about costs, there are cheaper film cameras, super 8, super 16 and even 35mm. People are going all crazy on digital mostly for the detail and the hype, but a lot of those people are just following what is In and believe me, if one of their pop stars releases a mainstream as fuck music video shot on film, they'll all be trying to buy a film camera. Now I think you also have those new super 8 cameras with an LCD screen. The idea is to continue to shoot on it and say it in the description and to promote it, but just talking about it, wont be enough. Im planning to buy one too and will be looking forward to shooting some music videos for some local bands.
Also, Art is timeless and limitless, you can use any medium that best represents your story, so when people say, "it doesn't matter what medium", they usually say it against film but they never say it against digital, so i think it works both ways, it doesnt matter what medium, but as long as you the artist, makes that choice for what best one is. So if your story is about found footage on a VHS camera, shoot it on VHS and likewise for others. Make a found footage movie on a super 16, with a killer story and that might be a good point to start ideas from.
@@DethronerX Dude, digital is not a fad that's going away, and film is never going to return to it's glory days. There are just too many advantages with digital. Cost, time, preservation, image quality, ease of use, etc. It's not about the medium. It's about the story. Nolan is just an old man yelling at the clouds, a luddite afraid of change.
Film is great, but digital isnt bad
@@HTHAMMACK1 But film looks better. Digital movies look too clean and fake. Imagine Taxi Driver or French Connection shot on digital. Film has that grit and grime digital is not able to capture.
No.
Like it or not, the future of independent cinema is most likely going to be online and digital. It's just the way it is. Arguably it's more accessible and will mean that more great films can more easily be made, just as much as bad ones. If Nolan made The Following today he'd most likely be making/releasing it this way, and perhaps could have done so more easily.
Now, this doesn't mean that things like 35 mm and theatres are going to go completely. I believe Nolan makes films that justifiably should be shown in cinemas (ie. big spectacle, big budget films). But this isn't necessarily the case for all movies, and it's foolish to think that this will have any impact quality of said works.
Mte. I can't believe he's so hellbent on ~preserving film when not even archivists and film restoration workers speak like this. All fil restorations are done digitally now and put back on film.
35mm film simply are better and look objectively better. If this is the future of cinema then Martin Scorsese is indeed right. Cinema is truly dying.
@@rockingbrowneyedgirl that is not true at all. All film restorations actually prefer to preserve on film. Because movies shot on digital cannot be saved forever. When digital is distributed it is on a USB with a special key. And that USB has a date when it will expire and no longer be used.
Meanwhile Film reels can be used any time and only decay if it’s badly treated or burned or any other thing. But if it’s left intact in a special place it can go on forever. So that’s why most film preservation organizations prefer to use film over digital. And plus it objectively looks better
@@damiantirado9616if Roger Deakins himself says he can hardly tell the difference between Film and Digital, I don’t think you can say it’s “objectively” better
@@superjerry3233Do you believe whatever you hear? Lol. You have no mind of your own.
In my opinion, one of the greatest benefits of seeing a film shot on celluloid in a digital medium like a 4K disc or digital projector is that when the film is scanned from the original negative, all the grain one sees is what originated on the negative. When a film is projected on celluloid, additional grain is introduced, even if the print is a second generation away from the negative. So ironically, when a filmmaker like Tarantino champions that his films should be seen on celluloid, digital projection can in some ways represent more accurately what the negative captured. One advantage celluloid has had over digital projection for a long time is in contrast and resolution. But with 4K laser projectors I think that advantage will slowly disappear. Especially considering that 99.99% of all movies shot on celluloid today are finished using a Digital intermediate. Which means that even if celluloid prints are being made, they will be struck from that DI and be limited to the resolution of the DI, which most likely will be lower than the resolution of the film print. If you then add on the extra grain and softness that get introduced from the print I think that a film that was shot on celluloid and then receives a 4K DI will look better on a 4K laser projector than on a film print. But I do believe celluloid has the advantage when it comes to older movies that were finished photochemicly and shoot on large formats like 65mm and VistaVision. Because then the true resolution of film is being taken advantage of (as long as the print doesn't come from a digital restoration of that movie, even 2001 a space odysseys 8K restoration probably don't take full advantage of a 65mm print, but digital restorations has of course other benefits, like damage removal.) After the introduction of the Digital intermediate the full potential celluloid has been lost when it comes to resolution, but has also given the filmmaker more freedom with color grading and special effects. I look forward to the day when 8K,10K,12k DIs are the norm.
you can't see grain below 8K in 35mil print and most cinema projectors are 2K with some being 4K moreover they use shit quality lenses and screens. Dune tried to do that and failed miserably, the image looked blurry with no grain in IMAX even with laser projectors.
@filmnick cool story bro👏🤓
This obsession over resolution, is misguided, and not at all what its all about. Cinema, is projected film. Its never been about the film negative; what you're missing is that these filmmakers knew how to shoot and light specifically for the release print. You were never meant to see a film negative; so scanning older movies and regrading them for 4k HDR can nearly be akin to colorizing B&W movies; sure, it might be impressive, and arguably "look better" but lets call it what it is; revisionist. You can scan the Mona Lisa at whatever resolution you want, and print it out. But it'll never be the Mona Lisa. Cinema is art, and film is a medium. Respect it, and understand why it matters.
@@craigrryan86I understand your point 100%, but me and apparently most other people really don’t give a shit.
@@ricksterdrummer2170 I honestly don''t care how other people choose to watch movies, or make movies. Do whatever you want, seriously. But what I do mind, is when other people's decisions , or plain ignorance, affect those of us who do give a shit.
Film is film. Go see one (in film) and you’ll know what I mean