Huh? You absolutely CAN stop the film when taking notes for color timing. You run it till you see a problem, stop it, make a note, then go onto the next shot. The only time you can't stop it is when actually making the print.
@Squibfire I'm absolutely sure that Nolan prefers film, I heard him talking about it in an interview. Also, this is what his long time DP Wally Pfister had to say about the studio trying to make them shoot on digital 3D for The Dark Knight Rises. "I know one thing about the film that Chris is adamant about is that he wants to shoot on film. He doesn’t want to shoot on video, and I’m the same way"
It's weird because he seems to not be aware of the DI workflow of shooting on film as an acquisition format and scanning it in as high resolution to do the color in the non-destructive way he's describing DV.
I hate the all-inclusive assumption in these arguments that film and digital are essentially the same, but one is crisper. What you can do with film is not always so easy on a computer (the chemical treatment done for The Fountain), and obviously, movies like Avatar would lose a lot of detail if shot on film. Outside of convenience, one is not better than the other. They require entirely different mindsets.
That is true, but I think he is just describing the method of shooting on digital in general. With Film, you don't have the flexibility you have with digital, in the sense of, you only have the roll of film to work with. He and a handful of other directors had interesting comments in the documentary "Side by Side." Nonetheless, I do agree that the method of shooting on film as an acquisition format is the best option available right now.
What's that thing with his hand? I have noticed something similar starting to happen to me when I explain things and cant find enough words or thoughts to express. Then my hand starts to move exactly like that. It might be nothing, but any medical explanation? So far what I have found it's Alien Hand Syndrome (Dr. Strangelove Syndrome) but I think mine is much less extreme. Some docs say hand shaking is because of the lack of Vitamin D :D But, im not sure. Anything to be concerned about?
@Squibfire Yeah definitely. I have no problem when talented people use digital. One of my favorite movies in recent memory is Drive and that was shot using an Arri Alexa. The only thing about digital is that it takes an artist with damn near surgical precision to even come close to film. Otherwise it will just look very sterile and lifelike. A film should never imitate real life(unless it's a documentary or something), part of the magic of cinema is transporting you to another world.
Digital is progress. It's nice to hear it from an original director. I know a lot of misguided fanboys worship Tarantino, but that man's movie's aren't anywhere near as good as Lynch's.
@Ichiboy900 It wasn't meant to look nice. It was meant to look distorted, which fit the story of the film which itself was distorted. Digital can look beautiful.
@ChristopherJacques I'm in NO way picking a fight. I'm just wondering where the added control of digital comes in? I shoot a lot of film and a lot of digital. I've never said to myself, while shooting film, "if I were shooting digital right now I'd be able to do this." I have on the other hand said, while shooting digital, "if I were shooting film I'd feel more comfortable with the sky being 6+ stops over". Of course, you could shoot with the Alexa and take care of that for about $2000/day :)
David is a dreamer. He cannot even explain the reason why digital and why film. I can tell you digital cannot beat film. It's so simple as that ! Film can see better that the crapy high contrast digital camera! Guy Bodart Film Director/DP
@TheForgottenFlesh 640 gb can store more than 2 hours of 4k. So, I can't see why that would cost so much, since TB hard drives can't be that expensive these days.
The content matters, not the medium. I get a nostalgic feeling when I see a black and white movie. Guess what, you can turn the color off with digital. You can add film grain. You can have all the little nuances of film in digital format. Film's limitations ADD to the material, just like a digital filter can. Both are fake. Digital gives the director, the ARTIST, more control over his work. The idea that digital somehow invalidates the art is simply WRONG.
I agree with everything hes trying to say (minus the hand jiggle) but i still feel film is what everything should be shot on then using DI your workflow should be digital so we can colour correct etc
@DANK0CITY Affordability to be a filmmaker? Last time I checked all major film productions could still afford film. Yes digital makes filmmaking more accessible, and I'm sure those digitally shot movies will exist regardless of the availability of film, but I am talking about the aesthetics of cinema that is being replaced by digital in today's films. Sorry that you can't appreciate what film has done for cinema. It's not just the fact that it "looks beautiful"...
@popaddict "all this digital crap"? All this complaining about digital being the death of film, if it wasn't for digital millions of people would never even get the opportunity to make movies - film is expensive and difficult by comparison to digital. Yes it looks beautiful, but as a filmmmaker I couldn't afford to be one if it wasn't for digital, and you probably couldn't either.
@TheForgottenFlesh That latter one was a good one. The first one wasn't a perfect example since you can't just use it to explain something to a random person without explaining the example, which you didn't at first. Saying he did it simply because he wanted to leaves a lot to the question. Shouldn't we just drop this pointless argument?
Digital is killing the film aesthetic. Yes I know, we can talk endlessly about the pros and cons of digital filmmaking and changing technology and whatnot but fact is one day we'll look back on the times when movies were made by recording images on a tangible piece of film and viewed by projecting light through it at 24 frames per second. I think it's sad how we're losing something that defined an artistic medium. I wish I had been part of this industry in a time before all this digital crap :(
@popaddict As long as people like PTA, Nolan, and Tarantino are still relevant, film will never die off. They're like some of the most talented directors that are still active today and they are passionately against digital. If it comes to a day where we can no longer watch "films" on film, I will shoot myself or something hahahaha. Sorry but in most cases digital doesn't do it for me at all. It works for the tone of some films(Inland Empire, etc.) but in most cases it looks very ugly. Even RED.
@TheForgottenFlesh Alright, I see what you're getting at, but I don't agree that you use good examples. Simply because he felt it was the right thing to do? For all you know I could be an 11 year old (16 actually) who knows nothing of the progress of films, thus those weren't good examples since they leave too much to the question, which was my original point. (Yeah, I realize the irony now)
Can't much argue with Lynch... but, he's not making a strong argument why he would shoot Digital over Film. He's talking about a "telecine" process that is all but extinct! If you acquire your images digitally or on film you are going to end up in the same place... Digital Intermediate (DI) High resolution scans of the film neg to finish digitally. A lot like an R3D or ARRIRAW file. Some people just prefer the look, latitude and tonality of film over digital. Options people... Options.
@xxbluejay21 Well Godard said it before that cinema is dead with the rise of tv, video, etc. Does it really matter what productions shoot their shitty videos with? Cinema is not cinema anymore. It's died. All I see are 2 hour long commercials nowadays.
David Lynch doesn't want to drag around cables, set up lights, wait hours and hours for a single shot, and deal with 100 +lb cameras. Digital is easier. Just that simple. But he has to go around talking about control and content and all this other shit to try to justify it. Thank God for Q.T. who comes out and tells it like it is, "Digital is the death rattle for films"
Come on! It sounds like your quoting from Mr. Plinkett's review. I don't think that's fair, in this case. If Lynch has a problem.. it's the exact opposite of George Lucas' problem.
The Hand of David Lynch has a life of it's own. It's like Doctor Strangelove's hand.
usually people use different hand gestures contribute to their words, with Lynch I have no idea what his hand is doing
its own
lynch be playing the sky piano yo
Neon Daydream fucking LOL
Became successful by casting spells on people.
My grandson is studying magic.
@@rellman85Alright
That hand tho
It’s like his little mime
What most people don't know about Lynch is that the body it's just a case, the real Lynch is in fact his right hand, that hand controls everything
Legend has it that he has a tattoo that says BOB on that arm.
@@spyralspyder no, tattoo says: Fire Walk With Me
What do I do with my hands?
When David Lynch speaks, he also gives sign language for any def pianists who may be watching.
He's tickling BOB
His artistic like that with the hand thingy
David "I need more room to dream" Lynch
David Lynchs favorite words: "so beautiful" :)
Huh? You absolutely CAN stop the film when taking notes for color timing. You run it till you see a problem, stop it, make a note, then go onto the next shot. The only time you can't stop it is when actually making the print.
@Squibfire I'm absolutely sure that Nolan prefers film, I heard him talking about it in an interview. Also, this is what his long time DP Wally Pfister had to say about the studio trying to make them shoot on digital 3D for The Dark Knight Rises. "I know one thing about the film that Chris is adamant about is that he wants to shoot on film. He doesn’t want to shoot on video, and I’m the same way"
Pfister? I hardly know her
It's weird because he seems to not be aware of the DI workflow of shooting on film as an acquisition format and scanning it in as high resolution to do the color in the non-destructive way he's describing DV.
I hate the all-inclusive assumption in these arguments that film and digital are essentially the same, but one is crisper. What you can do with film is not always so easy on a computer (the chemical treatment done for The Fountain), and obviously, movies like Avatar would lose a lot of detail if shot on film. Outside of convenience, one is not better than the other. They require entirely different mindsets.
That is true, but I think he is just describing the method of shooting on digital in general. With Film, you don't have the flexibility you have with digital, in the sense of, you only have the roll of film to work with. He and a handful of other directors had interesting comments in the documentary "Side by Side."
Nonetheless, I do agree that the method of shooting on film as an acquisition format is the best option available right now.
YOU DON'T FUCK WITH LYNCH'S HAND!!! THE HAND KNOWS NO BOUNDARIES!!!!
It's like his hand has a life of its own, just obeying its master's will!
What's that thing with his hand?
I have noticed something similar starting to happen to me when I explain things and cant find enough words or thoughts to express. Then my hand starts to move exactly like that.
It might be nothing, but any medical explanation?
So far what I have found it's Alien Hand Syndrome (Dr. Strangelove Syndrome) but I think mine is much less extreme. Some docs say hand shaking is because of the lack of Vitamin D :D
But, im not sure. Anything to be concerned about?
@Squibfire Yeah definitely. I have no problem when talented people use digital. One of my favorite movies in recent memory is Drive and that was shot using an Arri Alexa. The only thing about digital is that it takes an artist with damn near surgical precision to even come close to film. Otherwise it will just look very sterile and lifelike. A film should never imitate real life(unless it's a documentary or something), part of the magic of cinema is transporting you to another world.
Digital is progress. It's nice to hear it from an original director. I know a lot of misguided fanboys worship Tarantino, but that man's movie's aren't anywhere near as good as Lynch's.
Tarantino - ''I want violence, and blood, and screams, and shock value. Now shoot that from this angle''
@Ichiboy900 It wasn't meant to look nice. It was meant to look distorted, which fit the story of the film which itself was distorted. Digital can look beautiful.
@ChristopherJacques I'm in NO way picking a fight. I'm just wondering where the added control of digital comes in? I shoot a lot of film and a lot of digital. I've never said to myself, while shooting film, "if I were shooting digital right now I'd be able to do this." I have on the other hand said, while shooting digital, "if I were shooting film I'd feel more comfortable with the sky being 6+ stops over". Of course, you could shoot with the Alexa and take care of that for about $2000/day :)
@normansmother1
I'm perfectly optimistic about digital. Without it, it would be harder for people with no money to make the films they want to.
I call it David's Itsy Bitsy Spider.
David is a dreamer. He cannot even explain the reason why digital and why film. I can tell you digital cannot beat film. It's so simple as that ! Film can see better that the crapy high contrast digital camera!
Guy Bodart
Film Director/DP
@TheForgottenFlesh 640 gb can store more than 2 hours of 4k. So, I can't see why that would cost so much, since TB hard drives can't be that expensive these days.
That Hand Tho LOL
If he made Mullholland Drive which is a fantastic film then I cannot criticize the guy.
@TheForgottenFlesh Easy. If the video is an obsolete format, just convert it to a current one.
he should make a movie about that
I to love digital
you're right o,o
THE HAND
@stickybelvedere Yes, he is.
@ChristopherJacques That was some deep shit...
The content matters, not the medium.
I get a nostalgic feeling when I see a black and white movie. Guess what, you can turn the color off with digital. You can add film grain. You can have all the little nuances of film in digital format.
Film's limitations ADD to the material, just like a digital filter can. Both are fake.
Digital gives the director, the ARTIST, more control over his work.
The idea that digital somehow invalidates the art is simply WRONG.
You seriously think you can achieve a convincing film look with digital by post-processing?
He reminds me of William H. Macy especially in Fargo lol
Yet all his best movies are shot on film.
Lack of complete control creates artistic outcomes greater than a conscious mind can manage.
You have no idea what you’re talking about
Lynch hand goes like~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree with everything hes trying to say (minus the hand jiggle)
but i still feel film is what everything should be shot on then using DI your workflow should be digital so we can colour correct etc
@DANK0CITY Affordability to be a filmmaker? Last time I checked all major film productions could still afford film. Yes digital makes filmmaking more accessible, and I'm sure those digitally shot movies will exist regardless of the availability of film, but I am talking about the aesthetics of cinema that is being replaced by digital in today's films. Sorry that you can't appreciate what film has done for cinema. It's not just the fact that it "looks beautiful"...
Shoot a pair - R
@popaddict "all this digital crap"? All this complaining about digital being the death of film, if it wasn't for digital millions of people would never even get the opportunity to make movies - film is expensive and difficult by comparison to digital. Yes it looks beautiful, but as a filmmmaker I couldn't afford to be one if it wasn't for digital, and you probably couldn't either.
@TheForgottenFlesh That latter one was a good one. The first one wasn't a perfect example since you can't just use it to explain something to a random person without explaining the example, which you didn't at first. Saying he did it simply because he wanted to leaves a lot to the question.
Shouldn't we just drop this pointless argument?
Digital is killing the film aesthetic. Yes I know, we can talk endlessly about the pros and cons of digital filmmaking and changing technology and whatnot but fact is one day we'll look back on the times when movies were made by recording images on a tangible piece of film and viewed by projecting light through it at 24 frames per second. I think it's sad how we're losing something that defined an artistic medium. I wish I had been part of this industry in a time before all this digital crap :(
Why? Does she know how to play Risk?
twinkle twinkle little star
@popaddict As long as people like PTA, Nolan, and Tarantino are still relevant, film will never die off. They're like some of the most talented directors that are still active today and they are passionately against digital. If it comes to a day where we can no longer watch "films" on film, I will shoot myself or something hahahaha. Sorry but in most cases digital doesn't do it for me at all. It works for the tone of some films(Inland Empire, etc.) but in most cases it looks very ugly. Even RED.
@normansmother1 hahahha, "outweigh the negatives," nice pun.....
Is he trying to do some sort of a jedi mind trick with the hand?
@SatanicFilmHouse Thats because most of the greatest movies were shot before digital was invented
Lol 0:42 that guy is going to have some action with the girl on his left and he knows it :D
@normansmother1 Pun intended?
@TheForgottenFlesh That makes no sense. That's like driving 5 mph instead of the speed limit.
@TheForgottenFlesh Alright, I see what you're getting at, but I don't agree that you use good examples. Simply because he felt it was the right thing to do? For all you know I could be an 11 year old (16 actually) who knows nothing of the progress of films, thus those weren't good examples since they leave too much to the question, which was my original point. (Yeah, I realize the irony now)
this guy is talking about film and is a film director and the cameraman is showing us a clearly unfocused picture? Unbelievable.
Can't much argue with Lynch... but, he's not making a strong argument why he would shoot Digital over Film. He's talking about a "telecine" process that is all but extinct! If you acquire your images digitally or on film you are going to end up in the same place... Digital Intermediate (DI) High resolution scans of the film neg to finish digitally. A lot like an R3D or ARRIRAW file. Some people just prefer the look, latitude and tonality of film over digital. Options people... Options.
@fcwellborn beware of the LYNCH HAND!!!!!
Huh?
@xxbluejay21 Well Godard said it before that cinema is dead with the rise of tv, video, etc. Does it really matter what productions shoot their shitty videos with? Cinema is not cinema anymore. It's died. All I see are 2 hour long commercials nowadays.
he kind seem's like hes out of his mind
His haircut is so cult!
That was awesome, but I swear he has Asperger Syndrome!
David Lynch doesn't want to drag around cables, set up lights, wait hours and hours for a single shot, and deal with 100 +lb cameras. Digital is easier. Just that simple. But he has to go around talking about control and content and all this other shit to try to justify it. Thank God for Q.T. who comes out and tells it like it is, "Digital is the death rattle for films"
Come on! It sounds like your quoting from Mr. Plinkett's review. I don't think that's fair, in this case. If Lynch has a problem.. it's the exact opposite of George Lucas' problem.
Inland Empire Looked like shit. Please make real films again. Please.