Abrams film Super 8 , into which low-grade home movies figure prominently — its title comes from the name of a specific brand of 8mm film. That only leaves 70mm, the largest gauge and a recent subject of minor kerfuffles within the film world. Still an enfant terrible at 52, Tarantino made waves with his announcement that his latest feature The Hateful Eight would play in glorious 70mm at various "roadshow" locations around the country, complete with additional footage exclusive to the 70mm version.
Tarantino fashioned his newest effort as a capital-E Event in the tradition of the spectacle films of yore; the 70mm format and its dazzlingly rich colors, lush sound, and ravishingly detailed image were originally used to lift epics such as Ben-Hur and Lawrence of Arabia to godly proportions.
Seeing a film on 70mm is a transcendent experience for the senses, but the expenses and scarcity of equipment required for projection have been prohibitive for most theaters that would like to give it a whirl. For the most part, America's projectionists seem to be handling this well — though there have been problems.
The other dimension of what a movie looks like by the time it springs onto the silver screen is its aspect ratio , the measurement expressing the height and width of a film image. Some films are projected as rectangles, some are projected as longer rectangles, and some are projected as squares. But all of this can be manipulated digitally with modern technology. Most real-deal movies screen in a width-to-height ratio of either 1.
But every month seems to produce new exceptions to the rule. The French-Canadian drama Mommy the movie Netflix UK was displaying improperly above stood out from the pack due to its unorthodox ratio that mimicked an Instagram photo until one exhilarating sequence expanded to wider proportions. Another way to understand this is in the difference between old, box-like standard-definition televisions, which had an aspect ratio of , and modern, high-definition TVs, which have an aspect ratio of Standard definition was closer to a square than our current widescreens.
That, however, is not nearly as hazardous as home exhibition can be, where TV sets are liable to cut off, distend, or otherwise spoil the image. Usually a Blu-ray or DVD case will dictate the proper television settings for viewing the complete image, but the instinct to make use of the full TV screen can still result in an omission of important visual information. Having this information not only creates the satisfaction of assigning a name to recognizable parts of the film experience, but it also equips you to maximize the quality of the same.
The right to a moving picture, in its most apropos and complete form, is one of those unalienable rights of moviegoers, like the right to whip unpopped popcorn kernels at the heads of people using cellphones. Thus, a ticket purchased is a vote cast, a tacit sign of support behind a specific film, a specific theater, and specific mode of exhibition.
The least moviegoers can do before casting that vote of crucial importance is arm themselves with knowledge. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through understanding.
Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. That element of surprise is always worth. Their Professional Porta Series are undeniably some of the best in the film photography industry, being used by ultra professionals and larger-than-life influencers alike.
Whether these be formulated for wedding or portrait photographers, or made to work best with landscapes, pro films usually do one job exceptionally well. They all portray just the right amount of grain, are sharp without being clinically sharp, its colors are vibrant but not gaudy, and its speed is just right for an all-day shoot.
Read about the Kodak film stocks here. Fujifilm: Fujifilm film stocks are incredible color negative films made with extraordinary fine grain and great exposure latitude. Most of Fujifilm seems to prefer colder tones like green and blue, which makes it great for outdoor shooting unless you live in the desert. Inherent in all these is very precise quality control PetaPixel , Read about Fujifilm film stocks here.
CineStill: CineStill is a unique branch of film stock. While there are only 3 specific CineStill film stocks known in the film universe, they cover a wide range of cinematic goodness. Both are modified to allow it to be developed with the C process as opposed to the Eastman Color Negative process. Read about CineStill film stocks here. Film and digital, although producing various degrees of qualifying qualities and color science, can certainly be taken in tandem.
In fact, the beauty of digital is its easy post-processing manipulation to make it look like film. Contrary to the pompous purists on Twitter, you can virtually do what the heck it is you want to do with your work. If you value patience, film is worth it. However, aiming to capture a picture worth taking should be the ultimate goal.
For a broader perspective, here are key differences between digital and film on a more serious technical note. Requires a more intentional process, as stocks only allow a certain amount of frames per roll.
Cutting and assembling raw footage, adding music, dubbing colour correction, sound effects and more. We think we've identified one, subtle, process that helps film to store more visible information than digital. All of which may be true. And remember - this is just our theory: we're not going to be dogmatic about this and if anyone can prove us wrong, that's fine with us.
Both film and digital have a limit to their resolutions. With digital, the fundamental unit of resolution is the Pixel. Far from it. What it has instead is essentially random shaped crystals of chemicals. And of course these vary completely from frame to frame, and between different parts of the same frame.
Well, you can see film grain. No, the effect is much more subtle, and yet more profound, than that. This rather indecisive-sounding term is a powerful concept in the mechanics of digital media. Strictly, dither is noise which is added to an analogue signal, usually at the point just before it is digitised. And right now with the quality of the current generation of digital cameras, you really do not need to upgrade that fast Saying that today's digital cameras are disposable is not true.
Like everything else in the modern world, cars, phones, computers, these things have appeared to be disposable because many people either don't look after their possessions or think that they have to upgrade every time something new comes out.
WiltshireM The word disposable is all figurative in terms of values to me. I ran through at least a dozens of cameras since the Nikon D I don't literally throw them into the the trash; I just eBay them before or after I upgrade my equipment.
If they were film cameras, I would have kept all of them, because it's the film that I change and not the cameras. Changing film cameras would not give me better pictures in terms of color renditions, resolution, and or ease of use like their digital counterparts.
What does dp in dpreview mean? Skillfree chemical painting is dead. Artificallly intelligentable voltage painting is all the rage now. My crystallball says that soon we will voltage paint moving pixels at a rate that surpasses resolution of our retinas and my opinion is that this opinion piece s..
Clutch pedal? No thanks. Been there, done that. It's a chore, just like hand-winding watches or churning your own butter. All these things listed above are very much available in abundance with digital photography, and without the anxiety and cost of film. When I was shooting film, both monochrome and colour, self developed and printed, my results were very, very consistent. To achieve that level of consistency one has to be very methodical from start to finish.
That level did not suit everyone. I would have some kind of reservation about the consistency of color printing If you had that consistency, which may be true, then how long did it take you 6 monts later to match a particular color print and I am not mentioning the nightmare of burning and dodging and their consequences on color balance and accuracy. I surmise from your comment that you have not wet printed. When printing colour I always had printing sessions and printed in batches so fresh chemistry and paper.
Never did dodge and burn RA-4 prints and rarely in monochrome. Mainly because I was not very good at it. I was a big advocate of the zone system which did have some application in colour work. Test strips and a colour analyser helped.
One did develop a good eye for colour. The digital work flow is much more consistent with calibrated devices and screens etc. Where the problem arises is an image may look great on your carefully calibrated system, but when viewed on Joe Blogs cheap PC it could be a different story. It is not as bad as it was. Perhaps today not much of an issue. In times past, photographers who had bad results from the wet process were, invariably, sloppy workers.
Ken Rockwell says: "There are two kinds of photographers: those who make pictures, and those who just talk about it. Those who talk the most spend the least time doing, and thus have the least to contribute. I think he based that quote on a scene from a MAD comic, where the father says of his son's friends the same thing but with the 'making out' phrase where Rockwell substitutes 'make pictures'.
Digital IS better. Nevertheless there are still people who argue that they like the "warmer" sound of the analog LP, and that the CD is "antiseptic," meaning they actually prefer to hear the clicks and pops that come with playing vinyl LPs, and they are paying steep prices for LP records.
Go figure. I have not bought an LP since the s, when it was on the road to obsolescence, and I have not shot film since , when I bought my first DSLR camera. I do not miss having to drive to the film develper to have it processed, and wait an hour for the prints and negatives.
I don't have to scan the prints so that I can post them online. I calculated that the amount of money I saved on film and developing would save me enough money within a year to pay for the digital camera. It will be a freezing day in July before I shoot another roll of film again. Almost all of those nostalgic moonlighters are only capable to push button of nice looking, retroish film camera - send film to cheapest lab - scan negatives - post to instagram - brag about being true film conaisseurs, far superior to digital users.
I just haven't drank the digital Kool aid sorry. And I'm neither old, nor a hipster. Oh really. But your 'better' is not a universal 'better'. So the assertion is meaningless. However, since i use my cameras as an essential tool to create my images, i do prefer the latter in every single aspect.
Good maybe 10 years. My m is a 78 model, and recently had a service, making it good for another 42 years. Bling my ass. I don't have to pray, film sales have been consistently going up each year for the past several years.
Digital gives me a completely different connection to the process — the ability to see something, compose an image in my head. It was shooting film that made me see before shooting, composing an image in my head When people ask me in my 31 years as a photographer why I shoot Fujifilm I give them one answer. Sure the glass is phenomenal and the gear is beautiful and a pleasure to use both creatively and professionally.
But the one answer I give, is because of the X-Trans sensor. I really miss working in my darkroom. But because of the X-Trans sensor I can get everything I could from film in digital imaging.
Air conditioning is better, but I still like to open the windows If you are lazy yes, but race or rallyecars have manual boxes. Air travel is better, but I still like to drive or take the train Better in polluting? Air travel is a plague and corona would not have been a pandemic without it. If you like to shoot digital, go out, shoot, enjoy, and make images. If you like to shoot film, go out, shoot, enjoy, and make images. If you like to shoot tintypes and daguerreotypes, go out, shoot, enjoy, and make images.
I like to shoot digital and film including Polaroid. If I require a technically perfect, high resolution image, then I will use my D If I don't, I still get a lot of pleasure running a roll of Velvia through one of my film bodies. It doesn't make one better than the other. I think this says it best! As i age [74] I'm returning to my roots, and three Nikon film cameras. I have let my new D, set on the shelf more and more, and out shooting one of my Nikon N80s.
But digital is better, with some caveats. One can argue the technical merits of analog vs digital all day and no one will win, but holistically, the overall merits of digital cannot be denied. And equally important, anyone can take a pic and transport it around the world. For the simple reason more people can enjoy photography, at various skill and results levels, digital cannot be beaten. You don't know what you are talking about. Digital has made it easier for them I find that it is easy to become photo "desensitized" because of all this content.
However, there are also millions of great photos that would not have seen the light of day if not for digital. The ability to control the camera to obtain images that I could only hope for using film was an eye opener for me. Add to that the ability to process your image in an infinite number of ways using a computer is a big added benefit. Surely, one can also use the dark room to create images in a multitude of ways to obtain the image that your minds eye sees Ansel Adams was famous for this , digital offers an easier way and more options to do the same and more.
So what is best depends on ones history, experience and the anticipation of what your image will reveal after those camera clicks.
It is at the end an individual presence. There is no higher authority to make the determination. It is not settled and will remain a subject of trivial and contentious talk. Both are ways of obtaining an image; a matter of taste and involvement.
Digital produces a final product immediately subject to voluntary, not mandatory post processing to taste or final vision if any. Analog or film is a more personally involving process including but not requiring development using aa variety of solutions to produce a desired negative image which may be subject to a direct printing process using chemicals con paper of to produce a final print to taste; or alternatively scanned to a computer' which image may then be altered to taste for final print output from a computer.
But you already knew all that. One is more convenient and the other more time consuming. Both produce a final image; each different from the other but neither better than the other. We today live in a world far better than past times with more choices to produce a desired result. So get on with it; shooting that is.
If you are unable to - at least! One thing I miss from the Film days is the respect that Photographers used to get, you had to know what an "F" stop was you had to hone your craft.
Many of today's "Photographers" are just blasters in program mode. You really had to know your craft shooting weddings as there was no preview and no second takes. Film shooters know what I'm talking about. Love the reactions I get when I walk around with my old Mamiya 15 shots per roll. Really compose before you hit the shutter button. Don't get me wrong , use and love digital and its convenience etc. A few years ago I was taking some pix at a wedding with my Digilux 2 and shooting in RAW which means the camera locked up for 20 seconds whilst the data was being saved to card.
I crouched down to take a pic of the Bride when clatter, clatter. I looked up and said to my friend "what are you doing? Film cameras are out.. While its creation included some arbitraryness, it is the largest possible image area that still allows for mostly handholdable and mostly still affordable cameras and lenses for general photography use.
Also, it is very precisely defined as 36x24mm. Digital can be "better" today mostly in the sense that digital sensor have the edge over film, probably since several years but take a look at the digital pictures of the '00s take a book of that era, or maybe just browse flickr by date : there are plenty of obvious problems, covering the entire spectrum from minor defects to "the horror" — details lost due to lack of dynamic range, those awful "rainbow" skies, etc.
Roughly speaking, we somewhat lost a decade; and while great pictures have still been taken by great phtographers, how many of them could have been better maybe far bettere just by keeping the old standard? We did worse with the audio market: the ubiquitous mp3 can have at most the same quality as the old optical standard from the 80s; and we use the new standard just because, for a very brief moment, some stupid devices mainly for listening to music while doing other things had too little storage even for a lossless compression; what a shame….
I started recording with PCM Digital in the s, and haven't use tape since. Most of my sound was for motion picture and video release. Therefore none of it was ever played on a Discman. To be honest I wasn't sure I correctly got your point and still I am not , so I just pointed out the rationale behind what I said, in case I hadn't been able to make it clear enough — I still have some difficulties when expressing ideas in english. I take no side, a priori, in the analog vs digital debate; my point is rather trivial, ideed: change your usual way to do something when the new way brings some improvement, or at least shows some margin for it.
For sure the hi-fi era had its share of unreasonable behaviours; but going from the redbook cd to the mp3 reader is a step back, or maybe to the side, "audiowise": no improvement is achievable and that's precisely why I said it was worse than converting to digital photography when digital sensors weren't still on par with film on every aspect. I compared at once the encoding and the support hence the portable players just because the establishment of a new standard is a marketing process: you buy the whole package, or you don't.
The problem of digital vs film is that customers expectations are not beyond what small digital formats deliver mediocre quality. The cost model of digital cameras is radically different from the cost model of film cameras. Cost of digital camera increase exponentially with sensor size, consequently there is no possible profitable market for 4x5 digital systems except customer made unit at tremendous cost.
Consequently, customers no knowing what 4x5 quality looks like have gotten used to expect no more than 24x36 FF digital quality.
0コメント