Like the original Star Wars trilogy, Indiana Jones, etc.
35mm is the standard for films. I wonder what all of the classic films would look like if 70mm was the standard.
I get its prohibitively expensive which is why it's rare for a film to do it.
It's just fun to imagine if 70mm was the standard used by basically every film.
The only reason not to film digital is if you enjoy grain, which is objectively an imperfection.
People might say that 23.976 fps is objectively an imperfection, but those that have seen 60 fps film footage knows it utterly destroys that movie magic feel. It turns movies into gaudy soap opera effect garbage even though 60 fps is closer to what our eyes can see.
Likewise when I see a movie shot on certain film stocks like what Logan's run was shot on, it's beautiful and has an intangible quality to it that I've never experienced with digital movies. I think digital is completely charmless. If I were a movie star in the modern age, I'd never really feel like a movie star because of the way modern movies look. Even modern movies that are shot on film have an almost digital look to them because the film stocks don't have interesting characteristics and the characteristics they do have are probably destroyed in the post process so it looks like every other modern movie.
I don't want a grainy film noise ridden picture, but being shot on film which has film grain doesn't necessarily mean the film is grainy looking. Many movies shot on film are pristine.
Take the difference between Goodfellas and Casino. Both shot on film, but Goodfellas is grainy and Casino is pristine.
But both look far better than modern movies because there's charm and style in how the picture looks that modern movies lack.
That's just current habit and preconceptions. If you got used to 60 fps you'd hate less than that.
Perhaps post-processing skills aren't up to par, but that can and should get better with time.
But you're attributing things to film that aren't intrinsic to film.
Nah bro, you're not going to pull the social conditioning card on this one. Framerates have the same immutable characteristics as musical chords, which is why super high fps is used sparingly and skillfully in action anime and super low fps is used for SD sequences.
I don't think so. I think it's just cultural.
So you admit it's not objective but something that you need to condition yourself towards?
The opposite. People have been conditioned to preferring lower framerates.
I get seasick watching 60fps.
I can game at 144 fps just fine.
I can watch movies at 24 fps just fine.
I can game at 60fps just fine, too.
But I get physically sick watching 60fps shows and movies. That's not social conditioning, it's physical conditions.
People get seasick playing VR until they get used to it. People get sick at sea until they get used to it. Getting sick because one isn't used to higher framerates is no argument for saying that lower framerates are objectively superior.
That being said, my original point was that film grain is an objective imperfection of a hypothetical perfect picture. There really is no good reason to say that film is better than digital.
So once again, no objectivity, only conditioning.
Again, no.
Film grain and 23.976fps can be easily replicated digitally, just like the compressed audible range of vinyl can easily be replicated on CD.
You like the aesthetic? Ok, cool. But it's not objectively better, and it's literally technically inferior to modern tech.
That's a rather good point. Hadn't really thought about it like that for some reason.
4k super high quality TVs make movies absolutely unwatchable for me. I want that 24 fps rubbish. It just feels...I dunno, too sterile or something. Maybe it's just some low level psychology thing with just enough frames missing that our imagination is filling in enough of the gaps that it provides a more fulfilling experience similar to how reading the book is always better than watching the movie adaptation. Whatever it is, the super high quality 60 fps video experience just drains my desire to watch a film. I don't understand why, but it ruins it for me.
I wonder if the lower framerate somehow makes it a little easier to keep track of what's going on (visually) throughout scenes. Especially during rather action packed and chaotic scenes.
It's also a little difficult to gauge honestly, since most modern films, filmed on digital, have generally adopted a lot of Abrams-style techniques that make things extra jarring. The reboot of Total Recall comes to mind. The whole bloody thing seemed like an endless chase scene.
Not that it was that bad of a movie, but in the end I didn't feel like anything happened throughout it that I could give a single fuck about.
Artsy fartsy stuff aside, it's pretty hypocritical of Hollywood to have taken so long to shift to digital considering how much of a toxic environmental nightmare everything about film and videotape manufacture/developing is. And what's up with all the niggers in fur coats?
I feel the same way about traditional animation vs. CGI.
Go watch the amateur-made Daicon IV music video. It has visually aged so, so well compared to CGI stuff.
The creators went on to found Studio Gainax and make some of the greatest anime of all time. Today most of them still work for Studios Trigger and Khara.
lol, is this why vintage porn looks so much better than the modern stuff? 😆
That's just because the women weren't covered with tattoos.
I'll take a few tattoos over orange tans and silicone boobs. Not that there aren't still a fair number of boob jobs (and video filters) with modern content, but I always got the impression that it was rampant as hell up until the last decade or two.
It's still rampant.
depends, some film has such a high grain count/density that it offers a much higher "resolution" than todays digital
VistaVision was more practical.