It’s crazy to me that all this money and effort is to make this ultra high-quality product and in the end, it will be mostly viewed on streaming services with compression and shitty video quality
There are still a ton of benefits to shooting film even if the delivery medium is digital in the end. The film look can be somewhat replicated shooting digital, but it's never quite the same.
Subtractive color, grain, dye layers, halation, aberration, focus due to dye layers, how it handles highlights and shadows, how it handles over and under exposure on an organic chemical medium just give a different look than digital even if you can get close by using software like Davinci Resolve or shoot on digital cinema cameras that have a more filmic rendering like the Alexa.
And even though the streaming services are compressed af, the "look" gets baked in enough that it makes a meaningful difference even at lower bitrates/depths.
I fully agree that film and digital don't give the exact same look, but I don't think 'benefit' is the right word. Film stock captures how film stock captures. That's not inherently better or worse.
I think in most situations where someone is shooting on film like this, just shoot on an Alexa265, don't limit yourself to the 3 minute maximum rolling time, don't have the same issues with noise as the full 70mm IMAX. It will result in a better film overall even if the visuals have a different feel and quality.
(I am never going to be in the situation where I can make this kind of choice, fanciest cameras I've used are broadcast quality)
I meant that there are benefits to shooting film, not that shooting film as a whole is inherently superior to or better than digital. But there is a look to it that can't quite be replicated on digital.
That said, I do agree with your comment as a whole. Look no further than Sir Roger Deakins work (Sicario is a great example) to see how artfully a digital sensor can be utilized.
A minor counterpoint might be that even if the "film look" is rooted in some intangible feeling of nostalgia, I still think its a rather valid thing to chase. The fact that it's still something that is sought after even in how colorists grade digital footage, kind of says it all in my opinion. Heck, 24p and 180º shutter angle is a relic of the early days of Hollywood yet it still endures and is subconsciously associated in our minds as the "movie" look. If that, then why not the "film look" as well?
I'm not actually all that dogmatic about it when it comes to film vs digital, and I know I'm opening a can of worms with this debate. Interesting discussion none the less.
The double negative is throwing me. Are you suggesting that there is no difference between viewing a projected 70 mm screening versus viewing a digital laser projection screening? or are you saying that scanning 70 mm to a digital format has no consequence on the final output?
Because neither is correct.
Also, neither has anything to do with what I was talking about in the comment above.
My comment had to do with the difference between digital versus analog CAPTURE. Yours has to do with digital versus analog OUTPUT/DELIVERY.
Now a long, nerdy rebuttal of your comment above:
Your comment doesn't work because scanning film is an inherently compromised process. If you've ever tried scanning 35 mm film at home or know people who work in a lab, you would know that you're making dozens of color/contrast/exposure decisions and assumptions during the process. Even at obscenely high resolutions, because of the inherently stepped nature of digital formats, you are losing information that is present on an analog medium like film. Additionally, you're at the mercy of sensor dynamic range of the capturing scanner and the digital artifacts that will be introduced simply for the fact that it was converted to digital.
There are colorists whose entire jobs are color matching film and digital sources. The top professionals talk about the compromises that must be made simply to bridge the gap. You'll still get something close and in line with the original source, but it won't be the same.
If you think about it for a second, even the outputted file matters. I don't know what codecs theaters are using, but at least for streaming or other mediums like on Netflix or BluRay, you're viewing a lossy file. There are choices that are made about where to scrap information (usually in the shadows), but there are always tradeoffs.
Another example - What if at the pixel level, there are pixels where the "underlying" area of the film being scanned is multicolor? Meaning, there are multiple colors in one "pixel" of the film. Well, the scanner has to computationally make a decision on what to do with that. It'll usually average it, but there are other approaches. But that's an inherent trade off. It might not be of significant consequence in the end, but it is a real tradeoff none the less.
In any case, I don't think most people really have the ability to appreciate this stuff when they're watching on Netflix with incredibly compressed codecs a TV with "clear motion" frame interpolation turned on with a $250 soundbar connected for "more bass." And that's totally fine! But, with respect to you and your comment, to say that film can be digitized to look identical to its source is an argument made from ignorance.
Are you stumped by people saying "It's not impossible"?
What I'm saying is that if you can scan a frame of film in raw format backlit by the same spectrum of light source, then it can be reproduced. I'm not saying that it's simple, or easy to emulate, but the data is captured.
Are you stumped by the paragraphs of what I typed out? Because the data might be captured, but not perfectly and with several compromises that I have detailed in my comment if you cared to read it. It's not just a matter of it being not "simple or easy to emulate," it's a matter of it being fundamentally compromised.
Let me spell it out simply for you. If you digitally scan film, you lose information. Period.
It leaves the door open for higher quality in the future. Right now, the film resolution on 70mm is about 3x what we can get on digital. When digital technology improves, we'll have room to create higher res digital copies. It probably won't be noticeable to the average person, but the master quality is very important when it comes to copying, remastering, etc.
35mm has less density of detail than 8k, which is the future standard. 70mm makes it more future-proof if you insist on shooting on film. However, IMAX is a different story, as it comes with a different aspect ratio all-together. More sensible thing to do right now is to shoot on 8k+ digital of course.
This is probably what people said when they filmed stuff on digital cameras instead of film that is now almost completely unwatchable and unscalable...
Aside from the awesome spectacle (normal people no on Reddit like IMAX), recording on IMAX film means it can be reproduced more easily at an extremely high quality and resolution for future formats.
I am a person that does want 4K ultra HD available on physical and digital when possible. I don’t know which streaming service services reduce the quality of films but I always watch in the highest quality when possible because I got a great TV. I happen to live in a city playing the 70mm version, but I’m sure it’s gonna be booked for ages and I’m not the theater type of guy. But anyways, I’m saying it’s crazy that most people will see in it reduce quality because I’m sure all the effort is for a very quality product that I would love to enjoy
It's so weird how Reddit used to be the place where the general consensus would be from cinema nerds absolutely drooling over this, and now it's people like you that call a director "up his own hole" for doing something cool lol.
The average film goer on this site went from people who like movies and nerd out about them became MCU fanboys that think End Game is the pinnacle of film.
118
u/CosmicChar1ey Jul 16 '26
It’s crazy to me that all this money and effort is to make this ultra high-quality product and in the end, it will be mostly viewed on streaming services with compression and shitty video quality