Digital Camaras VS Analogic Camaras!

I find your spelling more disturbing...

SP

Lay off the nasal spray. You're damaging your frontal lobe.

That Superman photo looks better than any other photo in this thread. You lose.

Since these shots are almost all publicity photos and not actual frames from the films themselves, I'm not sure you've made a very compelling argument. No, actually, I'm 100% positive you haven't.

I don't really buy into the whole digital vs. photochemical war that some people wrap themselves up in. In some instances, digital is better. In others, it looks like crap. The same can be said for film. Ultimately, it's what the filmmakers do with it that's important.

Yeah, the whole "digital vs. film" debate has reached a point where it's kind of moot--in the end, both are going to be a stylistic choice of the director, no different than deciding what aspect ratio to film in, or what kind of lighting to set up. There are some cases where digital achieves something film couldn't dream of (see: Collateral). There are still many areas in terms of warmth and richness of tones where film stock still bests all opponents. The line between the two have become very blurred, and it's only going to get harder to see the difference.

Let me get this straight: you're telling me that every movie since the start of the digitall era was shot on digitall movie motion video and digitall picture camaras instead of analogic movie motion film and photo picture camaras?

Or are you just complaining about the differences between old and new publicity stills?

First of all, this is the best thread ever. Secondly, most of the "digitall" images were shot on film, but I think they mostly went through a DI so fair enough. Supes is indeed digital, but I can't tell the difference. Anyhow, there is one thing to be learned in this thread: publicity photos are invariably cheesy.

My vote is still for "analogic" and not "digitall," however.

The sad thing is that there could be an interesting argument about cinematography and how it's gotten so stylized and glossy in recent years as to strip away emotional involvement, but it's buried below all the stupidity. Any thread that promotes Robocop in any way (even if it is just the cinematography or whatever) I'm okay with, though.

What you are saying doesn't make sense, and I'm not talking about spelling and grammatical errors. For one thing, many of the recent movies you are talking about were shot on film, as are several of the publicity stills you posted. So really your complaint is that you don't like the look of contemporary films. But you also seem to think that films and photographs should look the same as they did in the past. You're proposing that we actually take steps backwards so that all movies have a certain specific look that you like, one that is apparently rooted in the 80's. That part doesn't make sense. The aesthetics of film are always going to change over time. It's inevitable. Why would the look of film, or the technology and techniques involved in creating that look, remain stagnant? As with any technology or art form, it evolves continuously. Personal preference or not, what you are talking about is silly.

Analogic? It's reasoning that you pull out of your ass. See the Politics Forum for examples.

i personally dont like the look of digital. i dont like how video-y it looks even with cameras used on flicks like collateral. one whip pan, one handheld movement and immediately it takes me out of the movie.

but recently i rewatched episode 1 after episode 3 and all i could think of was.. where did the damn color go? same director, same cinematographer, and look at the image quality contrast between episodes 1 and 2. or even once upon a time in mexico and desperado.

there are things that film does that i love right now, that i havent seen effectively reproduced on digital -- i LIKE the grain, i like the strobe effect that sometimes happens with a lot of lighting and lower fps, i like the light bleeds, i like the high contrast -- but the trade offs just arent really worth it. ive shot 5 shorts totally a little under 3 hours and 2 commercials, and i cant imagine shooting on film. i wouldnt really know where to start in terms of editing or anything like that. but hd stuff... the thing i just shot looks like it might as well be on nbc in terms of quality of the image, which is surprising but true. it looks better than a lot of straight to video movies ive seen. and i edited on my own home pc.

i dont know why i wrote all that, but digital is here to stay for so, so many reasons. im a film guy, i was raised on film. but digital is the future of the business, maybe not the art but definitely the business.

A lot of the people fighting for film stock, the citing of the love they hold for the picture grain, how it "feels warmer", and so forth, is all sounding very much like the people who said LP's would never disappear after CD's came along. They said that the hisses and scratches were part of people's memories of their favorite music, and that digital clarity would never replace the warmth of listening to a record.

I wonder how that turned out.

TheCynic is right. Digital isn't going away, and people like Ebert need to realize that progress happens. Digital movies aren't perfect yet, but they're progressing quickly, and it's already changed the way movies are made. Everybody had better get used to it.