May 24, 2014

Quentin Tarantino Says Digital Projection is the 'Death of Cinema As I Know It'

Quentin Tarantino has not been shy about his distaste for all things digital. He has stayed true to shooting on 35mm film, but most theaters and distributors are moving away from projecting in the format. Speaking at the Cannes Film Festival (where a 20th anniversary screening of Pulp Fiction is the only film showing in 35mm), Tarantino again reiterated his displeasure about digital projection, going so far as to say that the loss of 35mm projection means that what he knew as cinema is dead.

Here is the entire press conference from Cannes, skip to 5:22 for the conversation about 35mm and digital:

Yeah as far as I'm concerned, digital projection and DCPs is the death of cinema as I know it. It's not even about shooting your film on film  or shooting your film on digital, the fact that most films now are not presented in 35mm means that the war is lost and digital projections -- that's just television in public. Apparently the whole world is okay with television in public but what I knew as cinema is dead.

Skipping to 42:15, Quentin talks about the good side of filmmaking, that young filmmakers can actually buy their own camera and put together a small crew and an interesting story, and actually make a film. He mentioned that back in his day, it took at least 16mm to make a movie, and that was just a mountain that not as many were able to climb. Even though there is a lot more work being made when things are democratized, he mentioned that there will be that one "flower in the dust bin" that wouldn't have had the tenacity to make a film in the old days. He finished by saying that while he understood why you might choose digital if you're just starting out, "why an established filmmaker would should on digital I have no fucking idea."

Speaking about this subject before, here is what he said in 2012 during the Hollywood Reporter roundtable of directors:

Tarantino: No, I hate that stuff. I shoot film. But to me, even digital projection is — it’s over, as far as I’m concerned. It’s over. So if I’m gonna do TV in public, I’d rather just write one of my big scripts and do it as a miniseries for HBO, and then I don’t have the time pressure that I’m always under, and I get to actually use all the script. I always write these huge scripts that I have to kind of — my scripts aren’t like blueprints. They’re not novels, but they’re novels written with script format. And so I’m adapting the script into a movie every day. The one movie that I was actually able to use everything — where you actually have the entire breadth of what I spent a year writing — was the two Kill Bill movies ’cause it’s two movies. So if I’m gonna do another big epic thing again, it’ll probably be like a six-hour miniseries or something.

Watching a movie shot on 35mm and projected on 35mm is certainly a different experience, and for a lot of older films that have (ironically) been restored digitally and then printed back out to 35, they look amazing. I've seen lots of these restored films, which probably look better than they ever did due to improvements in technology. While there are plenty of movies still shooting on film, pretty much none are finished on film -- they've got some sort of digital intermediate going on in-between.

More to the point though, the real source of his disdain is the loss of the magic of the theater experience. While it's hard to describe the amazing experience of seeing a brand new print of a cinema classic (I saw The 400 Blows the first time this way), 35mm prints don't stay pristine forever, and after many showings can degrade significantly. Projecting digitally might not have the same feel, but after the 1000th screening, it still looks like the same movie you started with.

I think what might be most interesting about the conversation is that if Tarantino was a new filmmaker starting out in 2014, his first major film Reservoir Dogs, which cost $1.2 million, would probably have been shot digitally, and it also probably would have been distributed through digital means -- if it got theatrical distribution at all. Any great art form goes through periods of significant change, and we happen to be in one right now. I think there is a time and a place to respect and cherish what has come before, but in the end the majority of the viewing public doesn't really care how a movie is made or projected, they just want to be entertained.

Link: Cannes 2014 - Quentin Tarantino -- The Press Conference -- YouTube

Your Comment

176 Comments

Hey Quentin, in case you didn't notice... Newsflash, the world is already all-digital. No one cares about nostalgia geeks like yourself.

May 24, 2014 at 12:22PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Natt

Very intelligently put. Amazing contribution to the conversation.

May 24, 2014 at 2:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
adam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0KjNAVGIgU take a look at what nuri bilge ceylan this year cannes winner
says on digital

May 24, 2014 at 4:19PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
dima

Opps to film---he said digital looks better than 35mm film.

Man, that lens at :27 to :34! Looks like I could buy a car with how much it must have cost!

May 24, 2014 at 6:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Gene

this made me laugh...

May 24, 2014 at 9:32PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
jerod

+1

Tarentino is a dumbass/ arrogant fool

I remember a youtube video of him trying to explain the different between digital and film by referencing FPS saying that film is 24fps , while digital is not a film, " NO Sh!t sherlock" He himself did not know how to explain film vs Video, i could not finish the video.

In my opinion he has had a few good movies but for the most part his cheesy repetitive film tatics are almost cookie cutter.

Honestly if someone did a spoof of a Tarentino film i probably could not decipher beteween the 2, not to mention the hollywood stories and rumors of him stealing ideals.

May 24, 2014 at 7:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
JAYEE

Why don't you make the spoof then?

May 24, 2014 at 9:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
julian

+1

May 25, 2014 at 2:21AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
J

I have more important things to do with my time , you must be a Stan of his cheesy work

May 25, 2014 at 4:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
jaye

You're the only dumbass here. Take a look in the mirror.

October 5, 2014 at 11:00AM

3
Reply
Jamey
Film director/ writer
88

You're an imbecile, if the world is already digital how is Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' getting an international 35mm and 70mm release? Clever comment egg head. You're not a film maker.

October 5, 2014 at 10:58AM

2
Reply
Jamey
Film director/ writer
88

I think that he is allowed to be as irrational as he wants. He's Tarantino. His character matches his films.

Most of us have even used his last name as an adjective at some point. "Oh that's very Tarantino..."

May 24, 2014 at 12:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Josh

"the viewing public...they just want to be entertained" - you couldn't have said it better. We techies love reading this website and drooling over all the gadgets we can use to make film - but the public doesn't care. Whether it's a Narrative film or a Documentary, they want to be entertained (or informed) in an interesting, creative way. And that means it's 95% about the content (what's in front of the camera) and 5% about gear. Ok, maybe, I'm exaggerating, but as long as the picture is ok, and the sound is ok, they don't care. People are still watching videotapes! I think it's liberating - we can use a cheap digital cam to shoot and I think that's what is great about the change to digital. But I still see a problem - even with cheaper, more accessible gear, filmmakers are still stressing that the camera they have isn't perfect, that you don't have a slider, etc., or that you won't be taken seriously if your cam isn't a RED - let's not turn into the old film industry that we're trying to replace! Just get out there and make a movie - remember, look for interesting content - not interesting gear. That's what it's always been about, not whether you're shooting film or digital.

May 24, 2014 at 12:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Ed Wright

Actually when I look at 6K I wish every movie and documentary I have seen had been done in 6K. Like, the black and white photos in Ken Burn documentaries would have had a richer look and more detail. So with the intrigue and beauty of 6K there is beginning to be an important difference between the mediums for shooting. Higher K's is starting to distance itself from everything else. Hopefully within 1 to 2 years 6K will be lower priced and affordable.

May 24, 2014 at 1:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

There is no "6K format'. Red Dragon "6K" is actually around 4K of measurable resolution when projected in a 4K DCP, 4K reference monitor or UltraHD monitor. I really wish people would stop throwing around pre-debayering sensor numbers as actual resolution. "6K' is Red's sensor number prior to debayer, not the measurable resolution in the file that results. It's misleading and confuses broad numbers of people in and out of the film industry. 6K of pixels is required to cover the resolution lost in created a true RGB pixel. That is why the Red Monochrome is higher resolution camera than the standard model in terms of actual detail resolved. Red Epic can look soft in 4K despite being a "5K" sensor. Dragon footage looks notably better than Epic at 4K playback.

May 24, 2014 at 2:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply

May 24, 2014 at 3:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
saywut

lol

May 24, 2014 at 6:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

Well stated from someone that does not use a full real name nor links to their site. Look in the mirror troll.

May 24, 2014 at 11:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply

"Actually when I look at 6K I wish every movie and documentary I have seen had been done in 6K" LOL LOL

May 24, 2014 at 4:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Marcus

Its Gene, what do you expect but stupidity?

May 24, 2014 at 6:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
chris

There's a total of 4 Gene's that comment here. You are referring to the one that changes his name all the time and makes hit and run comments using other people's ID's.

May 24, 2014 at 6:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

Well Marcus, at least you can laugh. You don't seem to be much the laughing type. That is if this really is Marcus.

May 24, 2014 at 6:51PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

I'm referring to the psychotic digital/resolution addict/RED fan boy, that cannot accept that people prefer a film aesthetic over a digital one. Seriously, your parents must have died when you were young in a lab developing film stock and now you spend every waking hour trying to convince people that their eyes are wrong and that no one likes the look of film over the digital aesthetic. Its pathetic.

May 25, 2014 at 6:14AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
chris

Simmer down son.

May 25, 2014 at 8:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

A true 6k digital format because does not exist.

May 24, 2014 at 5:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rich

^ Awe crap. Sorry about the typo. LOL.

May 24, 2014 at 5:34PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Rich

So you like lots of Ks, do ya?

June 2, 2014 at 11:22AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Muh

I directed a movie shot on a Sony Z5 and a friend of my told me that in order to be taken seriously I should have shot with a RED camera or something on those lines. If content is king does it really matter what camera I shoot with?

May 24, 2014 at 3:55PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Ronald

You're friend should stick to working in a bank.

May 25, 2014 at 11:56AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Wilbur

Yea, no one cares. That's about as relevant as complaining about color film back in the old days. If the tool, i.e. Film stock , is what cinema is all about to you then you need to go back to the drawing board. It has always been and will always be about story. As the saying goes, " When the cost of making a film is the same as pencil and paper, there you will find the true artist". Storytelling won't die, it'll just change.

May 24, 2014 at 12:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Fred

I remember reading that when silent movies were on the way out and "talkies" started to take over there were people that thought the movie experience would never be the same because "The Mighty Wurlitzer" organ created so much emotion and actors would never be able to match it. (they were right about some actors though ;^) )

May 24, 2014 at 1:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Gene

Well said Fred.

May 24, 2014 at 1:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Steve

+1

I dare anyone to name a beautiful well shot film with a crappy dialouge and story to win an academy award, go ahead ill wait..........................

However there have been tons of straight to DVD movies that have had beautiful film shots, color correction and even a stellar cast at times but a crappy story or direction of movie story telling .

Technical picture aspects do matter but only to a degree .

Shawshank Redemeption, Forrest Gump, Training Day, Gladiator etc could have all been shot with a digital camera with no overall big change in the telling of the story

May 24, 2014 at 8:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
JAYEE

James Cameron's Avatar.

May 24, 2014 at 9:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Lily

Yes.

May 25, 2014 at 8:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

War? He views it as a war?

I guess there is a percentage of people that cannot change from what they're used to. I suppose it may have been the same when cars were taking over transportation. There were probably people that though horses should have been continued to be used and something important in the transportation experience was being lost with the use of cars.

I don't have any issue at all with the change that has happened. I don't have sentimental attachment to the look of movies. I only have sentimental attachment to the stories told and the actors, and the scenery and settings of the movies. If Les Misérables of 1935 had been shot in digital I would still remember the candle stick scene, or Charles Laughton yelling, "Valjean!!", the same as it was on film.

Truth is I like the look of 6K, more than film. And I can't wait for 8K.

At the same time I hope I don't sound demeaning of those who want every movie shot in film. We are all different. One isn't more important than the other.

May 24, 2014 at 12:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Right, because digital projection prevents you from overwriting dialog.

May 24, 2014 at 1:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

lol

May 24, 2014 at 1:21PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

I see where he's coming from

I remember when i watched my first digitally projected film several years ago on a 4K projector, it just didn't have the same feeling as it used too, I'm getting used to the change, but I love film, I'm very sad I'm not going to be able to shoot with it, as i still feel theres a true beauty to it, films look different, the imperfections make them shine.

Also, I'm going to repeat the words of my screenwriting lecturer, you might all attack me but... STORY ISN'T MOST IMPORTANT! I'm not a camera nerd (well a bit) but what is actually most important isn't the stories, but is the characters, A film can have an incredible, but if they don't create good characters, I'll get bored, I've watched loads of films which are amazing, with extremely simple story lines, but what makes me fall in love with them is the characters.

May 24, 2014 at 1:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Jed Darlington-...

The story IS the characters. I thought we were talking about film.

May 25, 2014 at 10:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Story is not the characters. Have you written a script before?

June 2, 2014 at 11:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Muh

He says it like he is saying something so important. It isn't.

Make and enjoy good content (stories, images, holograms, whatever).

May 24, 2014 at 1:44PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Oh Quentin, do grow up. This is such selfish, cliquey nonsense. Joe makes the point above, if Tarantino was starting out today, he too would be making 'public television', and be derided for it by some privileged hollywood figure who'd forgotten about his audience.

Surely 'cinema' is in the story, and how it's told, not in the medium of distribution.

May 24, 2014 at 1:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Question: You and your cameraman, Wally Pfister, are—along with Steven Spielberg—among the last holdouts who shoot on film in an industry that’s moved to digital. What’s your attraction to the older medium?

Christopher Nolan: For the last 10 years, I've felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I've never understood why. It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven't seen that reason yet.

Q: Have you ever thought about communicating your feelings to the industry and other directors?

A: I’ve kept my mouth shut about this for a long time and it’s fine that everyone has a choice, but for me the choice is in real danger of disappearing. So right before Christmas I brought some filmmakers together and showed them the prologue for The Dark Knight Rises that we shot on IMAX film, then cut from the original negative and printed. I wanted to give them a chance to see the potential, because I think IMAX is the best film format that was ever invented. It’s the gold standard and what any other technology has to match up to, but none have, in my opinion. The message I wanted to put out there was that no one is taking anyone’s digital cameras away. But if we want film to continue as an option, and someone is working on a big studio movie with the resources and the power to insist [on] film, they should say so. I felt as if I didn’t say anything, and then we started to lose that option, it would be a shame. When I look at a digitally acquired and projected image, it looks inferior against an original negative anamorphic print or an IMAX one.

May 24, 2014 at 2:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Pirooz Khalesi

Nice for those with a big budget, like he has. Most will have to rent, or use a GH4, or 5D, or AF100, etc., i.e., digital.

May 24, 2014 at 2:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

He finished by saying that while he understood why you might choose digital if you’re just starting out, “why an established filmmaker would should on digital I have no fucking idea.” (Quentin Tarantino)

The message I wanted to put out there was that no one is taking anyone’s digital cameras away. But if we want film to continue as an option, and someone is working on a big studio movie with the resources and the power to insist [on] film, they should say so. (Christopher Nolan)

May 24, 2014 at 2:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Pirooz Khalesi

IMAX may have a future. But, apparently, ARRI is working an a 70MM 8K sensor. IMAX may lose out to that camera.

The answer to the digital look, for those that don't like the digital takeover, is lenses. Some lenses make a more "digital' look than others. Experimenting with this and that lens may be the cure for those needing to keep the 'filmic' look.

May 24, 2014 at 2:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

I just hope that in addition to whatever their new toy ends up being; Arri keeps making a 2.8k Alexa with an improved sensor (more DR). I don't need see to see every pore, pimple and wrinkle on the faces of my actors.

I have a gut feeling that the Alexa is going to become the new Arri Iic, the camera that Arri stopped making, but everyone kept on shooting...

May 25, 2014 at 12:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Wilbur

It appear that higher K's make richer colors. That's what I will be looking for in the 8K sensor. It promises to be the prettiest picture ever.

May 25, 2014 at 1:15PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Need to make a correction: Panavision is working on an 8K 70mm. Arri on a 6K 65mm.

May 26, 2014 at 3:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

So from what I understand 35 mm is pretty much just nostalgia? or maybe a bit warmer feel than digital is? I mean CD compared to LP isn't really THAT different, it's mostly just the idea of it.
I get him though, but I don't see it being as devastating as he does. Maybe it's just because I grew up watching digital films.

May 24, 2014 at 2:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Emil

Wrong. CDs and LPs are drastically different. On so many levels.

May 30, 2014 at 1:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Marcus

To my mind film is way better than digital, but it is sometimes difficult to be objective because old school thought can be subjective and even nostalgic. Aesthetics and perceptions change. Digital is way more convenient than film and certainly isn't bad. We've all seen some cheap cameras turning in some really good looking work.

Film was elitist by it's expensive nature; which aspiring filmmaker can nowadays afford or be bothered to handle a 35mm camera, then whip out a 35mm projector to view the material after waiting relatively ages for the development of the negative ??

Also, sorry Quentin but your work is derivative and the original 35mm films already exist for us to own......on digital.

May 24, 2014 at 2:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Saied

When I shot on 16mm in film school, I enjoyed the process. But, let's face it, it was extraordinarily expensive to pay for everything involved: the film stock, film developing, the work print, negative cutting, color timing, an answer print, a release print, and a sound mix.

I do, however, have fond memories for editing on an upright Moviola. There was a tactile pleasure in physically handling the work print.

But times have changed. If anything, the transition to digital filmmaking has democratized the art of film.

May 24, 2014 at 2:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
Glenn

Get off my lawn!

May 24, 2014 at 2:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Geoff

+1

May 24, 2014 at 3:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

I don't begrudge him his love of celluloid, in fact I share it to some degree. But this is an issue in the filmmaking community only. It's an emotional thing. To the audience, digital projection just means no scratches or judder. In fact, if it's a good film, I probably wouldn't even notice. Isn't that the sign of a good film?

May 24, 2014 at 3:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply

It's true. The 'filmic' argument does not exist with movie goers. People are not critiquing the look of the movies they are watching. The "filmic" argument really is just a negligible argument on the internet. Never hearing movie goers complaining, ever, about the look of movies likely means they are happy with it. Digital look is not an issue.

What people are complaining about---me too---is the $5.00 cost for 3-D glasses every time you go to a 3-D movie. You can reuse the glasses you bought for $5.00 at the last 3-D movie you went to but you still have to pay $5.00 extra on top of the ticket price to get in.

May 24, 2014 at 6:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

Paul Thomas Anderson is the only filmmaker who both shoots on film and finishes them photochemically. And they look beautiful.

May 24, 2014 at 3:43PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Glasty

I agree that he's speaking from nostalgia more than anything else. However, I do understand why he would feel that digital cinema is simply "TV in public". He probably feels that if you're shooting with the same cameras and equipment that is used on TV shows then there's no point in there being a theater to begin with. What he's not taking into account, however, is the growing number of formats being brought to cinema that have, until this point, been largely impractical for the big screen. He's not taking into account the story format (and wonderful challenge that comes with it) of telling a story from beginning to end in the course of two to three hours. He's not taking into account that there is a massive difference between watching something on a 22 to 60 inch TV and watching something on a large screen. And above all he's not taking into account the most important (at least to me) part of cinema: the communal experience of sitting in a room with a multitude of people and experiencing a story together. That's an experience that transcends medium. It's the difference between seeing a Van Gogh on your cell phone or on your computer and seeing it in person, with a group of people around it.

May 24, 2014 at 4:36PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Coty

"I think what might be most interesting about the conversation is that if Tarantino was a new filmmaker starting out in 2014, his first major film Reservoir Dogs, which cost $1.2 million, would probably have been shot digitally, and it also probably would have been distributed through digital means — if it got theatrical distribution at all. Any great art form goes through periods of significant change, and we happen to be in one right now. I think there is a time and a place to respect and cherish what has come before, but in the end the majority of the viewing public doesn’t really care how a movie is made or projected, they just want to be entertained."

You're part of the problem, dude.

May 24, 2014 at 5:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
GoFilm

+1000
So much ignorance here it's depressing. I don't buy all this talk about people not caring what something is shot on. They may not know how the image was made, but it still needs to move you. Yes, you can do this with an iphone given the proper content, but well shot film does wonders for any subject. The color, dynamic range, motion, and even the grain can help the viewer feel like they are entering another world. It's this 'otherness', the 'not TV' feeling that I think Tarantino laments.

Yes, digital is getting better. Yes, the Alexa does look like Kodak 5219 (500T), but NOTHING digital looks as good as 5207 (250D) or 5213 (200T). Maybe it will soon, but not today.

To say Reservoir Dogs would have been shot digital today and not gotten distribution is silly. It's an amazing script. A script that drew great talent to participate in a low budget film. A film well directed and edited. That does not change with digital. And yet, I bet if you shot that film today on a RED it would not get the same attention as if you shot it on S-16. Why? because it's a gritty movie, a movie perfect for film. And yes, still totally doable on film for $1.2M - that has not changed.

Film is far from dead - you're watching it all the time: Breaking Bad, Entourage, MUD, 12 Years A Slave, The Wolf of Wall Street, Boardwalk Empire, True Blood, The Walking Dead, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Black Swan, and on and on. http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Customers/Productions/index.htm#ixzz2YZUp...

People who know and care about quality still shoot film. For wedding, corporate, commercials, and straight to streaming teen movies, sure, shoot your digital. If you want to pony up with the big boys and girls and make some cinema, it's still a film world.

May 24, 2014 at 7:03PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Chris

Reservoir Dogs was not as big a hit as you're saying. It was disturbing and never made it into the mainstream. True, that film is still in moderate use. True, it's not dead. But it does not have a bright future especially considering ARRI is not only working on a 4K camera but also (if what I've read is true) an 8K 70mm size sensor. And I'm certain Red is not resting on its' 6K laurels. I am certain with their history of breaking into new ground they are working on 8K with even better color science than the 6K. It also looks like Joe at Digital Bolex has turned over a new leaf and is seriously entertaining the idea of going to a 4K sensor in the next generation of Digital Bolex. Maybe IMAX film will be the temporary savior of film. But without some kind of technical breakthrough in the chemical composition of celluloid there is only so far film is going to be able to keep going in the race with digital. Digital, on the other hand, has enormous room for growth in all the technical areas of image, and in workflow.

May 24, 2014 at 7:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Panavision is working on the 8K 70mm not ARRI. ARRI is working on a 6K 65mm.

May 26, 2014 at 3:39PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Gene

There are technological breakthroughs in film all the time. Less so now that it's basically only Kodak, but I don't think you understand the incredible transition in film technology in any given ten years. The transition from 1990 to 2000 in film technology rivals what digital has done. Kodak 5296/7296 (500ASA tungsten balanced) looks antique compared to 5298/7298 a couple years later. And this as followed by Vision & Vision2, or Vision3 now.

Very few digital fanboys even know film. But what am I doing? I'm arguing with the 8k, GH-whatever ultimate worshiping Gene (or is the GH4 Gene a different Gene than the 8K Gene?

Also, even thou it's only Super-35 (pre-DI where it involves an optical step)...Reservoir Dogs was all shot on 50ASA stock (DAY/NIGHT, INT/EXT...the whole film! It's crazy, and sitting up close to a big screen...it looks amazing...Pulp Fiction even looks better---anamorphic..)...and with your irrational love of 6K or 8k...the resolution difference between 500ASA (that is sometimes used as the sole film stock---so the grain doesn't increase when cutting from night scenes to bright day exteriors, for example) & 50ASA is more than the difference between 6K and 8K.

June 2, 2014 at 7:25AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

FilmConvert has the stocks you mentioned available to grade the footage with in post. It looks identical to the real thing.

May 30, 2014 at 2:56PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Marcus

Also, the fact that you mentioned examples of TV SHOWS that are shot with film to argue that digital didn't kill cinema as QT knows it...is not intelligent.

May 30, 2014 at 3:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Marcus

Why do we use the term filmmaker when nobody is shooting film? Shouldn't there be a more fitting term since people aren't touching celluloid?

May 24, 2014 at 5:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
VinceGortho

May 24, 2014 at 7:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Chris

okay. I was too broad. Filmmakers today that don't shoot film. Can they use the term?

May 24, 2014 at 7:27PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VinceGortho

No, they can't. I think "movie makers" should be the new term. :-)

May 30, 2014 at 2:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Marcus

Man, QT perfectly describes how excited I used to be about movies before the tentpole sensation.

May 24, 2014 at 5:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VinceGortho

Tarantino comes from a school of thought that filmmaking is an art form where every aspect should be as close to perfect as possible. Not just the acquisition medium but also the presentation among all the other aspects. Clearly his opinion is that celluloid is the closest to perfect that is available, therefore there is no substitute. I think he's frustrated by a "good enough" school of thinking where digital cameras and projection is enough to get the job done and therefore should be widely embraced. He believes filmmaking is about being meticulous about every aspect in order to create the most immersive experience possible instead of just focusing on one aspect (i.e. story) and being satisfied with just being a "content creator".

May 24, 2014 at 5:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Kevin

I can see what you're saying, but as capable as he is, does he really have such a command of every aspect of the film medium that he can say that ? With new breeds of technology comes a new breed of professional. Digital has allowed every person to try being Georges Méliès and more. Those of you who have additional command of things eg Lightwave, Maya, etc, with matchmoving, are very valuable creative, not to mention the grading guys and a host of others. The versatility and increasing quality of digital (you guys know Alexa better than I) has surely proved itself.

May 24, 2014 at 6:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Saied

I haven't been in a Movie Theater recently. Last time I remember going was about 2007. Instead of making a 100+ mile round-trip to an Art House, I watched "Blue is the Warmest Color" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2278871/ on Netflix.

"... I’d rather just write one of my big scripts and do it as a miniseries for HBO ..." The best scripts seem to be going to cable TV. The writing on "House of Cards" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856010/ is about as good as it gets. "Breaking Bad" ain't bad either!

May 24, 2014 at 6:24PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
c.d.embrey

Amen to that.

May 24, 2014 at 7:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
VinceGortho

Why 'Blue Is The Warmest Color' won the Palm D'Or at Cannes is beyond me. It was morally and technically wrong on so many levels. The lead actress was great though.

"House Of Cards" is boring to me. Like watching paint dry. But, it's masterfully shot.

May 30, 2014 at 3:06PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Marcus

I wonder how much he worked with the high end digital cams lately. What was said by Nolan and QT a few years ago may have actually been factually correct then but it is not factually correct anymore in 2014. The resolution is better, the dynamic range is basically the same, the work flow is easier, the weight is lighter. And digital projection is saving Hollywood a billion a year, which means more movies can be made.

May 24, 2014 at 7:23PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
DLD

$1 billion saved a year with digital? You can safely tuck it away in your deepest hip pocket that Hollywood is going to go even more digital.

May 24, 2014 at 7:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

~ $2,000 per print x ~ 3,500 prints x 150 major releases = ~ $1B/Y, not counting the replacements for the worn-out reels or foreign rentals. Of course, it cost over $4B to replace the old film projectors but, once that investment is paid off, the digital projection savings are huge.

May 25, 2014 at 1:29AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

The $4 billion is not a cost, it is a profit. Many people think that expenses are always costs, loses. But expenses can be done to create profit. So they are not costs to begin with. Those expenses spent are profits because they lead to more money being made than would have been made without the expense spent. The end result is mo money.

May 25, 2014 at 8:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Unless the movie bombs, and those costs then now become a loss. Not so easy on a $250 million tentpole screening at 4,000 theaters still might be projecting film.

May 25, 2014 at 1:41PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Jorge Cayon

The tentpoles open globally to save on the advertising expenses so there you might need 8,000-10,000 prints.

May 25, 2014 at 5:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
DLD

The film vs. digital debate angers me. Too many people getting angry and snide with each other over what format they prefer to use instead of building one another up. There's no point in a filmmaking community if the members of the community don't support one another. If you want to shoot on film, great. If you want to shoot digitally, great. But don't insult someone just because they feel that one format has more merit for their way of shooting over another.

May 24, 2014 at 7:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Coty

Well said Coty.

May 25, 2014 at 10:55AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Amen.

May 30, 2014 at 3:10PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Marcus

When CDs arrived in the early 90's, music died...bro.

The only significant difference between film and digital in 2014 is how it affects the filmmaking process. Changing film reels offered a natural break for the crew and cast. Waiting for dailies to be processed and printed allowed the director to stay focused on the cast without visiting video village after each scene. The process of filmmaking IS affected and that DOES change things. However, digital takeover is inevitable so it makes no sense to resist. Adapt or be left in the dust.

Finally, content/story is more important than format. It always has been and always will be.

May 24, 2014 at 9:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Christian Anderson

*80's (where's the edit button?)

May 24, 2014 at 9:02PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Christian Anderson

What? If music "died" in the 90s, why is it still alive and well today?

May 30, 2014 at 3:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Marcus

OK Im being #13 - 90s not 90's

May 24, 2014 at 9:40PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

7
Reply
shaun wilson

This 'debate' is hilarious. It's such a non argument. Everyone has the choice to shoot on whatever format they want. A good producer will do good deals and make most things possible if you really want them. Invest in relationships, the rest is just budgeting,

May 25, 2014 at 1:43AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

8
Reply

+1

May 25, 2014 at 3:47AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Coty

I understand the feeling, I felt this way when video first came out. But let's face it, Tarantino is the last vestige of eliteism in the production market. He makes poorly conceived, poorly executed films with the same style i.e. Bit of violence, random music, a lack of historical accuracy, big name star and his fading, bully boy reputation as a director, so boring. But he can't resist the technology tsunami. You wait until he's no longer 'a' list and like so many others he'll adopt video when he can't get the big budgets. Grow up Tarantino, who cares what he thinks?

May 25, 2014 at 6:35AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Redrick

I haven't watched this yet and personally i don't feel strongly about film projection over digital, as Tarantino seems to. The far cheaper cost and ease of distribution vs the negligible difference in quality will obviously render it largely obsolete anyway. Not that that makes it better, but isn't it largely the roughness and faults of film projection that makes for peoples preference anyway? Film capture vs digital however imo is a totally different argument and i don't see why people always tie them together(as in the side by side doc) as if you can't have one without the other. Shooting on film makes a lot more sense because the look is still so much nicer.
People often say that "only the story matters" or "audiences don't care about the medium or what it is shot on" etc etc but that is actually very wrong in my experience. The general public does notice the less pleasing look but they aren't technically aware of the reason, they just say "it looks cheap" or "not like a real film". This is hugely noticeable and something i've experienced over and over again on even well shot digital films. The digital look is closer to reality, it doesn't have a magical aesthetic like film does. Imo this makes digital far less immerse, when we look at a film that looks like "a film" we are conscious of the film world apart from our own where less reality based events can happen and we can believe in them. When we are trying to suspend our disbelief for a story/world that doesn't have that otherworldly/magic look it doesn't work. This is also even more true on a subconscious level and especially so with the general public, they will simply reject the film as not being a convincing experience and they won't give it any thought beyond that, why would they. It is the greater distance, more of a separation between our lived reality and the magic world behind the screen that allows us to believe in it. Hence why peoples criticism of the digitally sharp/high frame rate "Hobbit" were "it looks like soap opera" and also "like looking at the real world, not a film". I think also a lot of narrative film makers are very conscious of this and hence why most have to be forced into shooting digital over film. It would also explain why we are all so keen to see advancements in digital cameras where we can get closer to mimicking a film look. That would be the ideal scenario and certainly far better than the very impractical, risky and expensive practice of shooting on film stock. The ease, speed and usability of digital cameras is of course fantastic it's just that it mostly doesn't convince of the events depicted as in the film world.
Although noticeably less so on the bigger ALEXA productions. When used well that is the camera that best mimics how a film is suppose to look both to the general public and to most of us, it would seem.

May 25, 2014 at 7:19AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Andrew Black

I kind of disagree about the Alexa being the best mimic of film. To me the Alexa is the most sympathetic digital camera around. It caresses the image but film does something else entirely.

May 25, 2014 at 7:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Robin, yes perhaps you are right about the Alexa.

May 26, 2014 at 12:38PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Andrew Black

I don't think everyone had that complaint about The Hobbit. Why do I say that? Because I never once heard it. I've only ever seen that complaint in a very few internet comments. But those few comments have been treated like they are from the Gospels or something.

Also, it is not universally true that everyone thinks film looks better than digital. I also only see that said in internet comments. It seems that to say it's universally true that everyone likes film more than digital is the same as to say it's universally true that everyone likes chocolate more than vanilla. Heck, some people even like potatoes more than chocolate and vanilla. Some people like Strawberries more then all other flavors. ome people like curry more than everything.

If you comment that film is the best of all video mediums, without exception, is it possible you may be wrong. It may only be true that some find film to be that special, and at the same time, that most people don't care about the issue and never think about it.

May 25, 2014 at 8:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Gene- I have heard it in person from several different people and also on many forums and discussed by several critics, writers and theorists, a quick google search and you will see hundreds of articles on it. "It looked uncompromisingly real — so much so that it looked fake," he wrote. "Hobbiton and Middle Earth didn’t feel like a different universe, it felt like a special effect, a film set with actors in costumes. It looked like behind the scenes footage. The movement of the actors looked… strange. Almost as if the performances had been partly sped up…. It didn’t look cinematic."
I think you are a bit confused about why people prefer the look of film over an inherently digital one. No one wants to stop the march of digital and the image getting better(although you keep on rather obtusely suggesting they do), everyone wants something cheaper, better and easier to use, obviously. It isn't the medium itself(or at least it shouldn't be) it is the subconscious look/feel of film over the inherently digital one that people prefer, the reasons for which, i have already gone into in detail above. When digital can successfully mimic everything about the film aesthetic so that films actually look and subconsciously feel like films there won't be a need to shoot on film anymore.
I never said film is better than digital, i am speaking purely from my own thoughts and findings on the matter and the implications for narrative film makers. Specifically about what i feel is the main problem with digital and why it IS a problem with audiences and why they may very well not be fully aware of it. I covered the reasons why above- it is the illusory look and feel of film. Audiences largely, will not think about the problem, look up the technical specs, find out what format was used and then complain about it publicly. They will just reject the film as not being convincing. Which is why the argument "no one cares about the format" is hugely flawed and imo plain wrong, again covered above...

May 26, 2014 at 12:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Andrew Black

I'm talking about movie goers. You can always find critics on the internet.

I don't think there's as many people looking for digital to look like film as you say there are. It' a non-issue to almost everyone. The argument only exits on the internet and with film purists.

Like I replied elsewhere, get 2 clipboards and a friend, both of you hold a clipboard, and stand in front of a busy theater. Tell people you are taking an internet poll about the new look of movies. Ask people if they want the new look to be changed back into the previous look of movies. And make sure one of the questions is if they think that even asking the question is a waste of time.

May 26, 2014 at 3:48PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Gene

"it is the subconscious look/feel of film over the inherently digital one that people prefer"

In whose sub-conscience?

How can you tell what anyone elses sub-conscience is doing?? You are assuming you know what people think?

Sorry that my comments rub you wrong.

May 26, 2014 at 3:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Gene

No problem at all. Your comments are not rubbing me the wrong way. Earlier i thought you were deliberately pretending to have not read what i wrote properly or didn't grasp it.
The argument as you call it, only existing "on the internet"(strange that you consider the internet to be some strange backwater of communication) is incorrect. As i said, if you google the hobbit, soap opera, un-cinematic(some combination of similar terms), go to the piece and scroll down to peoples comments you will see all the hundreds of people saying the same or very similar. The articles tend to be about audiences opinion rather than a specific writer. As i keep repeating, and for reasons already covered, people are not necessary consciously aware that the medium or the camera is the reason the film is not working for them. The lay response to why a film with an inherently digital look is not as pleasing or as convincing as something shot on film is usually "it looks cheap" "looks like tv" "looks like soap opera" etc etc etc, this is what i have constantly and continuously found. Same responses people had to the hobbit. the illusory nature of film simply facilitates a suspension of disbelief and the world within the film becomes immersive. I did some studies into this for some film theory classes over the past few years. But i am also always asking people after and during screenings what was and wasn't working and why. People are simply unconvinced by a non-filmic, realistic, digital look of the world within the film. Now, it is possible that some of this is due to conditioning/what we are used to seeing and also that some genres lend themselves to a more digital aesthetic, but it's existence is undeniable. Spectatorship was always an area i was interested in theoretically and remains so since i took up actual film making.

May 26, 2014 at 5:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Andrew Black

you used some rude wording so i must have rubbed you wrong.

and yes, much of the internet commenting is out of step with what you find outside the virtual world. the reason you won't find people commenting on the internet that the change in movie look is meaningless to them is because who would take the time to do it? if they did you'd probably get millions of comments.

this filmic argument exists almost entirely on the internet, just like so many other backwater issues find robust life only on the internet. some people spend all their spare time commenting on backwater issues. you can find hundreds of web sites filled with them.

May 26, 2014 at 6:54PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Gene

Maybe films arent working because the movie isnt good. You cant know what people are thinking. You cannot say the movie didn't work for them because of the camera used. You don't know that digital is the problem, especially since most of recent big money makers were done in digital.

I saw the Hobbit. I wasn't as good as the Lord of the Rings movies. That's why i was disappointed with it. Maybe everyone is the same as that.

May 26, 2014 at 7:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

I think once again you are ignoring the issue entirely and just trying to pretend that it doesn't exist and that "it is just an internet argument". What we are discussing is entirely real world, i don't even see where your confusion is coming from, it's just pure repetitive denial.

May 26, 2014 at 7:14PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Andrew Black

Sorry, my last comment was purely in response to your first paragraph, which didn't address anything. Now i see that you are responding in multiple posts so please continue....

May 26, 2014 at 7:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Andrew Black

let's just leave it at that Andrew. It's really not that important.

May 26, 2014 at 7:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Gene

Watch it before you comment on it. Duh.

May 30, 2014 at 3:31PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Marcus

Cannes Grand Prize (Palme d'Or) went to a Turkish film "Winter Sleep" ... shot on F65.
.
trailer in 720p [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1pu28BBntI ]
.
So, I guess this is not the death of cinema, as a digitally shot film won the top prize there for the second year in a row (the 2013 winner, "Blue is the warmest color", was shot on C300).

May 25, 2014 at 9:53AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
DLD

Too bad everyone can't enjoy the change to digital. I know some have lost jobs in film because digital has taken over. But if it had happened to me I'm pretty sure I would have gotten an education in digital (as I saw digital taking over, and not till after it did) and picked up a job in digital work. You have to roll with the changes. It can be scary. But ask God for help, put your future in his hands, and move on and up. You will smile again.

May 25, 2014 at 4:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Gene

I don't think you understand how the movie business works. I don't know any DP's, AC's, or Camera Ops who are "out of jobs" because of digital. Some labs have closed, but on set it's not like the old DP's have to sit around playing cards lamenting the death of their jobs like Buster Keaton, Erich Von Stroheim and Gloria Swanson in Sunset Boulevard.

June 2, 2014 at 8:04AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Daniel Mimura

There are people that have lot jobs in film. One easy example: Kodak is far smaller than it used to be.

June 2, 2014 at 8:54AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Gene

Yeah some people at Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa (to go way back) lost their jobs, obviously...and I'm plenty of people at RED and Arri and Blackmagic...etc...*gained* jobs... But on set, no one faded away and it's the same people with slight variations...a loader who's job is sort of opposite what it used to be (well a film loader still offloads the reels, but you see what I mean, rite? You make it sound like people are unwilling or unable to learn the new digital skills, but pretty much everyone does, it's no big deal. And lighting is lighting. Different processes require lighting differently (like if you were using bleach bypass or cross processing, for example...or even just lighting to the strengths of different film stocks...so analyzing material and working with it differently is a skill most DP's already have, so making adjustments to using digital aren't too different that the skill set they've always been using.

June 2, 2014 at 2:12PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Film has character digital doesn't. Actually the better digital cameras become the less character image will have. It will be just perfect presentation of what you see in real life..can you imagine comic books made out of photographs? I remember going to cinema before digital even existed and when seing grain and all i said to myself Good i love this image..now there is no live image, if you have still frame with nothing moving in it you would think its a photograph. I feel the same as Quentin, but it's not just what looks better, you could have excellent robotic horse that does everything for you but it is not horse riding and it can't even be compared with..like everything today things are becoming soul less..

May 25, 2014 at 10:30AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Filipino Staresinic

So what? You can add all the character you want in post-prod.. with much more variety than film can ever give. Besides, you can even emulate that film look you want. Maybe not in 4k yet but in 6k certainly there is no point using film at all.

May 30, 2014 at 4:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

He's right. I have a great digital video camera and I use as many plugins like Tiffen DFX 3.0 to make it look like a film. Everyone that sees it loves it!

May 30, 2014 at 10:49PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
rich

I'm split on digital projection.

On one hand there is something very special about the richness of a projected film print. Especially black and white prints. I saw a restored 35mm print of 'Touch of Evil' and it had a three-dimensional quality to it that was just stunning. Even laymen commented on how rich it looked. Same for the restored 'Vertigo' or 'Lawrence of Arabia'.

Film prints are also important for archival reasons. Just recently someone finally found a full print of 'Metropolis' in South America. All they had to do was clean and scan it. Good luck reviving 80 year old digital media (hows that ZIP drive doing?).

On the other hand the great thing about digital projection is that the odds are in your favor that the audience will actually see the movie as you intended it to look. If the system is properly calibrated it really should look no different than what you dialed in during the DI. The 'print' never gets scratched or wears out. And frankly digital projection has come a long way in the past few years. I saw an early digital projection of 'Master and Commander' and it was absolutely horrible. Pixelated, murky, flashed blacks, weird motion artifacts. Just horrible. But the current generation of projectors suffer from none of those problems and really do look terrific (although some are better than others)

Personally if I had my way I would shoot film, (unless it was for an FX heavy movie). It just looks great and I like the pacing of shooting with film. But I would still do the DI digitally. I've done an analog grade and unless you have money to burn, you're not going to get what you want. I'd always make 35mm projection prints and a color seperated safety negative that I would bury in a salt mine.

May 25, 2014 at 12:20PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Matt

"Film prints are also important for archival reasons. Just recently someone finally found a full print of ‘Metropolis’ in South America. All they had to do was clean and scan it. Good luck reviving 80 year old digital media (hows that ZIP drive doing?)."

Well, if you left it unused, there is a good chance it would be damaged. But for archival purposes you don't do that, you keep it in digital storage which is running and performed maintenance upon and perhaps hardware renewed every 10 years or so. It's much more costly and difficult -- if not impossible to preserve film without quality degradation.

May 30, 2014 at 4:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Somehow I think this makes Matt's point even more clear. A print was just sitting there...an 80 yr old film from a studio that later was synonymous with Nazism, so it was disbanded at the end of WWII...so there is no one to run those Zip drives every ten years. Film prints are still heartier.

June 2, 2014 at 5:39AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Daniel Mimura

Welcome to the future, old man!

May 25, 2014 at 12:29PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
matthewx

Is it justified to call digital revolution part of evolution? I doubt that - never new inventions and revolutionary developments intervened so fundamentally in our lifes... I am no friend of this viewpoint...

May 25, 2014 at 3:45PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Jan

Could you explain more what the fundamental intervention is? I'm not sure which standpoint you are coming from.

May 25, 2014 at 4:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Just look at our world. An example: smartphones.

May 28, 2014 at 2:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Jan

I still don't get what you want to say.

May 31, 2014 at 4:16PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Never understood the Arrogance of people like you. The only consolation is that ,in a couple of Blinks of your eyes you will be standing there - OLD & maybe ,just maybe you'll be remembering what a Jerk you were with comments like that......... Then you'll understand

June 3, 2014 at 7:57AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Dheep'

The rantings of spoiled famous filmmaker. I love real film as much as the next guy but the simple economics for us scrappy indies don't add up. Plus, I saw a DCP of Bonjour Tristesse at Film Forum a few years ago and the clarity and color fidelity was stunning. It never would have looked like that if it was a even a well preserved film print. Mr. Tarantino, get over yourself.

May 25, 2014 at 2:08PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
earnestreply

It's like saying any TRUE painter would and should only use oils or water colour to express their work. Suuuure Tarantino, whatever you say. Douche. How you capture your story doesn't matter. Just tell a good story and tell it well.

May 25, 2014 at 4:07PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Tony

There is no other word for it: Tarantino is a complete dick.
He is as much of a dick as his films are good.

I was in Cannes when he was, and saw one of the competition films 'Mr Turner', yes, projected in digital.
There was gasps of awe in the audience at the sheer beauty of it, some shots were simply ...paintings.
He is so ridiculous talking that way, just because he grew up with 35mm

May 25, 2014 at 4:30PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
ivan noel

I see lot of beauty in digital too. Here is the latest from Mark Toia on a Red with the 6K Red Dragon: http://vimeo.com/94276293

May 25, 2014 at 4:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

You know, part of me is sympathetic to Tarantino here. It does kinda suck that his was the ONLY movie at Cannes that screened on film. I know that personally I wouldn't be able to tell whether one was "better" than the other, but I do at least see the value in keeping film alive, keeping the techniques of film exposure and film editing and film projection alive. That stuff is valuable.

In the end I hope film is seen as an aesthetic choice in the high end. Yes, the low budget folks can't afford to use it but that doesn't mean it doesn't have its place, and it doesn't mean that at the grandest film festival in the world that there shouldn't be more film prints projected, more old film prints restored analogue, that sort of thing.

It doesn't have to be a battle.

May 25, 2014 at 5:01PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Sure, film is exactly what I want. So every time there's a scratch on the print, every time there's copious amounts of grain, I can be reminded that I'm actually watching moving pictures on a screen rather than looking through the window into another plane of existence.

That's totally what I want.

I also want a font that properly expresses sarcasm.

May 25, 2014 at 5:28PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Bertzie

You're obviously not a lover of cinema or film history, nor do you possess generally good taste.

May 29, 2014 at 5:32AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Jonathan

Why, just because guy is into art, rather than history and fetish?

May 30, 2014 at 4:47PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply

In truth, most folks can't tell the difference. This is like the mp3 sucks, gimme vinyl crowd. Sure there's a difference, but one must have THE BEST equipment and THE BEST ears to tell.

For the rest of we normal folks, we'd be hard pressed to say whether or not "Nebraska" or "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" was shot on film or digital. (Both digital, and beautiful!).

Tony (05.25.14 @ 4:07PM) said it best: "How you capture your story doesn’t matter. Just tell a good story and tell it well."

Regardless, this is argument is 10 years old, and we know the answer (sadly): Film is dead. Long Live Film!

May 25, 2014 at 5:46PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

3
Reply
Chriss

A human ear ... well, most human ears ... can't tell between MP3 or AAC @ 64 Kbps and a CD. In terms of film vs. video, one could probably shoot on GH4 with good lighting, grade it in post and most people wouldn't know the difference.

May 25, 2014 at 6:42PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
DLD

Picture this: aspiring movie maker with drawer full of scripts, flipping burgers, saving up to buy his GH4 to make those scripts to movies. Has friend delivering pizzas taking professional grading classes so he can make the GH4 sing. They end up building their own studio with less than $10,000.00 equipment, centerpiece being the singing GH4. They have a blog, and monetized YouTube channel. They make enough money from little photo/video jobs, blog, and YouTube channel to quit their day jobs. Their shorts get picked up at festivals because their love for what they do shows. One day they make a feature with a couple fairly known actors/actress'. Whole while they're happy. :-)

May 25, 2014 at 8:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

What? (a bunch of schlock). Make me vomit.

May 29, 2014 at 5:33AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Jonathan

Well, hopefully you made it to a bathroom.

May 31, 2014 at 4:13PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Gene

I can tell the difference between those sound formats/qualities all the time. Every time. It isn't hard to. Don't force your ideology on "most people" because it doesn't make you seem as smart as you think you are.

May 30, 2014 at 12:11PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Marcus

Bad comparison. I don't have best equipment or superears but I can tell 128kbps, often even 192kbps MP3 straight away.. 320kbps is almost as good as WAV though, and only handful of song might have lost something.

With video though when it comes to digital, I am more concerned about fluidity of motion rather than IQ. I don't know about digital projection standards but pretty sure they will be of adequate quality.

May 30, 2014 at 4:50PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

Why is it sad?

Smaller cameras. Much smaller storage. Easier, safer grading. Far more improvement in ALL technical aspects of image to come. More people can afford to make movies. Things to be happy about.

The sadness is from change away from something you're used to?

May 25, 2014 at 7:58PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Gene

Well according to Tarantino, Big Bad Wolves, was "the best film of the year".

Big Bad Wolves was shot on the Alexa.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2309224/technical

May 25, 2014 at 7:59PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
sbsk

Much like the majority commenting here, yes Quentin is a 'dick' but he speaks the truth in some regards. On a similar matter, I'm sick and tired of over compression and digital image quality across all digital mediums. I remember broadcast television in Australia being of a high standard (analogue days) but now it is just a digital artifcated mess, and it seems like the broadcasters themselves are using Youtube ripped files for archival content! I'm sure many DPs would be turning in their graves right now because it seems like even though we have cameras now shooting at ridiculous bitrates / raw that the image is destroyed before the viewer gets to see it! Not only is it visuals but the sound quality has dropped dramatically as well! Since when is it ok to use a 64kbps MP3/AAC for broadcast? My mentality is with my work that I shoot everything to the highest bitrate I can, master in DNxHD (not 36) and output a h264 of at LEAST 8mbps. I know the consumer doesn't tend to care for image quality so much anymore but it is such a shame when it is getting harder and harder to find well mastered content.

May 25, 2014 at 9:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Colin

Good god, how insecure is this guy that he has to sing his own praises nonstop?

May 25, 2014 at 9:57PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Really?

I'm still lamenting the loss of cinemascope and I wasn't even alive when it came out.

May 25, 2014 at 10:26PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Dan

You can buy the new curved tv sets. They make a fascinating picture.

May 25, 2014 at 11:00PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

4
Reply
Gene

Come on. Everyone knows that Breath-Take-O-Scope PWNS everything! :-)

May 30, 2014 at 12:18PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Marcus

regarding Joe Marine's last words on the article
I don't believe that an audience should be just entertained
not that there is anything wrong with entertainment
but it's not the only portal through which film or any art form connects with an audience
enlightenment must be high up there as well

May 26, 2014 at 1:42AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

My favorite films are those that are anything but entertainment, I just mean the majority of films and the majority of the viewing public watch movies for the characters and the story. I absolutely believe all aspects are important and cinematography can make a good film even better, but I think the most important thing is that the audience believes what you are showing them and is moved in some way by it.

May 26, 2014 at 3:38AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
avatar
Joe Marine
Camera Department

Hi Joe and thanks for your reply. I don't particularly disagree.
I'd like to add a few things here. The main modern day perception is that entertainment is linked with mass audiences and broad commercial appeal. So the more money a movie makes the more entertaining is supposed to be and vice versa. But by this, the meaning of entertainment is obviously degenerated and distorted. For example in the world of blockbusters a movie like Godzilla is considered by most people as pure entertainment. A distorted concept because its function is mainly that of escapism. But entertainment can be found more truly for example in Lynch's The Elephant Man, which as a film serves two purposes. It entertains as 2 hour narrative story but it also broadens and challenges the audience's emotional intelligence.

May 29, 2014 at 2:38AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply

Art, message, meaning, entertainment, enlightenment, economics, are topics discussed. Flower in the dust bin, no perceivable difference, style (which is always an opinion). Why and for whom is anyone, everyone doing this activity? Easy way to avoid criticism - don't say or do anything. Pleasing everyone is impossible, don't try.

I go with the benefit of providing an environment where more ideas can be brought forward, more stories told, does this technology physically harm anyone (yea Kodak and labs are going the way of buggy whip manufacturers they may perceive harm... ahh the good old days - there is nothing quite like being limited to 20 miles of travel a day....)

I enjoy the well told story that enlightens and entertains, that provokes a thought, creates wonder, and stimulates a pause for reflection. Whether it comes via digital or stone tablet, I do not care.

May 31, 2014 at 10:45AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

5
Reply
Mike Barrett

Tarantino needs to learn how to paint in digital. Digital will get better... and better. Digital will surpass the "look" of film. When we are all shooting 8K RAW and our computers process it in real-time (less than a decade away?)... film will be seen as "limiting". Think of now as the "golden age" of digital, when we were still figuring out how to make it shine.

May 26, 2014 at 8:58AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

6
Reply
Derek McCabe

LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!

Another attention seeking stunt from a man who needs his ego stroked every 5 minutes.

May 26, 2014 at 2:53PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

1
Reply
Adam Smyth

Sorry, but saying that digital projection is the death of cinema is like saying that the advent of color was the death of cinema. As the digital delivery is perfected, anyone will be able to have the exact same aesthetic as film in the theater if desired.

May 26, 2014 at 5:37PM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply

I watched SAMSARA on a 4K Barco the other day. It was shot on 65mm. If digital is a clear window onto reality, then projecting film on digital should be a clear window onto the reality of the scanned film print.

Conversely, if we shot something on digital then projected it onto a camera negative, would that suddenly impart 'life' to the print? This film did this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLAVg17luqc

QT also discounts the possiblity that software will be able to eventually synthesise all processes occuring in film, including the 'dancing' feel that you get from imperfect registration in the camera and the shifting position of crystals from exposure to exposure, as well as the stacked location of the color layers.

May 27, 2014 at 2:24AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

2
Reply
Brett

Cinema has never been more alive and I couldn't disagree with Tarantino more. Film is what has died, not cinema. Film will be remembered as a small part of cinema's long and wide history, of which many future directors will interpret and stretch to its limits. Tarantino will stand as a pivotal figure of that era, which will appear like childhood on the life of a beguiling and burgeoning medium. But unfortunately for Tarantino, his interpretation of the digital as merely Television is telling of his lack of understanding of the potential of it, and of the possibilities that lie ahead for future directors. Like other media gone before, Cinema was a mix of sound, photo, speech. McLuhan's message rings true for software, too - which has inherited cinema as the backbone of this new digital media.

May 27, 2014 at 2:31AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Matt

I think he looks a little coked up in this presentation but I do not disagree with him at all. I know film will not be recorded going forward but I have this silly sense that film should still be projected. DCP is more of a control thing than it is anything else. I agree with him. Breaking Bad was required to be shot on film vs. digital for all of the reason he thinks and it worked. Film is real - digital is not. Film is reality, digital is human's approximation of reality.

May 27, 2014 at 4:40AM, Edited September 4, 11:56AM

0
Reply
Bert

Pages