I never said that there weren't lazy filmmakers before digital. Of course there are lazy filmmakers no matter what medium they shoot with.
What I said was that film is not as forgiving as digital and forces you to adopt a professional mindset. Yes, there are plenty of bad movies shot on film and you know what, they all looked like garbage because that ethic was not applied to the process. This only reinforces my point.
There are always going to be egomaniacs that don't care about the art or craft of filmmaking, but lets not infer that the Tommy Wiseau was pulling focus or taking light meterings.
I would wager that you have never shot on film before and don't know the challenges of shooting blind and not seeing what you shot until the day after. That requires discipline and technical know-how. I can make claims about it not forcing you to learn better on-set practices all day, but I wouldn't dare say that learning to drive manual doesn't make you a better driver than if you drove an automatic. And most race drivers would agree with me.
And yes, there is something special about film, otherwise why on earth is FilmConvert so popular?
Also as Jespar pointed out above. The Room was shot both on Film and Digital.
I agree with Tarantino, but not with how he chose to summarize his viewpoints.
Film is a medium which requires professionalism for it to even function right. You MUST meter your light, you MUST check your gate, you MUST bring your A-game to every second you are on set because it will slip up in one way or another if you do not. Film forces you to be on in a professional and creative mindset.
Digital because it gives you exactly what it sees and is so forgiving, the mindset becomes more relaxed and the ball gets dropped more often because, digital is more forgiving and things can be fixed in post.
Roger Deakins learned the proper mindset from film before he switched to digital. I 100% respect his desire for wanting to, because honestly he earned it. But the majority of the Greats in cinematography who are still working today all started in film, but the newer generation that is growing up in digital don't have that same set mentality or work ethic that the film "Look" requires.
Film and the principles that make great cinematography are more interwoven into the format itself than it is with digital.
The film principles can be learned and applied to digital, but not the other way around I am afraid.
The mindset in conjunction with photo-chemical processes is the film "look" it can be replicated if you keep those principles, but as Tarantino points out why try to mimic film when you can just shoot it?
Of course that is a point pointed at Hollywood and not from the independent filmmaking community for obvious reasons.
End of my rant.
I partially agree. What I disagree on is categories like sound design, costume design, cinematography; the average Joe doesn't understand what goes into great sound design or cinematography, whereas sound designers and cinematographers have a lot better insight into how these work and why one may be more technically impressive than another. Similar with Directing, writing and make-up.
The Audience isn't always right either. Some of the best films of all time were often failures at the box office. If "The Boss" out-grossed "10 Cloverfield Lane" and "Sing Street" or "Fast 8" and "Boss Baby" out-grossed "Logan" and "Get Out" then you can't say emphatically and exclusively that the Audience is always right. Sometimes the masses want trash.
To sum up, you aren't wholly incorrect, The Audience factor is important, but so is the input of people who know the intricacies of the art of filmmaking. You need both.
Less. I focused on therapy and my mental health.
One can claim resolution, but films have been released at nearly every resolution imaginable. One could say dynamic range, but again, we have more dynamic range available to us now than the previous 100 years of cinema have had. One could say a plethora of parameters but ultimately cinema cameras have had or not had nearly anything you might suggest at one point or another.
What ultimately we must look to is what is it that makes cinema different from any other video content. Artistic intent. And with intent comes choice. The deliberate and intentional choice to pick one thing over another. Is the camera giving you options of any type that would cater to your intent as an artist? Manual ISO, frame rate, focus, Audio, record format, ETC? I'd wager the manufacturer didn't put a flat picture profile or 400/mb record format for consumers. If it offers you control, I'd call it a cinema camera.
I love Blackmagic, but they do need to fix their issues with aliasing, moire and IR pollution. I am confident that the noise issue they have currently with their 12k footage will be fixed. Hands down though, the colors that thing produces blows Canon out of the water, the full RGB sensor is incredible. When they get the bugs ironed out, I will absolutely be using this on productions.