Cinema formats (or, film vs digital)

Jordan Cole

White Lodge
Sep 22, 2022
725
1,132
I also believe that digital is getting better and better, to the point where it will eventually be able to replicate all the positive qualities of film. Some claim we’re at that point already, but I don’t think we’ve got there quite yet.

Thanks for the thread link, I'm going to read through it.

I sort of just replied to a similar point, but to reiterate, even if digital can "replicate" film...do we want to live in a world of replicants? Do you know what I mean? I think there's more going on here than just if we can tell something is film or digital. Some sort of artistic existential crisis of humanity.
 

WorldFarAway

Great Northern Hotel
Apr 12, 2022
98
273
I sort of just replied to a similar point, but to reiterate, even if digital can "replicate" film...do we want to live in a world of replicants? Do you know what I mean? I think there's more going on here than just if we can tell something is film or digital. Some sort of artistic existential crisis of humanity.

I know what you mean but I don't agree. My reservations about digital have always been about artistic limitations compared to film, and If digital cameras are capable of creating the same images as celluloid then I see no reason not to use the more convenient tools. There's nothing inherently less human about the technology.
 

Mr. Reindeer

White Lodge
Apr 13, 2022
737
1,667
I think everyone is essentially saying the same thing. We all seem to agree that celluloid looks better, but shooting on digital provides several shortcuts that allow for more efficient filmmaking (and therefore, potentially, more time and freedom for innovation during the course of a very tightly-scheduled shoot). Whether or not that tradeoff is worth it is obviously a value judgment a filmmaker has to make. We know that Lynch was so exhausted during the long workdays that he fell on set and struggled to get upstairs at the end of some days, according to his wife. He gave this thing his all, and it's not like he can magically add more hours to a day. So yes, if he'd shot on film, he would not have been able to get nearly as much footage in the can, on the schedule and the budget that Showtime gave him. That's just objectively true. Whether or not we feel that tradeoff is worth it is a value judgment we can make as fans.
Again: Lynch wouldn't be doing these things. He'd have a whole team of people dealing with the film just like he did on all of his filmed projects previously.
This I just can't agree with. Of course he'd have a whole team, but he's a notoriously hands-on guy. Again, the Peter Braatz documentary on Blue Velvet shows him intimately involved in every aspect of production, from measuring distances for shots to creating the logo on the side of an ice delivery truck that appears in the distant background of a shot. He's not the kind of guy who's just going to tell Peter Deming to figure it out on his own; the more decisions and calculations that have to be made, the more time that's going to take out of the production's daily schedule.

That being said, I agree with your fears about the future of cinema and the rise of artificiality, especially with all this AI stuff coming up now. Personally, I'd never want to see Lynch shoot with The Volume. I finally watched Quantumania last night, and my God, was that an ugly ugly movie. I want to see actors in real environments, interacting with real objects.
 
Last edited:

Ickles

Waiting Room
Apr 12, 2022
494
866
That being said, I agree with your fears about the future of cinema and the rise of artificiality, especially with all this AI stuff coming up now. Personally, I'd never want to see Lynch shoot with The Volume. I finally watched Quantumania last night, and my God, was that an ugly ugly movie. I want to see actors in real environments, interacting with real objects.
I clicked "Agree" on your post and I strongly agree with the majority of it but this last part I just can't quite get there for. I think when new technologies are introduced, especially to a long established art form, they are easy to dismiss. Take some of these quotes, for example:
While theoretically and technically feasible, commercially and financially, I consider it to be an impossibility…a development of which we need waste little time dreaming.
(It) won’t be able to hold on to any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of (it).
They are from the 20s when television was invented and many speculated it would never replace radio. Now the idea of a family huddled around a radio drama are laughably antiquated. Early TV was also pretty uninteresting and artless, basically trying to put radio shows on TV. It was only after true innovators and visionaries started doing more with the form that the medium got interesting and started producing classic works.

Right now productions utilizing technologies like The Volume or AI haven't produced anything especially innovative or interesting but it probably won't stay that way forever. Once true artists and innovators get ahold of the technology and figure out new things to do with it, it could be interesting. I just have trouble blaming the technology itself when it's generally what people do (or don't do) with it that are the culprits of mediocrity. Everything we hold dear as the “right” look or medium was new at some point.
 
Last edited:

AXX°N N.

Waiting Room
Apr 14, 2022
270
619
I must ask again: why? What difference does it make to stick a 35mm camera in front of her compared to a digital camera? Why can't film cameras capture tangents and improv? They have for decades. Didn't Lynch nearly improvise the entire season 2 finale, shot on film? He always improvised so many things in his feature films too.

I'm still not understanding this.
I'm not saying film can't capture tangents and improv, I'm saying it's an order of magnitude or degree of relativity. Any artistic creation is shaped by the medium. To make a comparison, it's pretty obvious that writing is a different task on a typewriter than a computer, but there's also differences introduced depending on what word processor you use. Any slight change in the medium shapes the limitations or opportunities of crafting something with it, and it's no slight difference between film and digital. Yes, there are comparisons to be made between gate checking, blocking, whatever part of the process. But there are pretty massive differences between time allotments and mobility. The end result of a movie is wildly different depending on who scores it just as it's wildly different depending on every step of its approach. When I brought up the example of the 119 woman, I did so because I imagine the use of what feels like slightly different alternate takes in S3 is an idea that can come up when afforded a freer ability to look at takes, select from takes, compare takes and rearrange takes. I'm not saying this is impossible in film, I'm just saying the chances to make certain creative choices is different depending on what viscera you can pull from and at what capacity.
 

Mr. Reindeer

White Lodge
Apr 13, 2022
737
1,667
I clicked "Agree" on your post and I strongly agree with the majority of it but this last part I just can't quite get there for. I think when new technologies are introduced, especially to a long established art form, they are easy to dismiss. Take some of these quotes, for example:


They are from the 20s when television was invented and many speculated it would never replace radio. Now the idea of a family huddled around a radio drama are laughably antiquated. Early TV was also pretty uninteresting and artless, basically trying to put radio shows on TV. It was only after true innovators and visionaries started doing more with the form that the medium got interesting and started producing classic works.

Right now productions utilizing technologies like The Volume or AI haven't produced anything especially innovative or interesting but it probably won't stay that way forever. Once true artists and innovators get ahold of the technology and figure out new things to do with it, it could be interesting. I just have trouble blaming the technology itself when it's generally what people do (or don't do) with it that are the culprits of mediocrity.
Yeah, I don't disagree with that. Maybe I'm just an old fogey. The AI stuff frightens me more than anything else, partly because it threatens to replace human creatives and make our mainstream content even dumber than it currently is (and even harder for people like Lynch to make something of actual artistic value), because executives believe (rightly or wrongly) that ChatGPT can just write the next Big Bang Theory or whatever. And also because in this age of misinformation, it's becoming so easy to create content that shows a celebrity or politician doing/saying something that they never did. There is so much potential for it to be used maliciously. But even when used benignly, I personally don't need to see Peter Cushing or Carrie Fisher in completely constructed performances. It just feels icky.

Could someone as innovative as Lynch do something really groundbreaking and interesting with this tech? Absolutely, if he felt like it. He's certainly never shied away from advances in tech, and his use of CGI in The Return is great (both the BUF "good" CGI and the deliberately "bad" CGI he did himself). But stuff like The Volume still just looks so fake to me (it reminds me of those old Disney World rides where you have a real performer or a physical robot character "interacting" with an animated backdrop). Used to surreal effect, it could be interesting. But used as a "serious" construct, I'm just exhausted by the CGI influx and longing for the return of the real.
 

Jordan Cole

White Lodge
Sep 22, 2022
725
1,132
A friend of mine in the industry has a kind of bleak but bright side take on AI. I'm going to paraphrase this badly, but he basically said to me he thinks it will wipe out the studios, because people will be able to make their own movies. They can make their own Indiana Jones sequel by typing in a prompt. And then all that will be left are the niche people like us who want real films from real people. That the big studios will be taken down by their own creation, all this computer shit.

AI effects in AI art already look more visceral and real than most CGI I've seen. He did a fake Indiana Jones one and showed me lots of crazy, gross, scary shots from this imaginary movie.
 

Mr. Reindeer

White Lodge
Apr 13, 2022
737
1,667
A friend of mine in the industry has a kind of bleak but bright side take on AI. I'm going to paraphrase this badly, but he basically said to me he thinks it will wipe out the studios, because people will be able to make their own movies. They can make their own Indiana Jones sequel by typing in a prompt. And then all that will be left are the niche people like us who want real films from real people. That the big studios will be taken down by their own creation, all this computer shit.

AI effects in AI art already look more visceral and real than most CGI I've seen. He did a fake Indiana Jones one and showed me lots of crazy, gross, scary shots from this imaginary movie.
This is gonna lead to some pretty interesting copyright cases. With everyone and their mother potentially creating their own fan fics, except these fan fics just happen to be fully rendered movies, one can't imagine Disney is just going to lie down and give up without sending out an army of lawyers. We're getting into some Black Mirror shit, that's for damn sure.
 

Jordan Cole

White Lodge
Sep 22, 2022
725
1,132
Here's the prompt he gave, Indiana Jones and the Crown of Thorns.

Title: Indiana Jones and the Sacred Thorns
Synopsis:
In "Indiana Jones and the Sacred Thorns," it's 1939, and renowned archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) embarks on his most perilous adventure yet. Directed by Steven Spielberg, this thrilling film weaves together elements of adventure, drama, romance, and horror as Indy searches for the mythical Crown of Thorns.The story begins when an ancient text reveals the existence of a powerful artifact rumored to possess otherworldly abilities. The Crown of Thorns, believed to be the very crown worn by Jesus Christ during his crucifixion, is said to bestow immense power upon its possessor.

However, it is also believed to come with a curse that brings darkness and destruction. Driven by his insatiable thirst for knowledge and his desire to protect humanity from the Crown's potential misuse, Indy sets off on a globetrotting quest to find the artifact before it falls into the wrong hands. His journey takes him from the dense jungles of South America to the cryptic catacombs of Europe, where he encounters ancient cults, dangerous traps, and supernatural beings.As Indy unravels the mysteries surrounding the Crown of Thorns, he finds himself confronting personal demons and facing his own mortality.

The artifact becomes a profound metaphor for his own internal struggles and the sacrifices he must make in his quest for enlightenment and the preservation of history.Along the way, Indiana Jones crosses paths with a brilliant and enigmatic historian, Dr. Amelia Sinclair (played by a charismatic actress of the era), who becomes both his intellectual equal and love interest. Their relationship adds a layer of complexity to the story, as they navigate the treacherous path of romance amidst the chaos and danger surrounding them.

As the race to claim the Crown of Thorns intensifies, Indy discovers that the artifact's true power lies not in its supernatural abilities, but in the hope it represents to humanity. The struggle between light and darkness becomes a central theme, mirroring Indy's internal conflict between his own dark past and his unwavering commitment to the greater good.In a climactic battle against a nefarious group seeking ultimate dominion, Indiana Jones must confront his deepest fears and make a choice that will determine the fate of the world. Through courage, wit, and a touch of supernatural intervention, Indy ultimately overcomes the forces of darkness and secures the Crown of Thorns, safeguarding it for future generations.

"Indiana Jones and the Sacred Thorns" is an epic adventure that combines pulse-pounding action, deep emotional resonance, and thought-provoking themes. With Harrison Ford reprising his iconic role as Indiana Jones and Steven Spielberg's masterful direction, this film takes audiences on a thrilling journey through history, mythology, and the human spirit.


Here's some of the Indiana Jones stuff the AI he used showed us:

JWR9Unmh.jpg-large.jpeghFSXQbzq.jpg-large.jpegLUdNWCVI.jpg-large.jpegP_d-grX-.jpg-large.jpeg
 

krishnanspace

Glastonbury Grove
Apr 13, 2022
165
152
These are just images right? I think your friend must have used ChatGPt to generate the narrative and used the narrative to create these images through Midjourney. But with AI based movies, people will actually value human creativity since that would be rare
 

Jordan Cole

White Lodge
Sep 22, 2022
725
1,132
They're just images, but we're most likely only a few years away from them moving, and AI replicated voices from all these actors. AI scores. Etc etc.

I think actual movies made by humans will be more of a niche thing for film nerds like us, and others will mindlessly partake in the AI and not even think about it. Like how people have motion smoothing on their TVs and don't even care or notice.
 

Cde.

Sparkwood & 21
Apr 26, 2022
13
13
I think actual movies made by humans will be more of a niche thing for film nerds like us, and others will mindlessly partake in the AI and not even think about it. Like how people have motion smoothing on their TVs and don't even care or notice.
I think there'll always be a market for the real, just as there's still a market for books and plays even in an age of Netflix. Forms like documentary (especially of the observational form) are impossible with AI, and that's a format with a huge following. The desire to capture what we can see is eternal.
 

Stavrogyn

White Lodge
Apr 12, 2022
675
547
Like how people have motion smoothing on their TVs and don't even care or notice.
The so-called soap opera effect? That has to be one of the worst things ever invented.

But I know people who hate it as much as I do... When my girlfriend was buying a new TV, the only real requirement she had was to be able to turn that option off 😁
 

Cappy

White Lodge
Aug 4, 2022
545
538
There was a false rumour YEARS ago,.. that Terry Gilliam was going to direct a prquel to NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET, like the origin of Freddy , but it was going to have all this oniric elements, setting up his destiny.. and the rumour went that Gilliam has convinced Lynch of writting the script!
There’s actually an episode of that Freddy’s Nightmares show that depicts Freddy’s origin, directed by Tobe Hooper of Texas Chainsae Massacre fame.

It’s probably the best episode of the series, although that isn’t saying much.
 

Mr. Reindeer

White Lodge
Apr 13, 2022
737
1,667
Every house I've been in but my own for half a decade now, including people decently exposed to arthouse cinema and people in tech industry jobs. 🫠
It’s the factory default on most TVs, right? I guess most people just don’t care enough to mess with the settings? Which is in and of itself depressing.
 

Mr. Reindeer

White Lodge
Apr 13, 2022
737
1,667
(played by a charismatic actress of the era),
This part made me laugh. The AI wasn’t even creative enough to pick an actress? I’m glad it specified that she is of the era, and not from a different era, because it would be disconcerting to have, say, Gloria Swanson or Mary Pickford showing up.
 

Dom

White Lodge
Jul 10, 2022
654
667
Those little robots remind me of this:



Lynch said in a documentary years ago that he thought he was done with film, of course...

I've said before that it really depends on how digital is handled. The second X-Files movie, for example, used film for everything except for the urban night time scenes where digital was used to give those scenes a different look from the filmed snowy open spaces. I hate the low contrast digital recording that proliferates these days, where all the colour work is done in Da Vinci in postproduction. Everything looks overly processed. That new Exorcist: Believer trailer look horrible and is everything I loathe about digital acquisition. It looks cheap, because most of the lighting and colour has been done in post.



On the other hand, the OTOY Star Trek shorts, using the latest technology and created with a great deal of care, look fabulous.

I'd rather something look like video and embrace that than create this popular 'affected' film look. Many Japanese film directors cut their teeth on straight-to-video films in Japan, where straight-to-video has been simply considered another medium. Ju-On: The Curse is a fantastic film shot on SD video and damn creepy. Many critics seem to consider it superior the the Ju-On: The Grudge movies.

Digital is great for people who are starting out. I can shoot 25fps 4K or 50fps 1080p on my £800 Sony camera. If I worked out my finances properly, I could make some nice little films with it. Once we get to Hollywood though, I really miss film. And it's significant that these digitally-acquired movies are still transferred to film for long term preservation.
 
Top