Cinema formats (or, film vs digital)

[Metalane]

35mm is definitely reference quality but digital cameras have been capable of matching that for about a decade now (whenever the Arri Alexa came out).

The whole debate on film vs digital is pretty immaterial now. IMO today's movies/TV tends to look equally awful regardless of format. The current trends in cinematography & lighting are exasperating.

Yeah, many purists prefer film for the warmth and softer look, which I can definitely respect. But higher quality displays do both formats justice, especially since many directors still either film with actual film, or try to emulate it with post-production or lenses.

Yeah, much of modern cinematography is predictable and stale. I know we already praise Lynch a lot, but luckily he still gives us fresh and enthralling shots imo. Some of the framing and colors in the og TP seasons are *french kiss*.

 

[neptuneater]

Some of the framing and colors in the og TP seasons are *french kiss*.

French kiss? Oh my...

 

[Metalane]

French kiss? Oh my...

"That's the type of *cinematography* that make you wish you spoke a little French!"

 

[krishnanspace]

I would want Lynch to film in 70mm imax cameras

 

[baxter]

I've never watched a film in an IMAX theatre without thinking "This screen is too big! I'm missing half the film because I have to keep looking at all of it!".

 

[Tulpa]

I've never watched a film in an IMAX theatre without thinking "This screen is too big! I'm missing half the film because I have to keep looking at all of it!".

When done properly, IMAX should offer enough image to fill your peripheral vision rather than contain vital information at the edges of the screen.

But most films released on IMAX just compose their shots in wide-screen and then expand the top/bottom of the shot to fit "IMAX" aspect ratios. Bigger doesn't equal better, though. Lots of films look worse that way but the marketing has led people to believe they're getting "shortchanged" when watching in wide-screen because the "full" image isn't present.

Disney have fuelled this trend by offering "IMAX" versions of films on Disney+. The only thing different about them compared to the regular versions is that they pad out the image with to fill home TV screens and avoid black bars. I know from someone who works at Netflix that a recurring complaint they get is customers asking how to make films "fullscreen". Seems Disney have pre-empted these complaints by branding "fullscreen" options as "IMAX Enhanced". Issue is, it's on by default. You have to fiddle within the menus to actually see the film as the filmmakers intended.

 

[Stavrogyn]

Issue is, it's on by default. You have to fiddle within the menus to actually see the film as the filmmakers intended.

That's not nice.

Thus far, I hardly watched Disney+ at all, but we immediately encountered another issue when first turning it on: the design of the subtitles was horrific - they had ugly black bars behind them. We managed to fix that, even though it wasn't as simple as it should have been.

(My problem is that I have to watch everything with subtitles, even when watching films in my native tongue.)

 

[Tulpa]

(My problem is that I have to watch everything with subtitles, even when watching films in my native tongue.)

Same! Cannot watch things without subtitles on. Whatever the language.

 

[saturn's child]

(My problem is that I have to watch everything with subtitles, even when watching films in my native tongue.)

Same! Cannot watch things without subtitles on. Whatever the language.

 

[Stavrogyn]

The problem is that I'm obsessed with having to understand everything, every single word - if I don't know a word, I'll try to remember it and then check out its meaning after watching the film.

There's another important factor: in many European countries, films and series shown in cinemas and on television are overdubbed and translated into the language spoken in that country. So, for example, in Spain, they watch The Godfather in Spanish. As far as I know, it's like that in France, Italy, Poland... Probably a lot of countries.

In my country, however, they don't overdub anything but add subtitles instead. (They do overdub animated films for children, but cinemas always offer the possibility to watch them in the original language as well.) The main consequence is that younger people (let's say under 50) mostly speak English very well - we're used to the language since our childhood. I learned it by watching Cartoon Network in English before even going to primary school (without subtitles).

Taking all of that into consideration, there's also one problem, at least in my case: I'm so used to watching everything with subtitles on that I hardly ever watch any Croatian films because, well, it's hard to find subtitles for them. I've only seen a few, and I watched those with English subtitles on. (The same goes for Serbian films.)

Therefore, I watch almost everything with subtitles on, whatever the original language.

 

[mtwentz]

I find a lot of films in English, English being my native tongue, I STILL enable subtitles since in many films a lot of the characters mumble.

So it is not that unusual to want subtitles, even if the film is in your own language.

 

[LateReg]

Am I the only one who prefers grainy / 'bad' / lower quality viewing? Maybe I haven't seen things on the right kind of TV (don't know that I've seen an OLED for example), but I've not been a fan of various digital HD / UHD / 4K type stuff I've seen & am regretting getting rid of my old CRT TV a year or so ago.

I mean, I'm not saying "240 pixels or bust", but there's something about hyper-clarity that I'm not into.

I'm way late to this party as I've been away for some time, but I just wanted to chime in on this brief off-topic conversation.

I'm not an expert on the technology, but I generally know what I see, and see way too much. If you are watching something that is properly remastered in HD/UHD on a properly calibrated TV that supports it, then the goal should be that the image looks more accurate - whether more filmlike or more digital or whatever was intended/captured. So it shouldn't be hyper-clear so much as accurate. If something only seems overly hyper-clear, which I agree is usually garish/ugly, it's likely because the auto motion setting is turned on on the TV, or you're watching sports or soap operas that were shot cheaply, or the occasional digital movie or improperly remastered film.

Ideally as well as practically since it's never been a better time to be a collector of movies released on physical media, I believe that it's films from any era that should look truer and purer when presented on HD/UHD, and with a few exceptions they usually do. While you could watch something like 2016's Passengers - which was shot in 6K - and see basically the crystal-clearest image of any recent feature film (whether you like the look is an aesthetic debate more so than a technological one since it is presented accurately and is worth watching to marvel/debate the clarity that the technology/choice brings), you could also watch Bram Stoker's Dracula or The Searchers or Citizen Kane and bask in the accentuation of their filmic glory. In fact, my favorite films to watch on Blu-ray or 4k UHD are probably classic westerns.

That said, I have nothing against the idea of appreciating "240 pixels" as it can be nostalgic, haunting, etc. You can make an entire artform out of watching and remodeling the low-res image, which possesses its own strange beauty. But even seeing 240 pixels remastered in HD should keep the image exactly the same as it's intended to be, just taking up a bit more space on a disc, which up to a certain point guarantees that you're seeing what you were meant to have seen. This applies to INLAND EMPIRE's current Blu-rays, as well as The Blair Witch Project.

But yeah, as far as general viewing of random programs or events on TV, the newer televisions and general use of digital cameras do the image no favors.

 

[Cappy]

I had the privelege of watching most of the original TP series on the big screen, at the Hollywood Theater in Portland, circa 2012. They would show about 2 eps a week, every Wednesday night. Definitely one of my all time fave big screen experiences. It also really boosted my appreciation for the Evelyn era eps -- even those have a really well crafted mood and overall sense of aesthetic composition.

 

[Dom]

I think when it comes to home cinema, you really need to make sure your television is calibrated correctly. There are Blu-ray discs you can buy to do this.
My television has sharpness set at zero (most are preset at 50 per cent, which is actually 50 per cent enhancement) and the backlight turned off. I also use a movie setting as the base setting, which gives a slightly warmer tint, as most televisions are set too blue.
Twin Peaks season four suffered badly, from my point of view, from the digital look. To an extent, I believe the speed-up on European broadcasts didn't help, making it look very 'video' here and I hear the Blu-ray looks more textured, but I'm surprised more work wasn't done on the series to make it more filmic. Most modern television is sourced digitally and still looks much more like film than The Return did, which leads me to think David Lynch chose to go for a sterile digital video look, shooting on a 2.5K Amira, which isn't the sort of camera used for drama normally.

 

[Dom]

I should point out that, on reading this a week later, I meant 'Season Three!'

 

[Jordan Cole]

It's the same as not shooting on 35mm film anymore. I miss it, I think digital doesn't look nearly as good but shit happens and times change. He made one of my favorite films of all time on shitty consumer grade digital video cameras.

I don't think that's an apt comparison, though. Inland Empire is supposed to look like shitty consumer grade digital video. Inland Empire really can't look any other way, just like how The Elephant Man has to be in black and white and the lack of color isn't some sort of accidental defect.

But often with modern digital, it's trying and failing to look like film. I mean they even add grain in post on a lot of things. It's so silly. That said, he got some beautiful imagery in Twin Peaks season 3. I still think it would have been better on film though.

 

[Jordan Cole]

As a follow up, if I had a wish from a Djinn I'd ask for Lynch to make a horror film as his last project. Surreal and grotesque. He's obviously not afraid of either and he would put modern "horror" film makers to shame, resetting the genre.

Some may think this is lame, but for years I've thought it would have been so fucking cool if Lynch made a terrifying, actually nightmare-like Nightmare On Elm Street movie. The concept has always been genius, a monster that haunts you in your dreams. Imagine that done with a director like Lynch who is so tapped into that state. He's also great with that whole Elm Street suburban teens in high school vibe. It would basically be like Fire Walk With Me.

 

[secretlettermkr]

ALSO:

Nightmare on Elm Street

Posts on picosgemelos tagged as Nightmare on Elm Street

picosgemelos.tumblr.com

 

[LateReg]

I don't think that's an apt comparison, though. Inland Empire is supposed to look like shitty consumer grade digital video. Inland Empire really can't look any other way, just like how The Elephant Man has to be in black and white and the lack of color isn't some sort of accidental defect.

But often with modern digital, it's trying and failing to look like film. I mean they even add grain in post on a lot of things. It's so silly. That said, he got some beautiful imagery in Twin Peaks season 3. I still think it would have been better on film though.

The Return/Season 3 may have looked better on film...but like INLAND EMPIRE, I don't think it would have been the same or made as much sense on film. I think a lot of the themes of the 2017 series reflect the complicated nature of the modern decay, fluid time and unstable reality of an increasingly digital world, and so the whole thing is tied up in the philosophy of the digital aesthetic.

 

[Mr. Reindeer]

The Return/Season 3 may have looked better on film...but like INLAND EMPIRE, I don't think it would have been the same or made as much sense on film. I think a lot of the themes of the 2017 series reflect the complicated nature of the modern decay, fluid time and unstable reality of an increasingly digital world, and so the whole thing is tied up in the philosophy of the digital aesthetic.

Yeah, I think back on that early scene of Jacoby receiving his shovel delivery. The Washington woods look beautiful of course (because they are), but there’s something cold and sterile about seeing them shot in digital that feels exactly right for the show’s themes. We can’t go back to the warm, filmic, red-tinted world of the original show. Time has passed us by. There’s a sense of loss built into the very fabric of the show that is reflected in its visual aesthetic. Trying to recreate the look of the original show would defeat the entire point of what Lynch is up to.

But hell yeah, I’d love to see the man shoot on film again. There’s nothing like the real thing. I doubt he ever will, but it’s a nice thing to dream about.