Tarantino denounces digital

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jRMQeuynqQ

And, talking to David Frost:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI&feature=related

"I've always believed in the magic of movies, and to me the magic of movies is connected to 35mm because everyone thinks - you can't help but think - that when you're filming something on film that you're recording movement. You're not recording movement, you are just taking a series of still pictures. There's no movement in the movies at all - they are still pictures. But when shown at 24 frames a second through a lightbulb it creates the illusion of movement. So, thus, as opposed to a recording device, when you're watching a movie, a film print, you are watching an illusion, and to me that illusion is connected to the magic of movies."

Digital still uses frames. It's still an illusion. His argument doesn't really add up.

QT needs to make use of his foot fetish and put one in his mouth.

Ah, but what about the look of digital "cinematography"? It's not as good as celluloid, is it?

Or is it?

It's not the tools, but how you use them. After all, we've all praised SKYFALL as the best looking Bond film in ages, yet it was captured with a digital camera.

Loomis wrote:

Ah, but what about the look of digital "cinematography"? It's not as good as celluloid, is it?

Or is it?

The rich "film" look of classic cinema, with all its warmth, is something that contemporary digital photography cannot match, but that was lost when processes like Technicolor fell out of favor.

As far as contemporary celluloid goes, I'm not really sure I perceive a huge difference between digital and film. Celluloid is so heavily processed these days that it tends to look like it was shot digitally anyway, and digital photography has been gradually becoming more and more "film-like." (FWIW, much of my favorite cinematography from recent years is digital.)

That said, I am troubled by the "clarity before all else" maxim that is guiding folks like Peter Jackson and James Cameron as they attempt to change the aesthetic of cinema.

Harmsway wrote:

As far as contemporary celluloid goes, I'm not really sure I perceive a huge difference between digital and film. Celluloid is so heavily processed these days that it tends to look like it was shot digitally anyway, and digital photography has been gradually becoming more and more "film-like." (FWIW, much of my favorite cinematography from recent years is digital.)

That said, I am troubled by the "clarity before all else" maxim that is guiding folks like Peter Jackson and James Cameron as they attempt to change the aesthetic of cinema.

Film stocks for the last 15 to 20 years have gotten way too midrange video for my taste, but I suppose that did ease the visual transition for a lot of folks. If movies shot on film don't look terrific, it makes digital seem that much better that much faster. But this only holds if you can't see older movies (and since studios are withholding prints on old movies almost entirely now, that also diffuses the issue, in a most irritating way.)