Love 2 cover up the fact that the story sucks ass with a technical gimmick that involves shooting on an outdated medium with legions of simps
Before: Film is superior to digital, look at that amazing resolution (that no one can actually distinguish from 2K), lmao get real
Now: Actually, I LIKE the crappy look of film!
What's the fucking point anyways if you're just gonna transfer it to digital and do the editing and vfx there? The vast majority of the time the resolution of the output will be what, 4K? Everyone and their grandmother knows that 4K video has been a thing for years now, so the resolution argument is bunk. Even if you avoided a digital intermediate and worked entirely on film, do you really think anyone will tell the difference between that and 4K?
The resolution argument isn't entirely bunk, as anything shot and mastered entirely in 4k is only ever going to be 4k. Whereas even 35mm is easily remastered in 6k or higher, and 70mm is much much larger than that.
Digital is the norm now for a reason, but film still has its uses.
Well the editing and vfx is done digitally, and then printed back onto film, usually at a resolution of 4K, so the only thing with super high resolution is going to be the original camera negative. I think transferring back to film in 8K is possible now, but that still doesn't compare to the resolution that 70mm is capable of. 8K digital projection is also possible now, but this begs the question: does it matter at this point? Your average theater screen is nowhere near large enough for any meaningful difference to become apparent to the audience. Even with the super-super large screens the difference between 4K and 8K is difficult to spot, if you can tell at all.
The only thing that really "matters" over the film v digital argument is the look, and most of the "look" of film is now easily reproduced with digital. You're right. I'm just saying that with film future remasters are possible without having to rely on software upscaling.
Most people won't notice the difference. Especially people who worship Nolan. But it has its uses and properties that are good enough to keep it around as another tool in the cinema belt.
If you saw it in a big room with no lights and sticky chairs your opinion would be very different
Love 2 cover up the fact that the story sucks ass with a technical gimmick that involves shooting on an outdated medium with legions of simps
Before: Film is superior to digital, look at that amazing resolution (that no one can actually distinguish from 2K), lmao get real
Now: Actually, I LIKE the crappy look of film!
What's the fucking point anyways if you're just gonna transfer it to digital and do the editing and vfx there? The vast majority of the time the resolution of the output will be what, 4K? Everyone and their grandmother knows that 4K video has been a thing for years now, so the resolution argument is bunk. Even if you avoided a digital intermediate and worked entirely on film, do you really think anyone will tell the difference between that and 4K?
Movies made on those budgets usually have audiences that don't care about film quality, they're there for spectacle.
The resolution argument isn't entirely bunk, as anything shot and mastered entirely in 4k is only ever going to be 4k. Whereas even 35mm is easily remastered in 6k or higher, and 70mm is much much larger than that.
Digital is the norm now for a reason, but film still has its uses.
Well the editing and vfx is done digitally, and then printed back onto film, usually at a resolution of 4K, so the only thing with super high resolution is going to be the original camera negative. I think transferring back to film in 8K is possible now, but that still doesn't compare to the resolution that 70mm is capable of. 8K digital projection is also possible now, but this begs the question: does it matter at this point? Your average theater screen is nowhere near large enough for any meaningful difference to become apparent to the audience. Even with the super-super large screens the difference between 4K and 8K is difficult to spot, if you can tell at all.
The only thing that really "matters" over the film v digital argument is the look, and most of the "look" of film is now easily reproduced with digital. You're right. I'm just saying that with film future remasters are possible without having to rely on software upscaling.
Most people won't notice the difference. Especially people who worship Nolan. But it has its uses and properties that are good enough to keep it around as another tool in the cinema belt.