Відео

Although I'm a huge Tarantino fan. I have to say that Deakins is way more logical and "liberal" on the subject -although I prefer film too. It depends on the project and you want to make out. Digital is sharper and more clean, easier to use, has better dynamic range etc. While film is more "dirty" and closer to the human eye. Deakins understands that every director/D.O.R. have different opinions on the art, while Tarantino only sees things black and white.

Film just looks better imo. I have hundreds of 4k movies and it's noticeably better on film.

ah what do these newbies know

Totally agree with Tarantino

How great it would be if there was a "sequel" to Visions of Light, with the new generation of DPs, or perhaps re-editing a longer version of the film to include the 8 or 10 great DPs active now that were not in the original version. Considering the first ¼ of the film was introducing the audience to the invention of filmmaking, adding 8 or 10 new people would increase its time by maybe 90 to 120 minutes max, making it essentially into a 3 to 3½ hour movie. A fascinating movie that would be the ultimate film photography masterclass for anyone.

QT hate for digital is absurd. Most of his shot in 35 mm is converted to digital composites. Then transferred back. So QT your damn movie has a ton of digital elements to it. And u don’t see what u get. With film. And loading mags. And only 10 min of film vs 60 min of digital where u can do long takes. Not call cut. Actors can reset faster with digital. I have 100 more. And I challenge you QT to tell the difference. QT you make good movies however your hate for digital is absurd.

Love Tarantino movies, would never want to meet or talk with Tarantino 😂

Most pf these wise things he said applies to most things in art in generell. What a great artist. His whole way of describing his art sounds like a critic on modern society.

How does one get the Idea in their head into the lens? Interesting video.

The perspective of someone who directs vs someone who spends most of the time behind the camera.

It always surprises me how rigidly conservative and traditionalist some directors can be. The only thing that matters is the visceral and emotional impact that the work has on an audience. The process or technology to get there is unimportant, nor the method of projection. I’m sure there were objections from silent directors to the inclusion of sound, and objections to color from those accustomed to black and white. And of course there are hoards who decry CGI in favor of practical fx. All technological advancements are only more tools for the toolbox. If the audience digs the end result, who cares what the methods were to get there. I love Tarantino but on this matter he sounds like a crotchety old geezer.

Is Storaro still working? Can he please shoot that Caravaggio film that Scorsese has mentioned he wants to direct?

Fabulous channel❤

If i took a time machine and traveled back in time to the 60s, then gave Francis Ford Coppolla a digital camera, im pretty sure he would never want to use film again since at the time, shooting multiple frames per second was all they had at the time in order to make the picture move.

Deakins prefers to get paid for the same job but dealing with less work. Doesn't mean it's the right decision ...

Deakins who? The most iconic movies are from 90's and especially Tarantino movies... Nolan Movies...

all DP’s are unemployed

Tarantino is full of 💩💩💩

Everyone is missing the point, they’re both right. But Deakins is over simplifying the philosophy: it is what is in the frame that counts. But you could say that about AI generated movies. Which someone typing a concept into a prompt would be the death of cinema as Deakins knows it. It’s no different than the argument of digital music versus vinyl. The majority of people prefer the convenience of digital music, where as a lot of people realize you’ve removed the activity of putting on an album and actively listening to it. The EASE of creation and distribution has made it far more disposable. And our brains react more positively to film and vinyl. This is a great super cut, but Robert Rodriguez shoots a LOT on digital and he’s one of Tarantino’s best friends. Tarantino has stated that if you’re using it to do something film can’t, then it’s acceptable. And I think his support of new filmmakers using digital is pretty generous. Deakins just sees it as a tool, a means to an end. They’re both right.

2:21 but is CRAPIER if 100K movie will be a 80 year it will be look like SHIET -- DIGITAL EFECTS DONT SCALE IS ONE TIME ONLY FOR 4K OR 2K -- USLES GARBADGE

I love both directors. I might not think digital cameras are the death of the cinema. However, Quentin Tarantino wins this every single time in my heart. A heart of romanticized cinema. A cinephile not willing to yield.

I deeply love Denis's films

tarantino is right unfortunately , but most of you are unable to grasp. The best movies ever made were before digital, and the last good movies came out in the late 90s early 2000s (the matrix, spiderman, lord of the rings, the dark knight, gladiator, pirates of the carribean, fight club etc.), which are all shot on film. If you'd put the best digital movies and the amount of good digital movies in comparison to the best film movies and the amount of good film movies, there would be no fkng contest. And look at the last 10 years, hollywood has been a fkn joke. You guys just agree with digital because you don't want to go back to the difficulties that film brings with it, and the work you have to put in to master this craft. The same with music, there is no modern artist or record out there (last 20 years) that could stand a chance against the artists and records from the 50s, 60s till the 2000s. The same with video games and consoles, and i could go on with so much more sht, all that glitters is not gold, our technology is more illusion than reality. Face it, the golden age of entertainment has died long ago, and now we see the result of it.

❤

Deakins is an old woman.

Deakins just makes excuses and none of the wankers interviewing him push back.

Ummm… this is a really dumb argument. I’ve been a photographer for nearly 30 years and what I’ve learned is that people that bitch about their tools don’t actually have anything interesting to say with their work and need an excuse. Nobody cares if you shoot on film or digital-only that you GET IT RIGHT!! Saying that a movie like Blade Runner 2049 “doesn’t look good enough because it was shot digitally” is f*cking RIDICULOUS.

One of my favorite movies. I never thought about the popcorn on the floor as constellations. Amazing symbolism !!

"it's not about the technology" and then he goes "doesn't matter if it's alexa, or red..." xD watch me shooting a sony for the price of 1/10 of a viewfinders for those cameras

I don’t like the, “that’s the way the world’s going.” As if some group of jerks got together and just decided that “ooops too bad, someone somewhere decided this is what we’re doing now”. Fuck off I decide.

A film Director and a DP Of course have different opinions. The objectives and needs are not the same.

I love the arri alexa but its called FILM for a reason

I really loved Tony Scott. He directed some amazing films, like true romance, crimson Tide. Ridley has had some good films to like gladiator, Blackhawk down, alien. But I think with films like Prometheus and covenant, they felt like cash ins.

Quentin is a childish purist, stuck in the past times. His movies are overrated and attitude poisonous towards other people. His next movie will be his last, and it'll be worse than Pulp Fiction, which was a naive exploitation film made to please teenage boys.

Roger Deakins 👏👏👏

what an inspring story! great talent remains hidden in many individuals; thankfully, Hoyte is recognized now.

The contrast was striking! However, I must admit that after the initial "arguments," I found myself fast forwarding through Tarantino's sections.

Tarantino saying he won’t watch a movie that’s projected digitally is ridiculous. I don’t even have a theatre near me that projects with film, but I’m not gonna let that stop me from going to the movies. It’s crazy to care about the tool more than the final product. film vs digital in the modern era isn’t even an argument. It all comes down to the cinematography and directing.

Was already thinking about how nervous I would be setting up lights to interview Deakins 😂

The one person who hates David Fincher is the boom mic operator.

funny enough, Deakins makes shooting on film much more appealing than Tarantino makes it out to be.

This is too good to listen to just once. RP is quickly becoming one of the all time greats!!!

so Deakins is just being lazy when he say he don't want to shoot with films?

I agree with both. Of course Quentin is coming from the old school angle of "cinema" and the art behind the craft. Roger is coming from a logistical and practical angle. I will never shoot on film. Too expensive and digital is too convenient. But then with AI being introduced, then the conversation goes to, oh you had AI create that aerial shot because its more convenient. I can see both sides.

One of the finest directors alive and in fact in the top 5 absolutely without doubt…..keep going Dave…a master at his work.

Never heard of Roger Deakins, but I have heard of QT. Just my 2c.

Hoyte is Oscar winner now

They are both right. Each filmmaker has a vision and whether the tools and the medium are parts of that vision is up to the filmmaker. For Tarantino cinema is an experience, it's not just what's inside the frame, it's what's outside too. It's not just how he shoots it's how you watch and that is part of his artistic vision.

Congratulations on the Oscar!! Very, very well-deserved!

film looks like ass compared to modern digital