Post by kelpzoidzlThe film does totally suck in most every way, but the worst thing about it is that it was shot with the Arri Alexa, mostly in low light. So, not only is the film lousy, the look of the film compared to the look of the original, which had a dark greenish, drab colored, look but was shot on film and there is a drastic difference.
That greenish/desaturated look is usually done at the digital intermediate stage, or it can be accomplished with timing lights in a film-based workflow. Likewise, a digital grade can produce the super-saturated images seen in "Upstream Color," which you had mentioned back in 2013 as being shot on a DSLR.
Some movies imaged on the Alexa or RED look almost indistinguishable from film, then others use a gain or shutter setting which produces that smeary, HD video look. That's either a choice, or the director/DP can't tell; much like how some can't even tell the difference between film and television.
A director like Michael Mann doesn't care about video artifacts as long as he gets as much detail out of night photography as he can. A director like Ang Lee was obviously smitten by the possibilities of high-resolution digital imaging, even if it felt tawdry.
I did go to see "Billy Lynn" a second time in order to turn off my brain about the 120fps hype. It still felt like a live HD video broadcast shown on the biggest and sharpest HDTV screen ever.
Post by kelpzoidzlNot everything shot digitally is a terrible movie, but the look of fully digital for me, makes me sad that soon, younger film audiences won't even know the difference. At least the basis of the Mummy is shot on film apparently.
IMDB says it was imaged on 35mm. Of course, much of that will be processed through the CGI wringer.
Post by kelpzoidzlThe only film I am really looking forward to is the upcoming "Dunkirk," made by Christopher Nolan.
I saw the extended "Dunkirk" IMAX preview reel before "Rogue One". The aerial footage was amazing. Thankfully, our legit-sized IMAX screen can still project film, and another screen near me can still project 70mm (as does the TIFF).
Post by kelpzoidzlI hope more filmmakers rebel and demand to use film. I don't see a time where digital will ever look as good as film. The visual experience is primary.
We have IMAX laser here, and it still does not approximate the look and feel of IMAX film. Unfortunately, the post-"Avatar" 3D wave was the final death knell for film imaging and projection.
I definitely prefer the look of movies which are imaged on film. I don't care so much if they're finished on film, or projected digitally, but film is still superior imaging on a legacy format.
Regards,
Steve
